Talk:Barack Obama

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

"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)

"A present vote isn't a commitment either way." Exactly, that's the whole point and it is, in fact, very relevant. The fact that he refused to take a stand no less than 130 times in the State legislature is something that should be included in the State Leg. section. Can anyone else provide a good reason why this important information is not included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.0.182 (talk • contribs)

How many times did he take a stand in the same period? What issues didn't he take a stand on? Those to have direct bearing on whether it is important enough to include. Jons63 (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• I imagine we could find a writeup by a someone familiar with Illinois legislative practices; from what I understand, "present" votes are often a strategic move. It's pretty nuanced, which I guess is why it bothers the nuance-deaf class. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• It also bothers those who want to use this article for their anti-Obama crusading. Bellwether ^B_C 05:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jons63 asked:"How many times did he take a stand in the same period? What issues didn't he take a stand on?"

Well, here is more specific information:

"For example, in 1997, Obama voted "present" on two bills (HB 382 and SB 230) that would have prohibited a procedure often referred to as partial birth abortion. He also voted "present" on SB 71, which lowered the first offense of carrying a concealed weapon from a felony to a misdemeanor and raised the penalty of subsequent offenses.

In 1999, Obama voted "present" on SB 759, a bill that required mandatory adult prosecution for firing a gun on or near school grounds. The bill passed the state Senate 52-1. Also in 1999, Obama voted "present" on HB 854 that protected the privacy of sex-abuse victims by allowing petitions to have the trial records sealed. He was the only member to not support the bill.

In 2001, Obama voted "present" on two parental notification abortion bills (HB 1900 and SB 562), and he voted "present" on a series of bills (SB 1093, 1094, 1095) that sought to protect a child if it survived a failed abortion. In his book, the "Audacity of Hope," on page 132, Obama explained his problems with the "born alive" bills, specifically arguing that they would overturn Roe v. Wade. But he failed to mention that he only felt strongly enough to vote "present" on the bills instead of "no."

And finally in 2001, Obama voted "present" on SB 609, a bill prohibiting strip clubs and other adult establishments from being within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, and daycares."-Wall Street Journal

"An examination of Illinois records shows at least 36 times when Mr. Obama was either the only state senator to vote present or was part of a group of six or fewer to vote that way.

In more than 50 votes, he seemed to be acting in concert with other Democrats as part of a strategy.

For a juvenile-justice bill, lobbyists and fellow lawmakers say, a political calculus could have been behind Mr. Obama’s present vote. On other measures like the anti-abortion bills, which Republicans proposed, Mr. Obama voted present to help more vulnerable Democrats under pressure to cast “no” votes.

In other cases, Mr. Obama’s present votes stood out among widespread support as he tried to use them to register legal and other objections to parts of the bills.

In Illinois, political experts say voting present is a relatively common way for lawmakers to express disapproval of a measure. It can at times help avoid running the risks of voting no, they add.

“If you are worried about your next election, the present vote gives you political cover,” said Kent D. Redfield, a professor of political studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield. “This is an option that does not exist in every state and reflects Illinois political culture.”"-NY Times

"THE FACTS: Obama acknowledges that over nearly eight years in the Illinois Senate, he voted "present" 129 times. That was out of roughly 4,000 votes he cast, so those "presents" amounted to about one of every 31 votes in his legislative career." -http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/24/fact_check_obamas_present_votes/

Does anyone actually have a good reason why this information should not be included or are we going to simply engage in ad hominems and claim that anyone who could possibly think that the fact that he voted a neutral present 130 (or 129 as he claims) times in the State legislature should be included is an "anti-Obama crusader?" It is true that other Illinois State senators take advantage of this unique political option and there is no reason why that cannot be stated in the article as well. Furthermore, simply because other senators excercised the same option does not render it insignificant. This is the guy running for the highest leadership office in the world. I'm not saying that Obama's defense cannot be included in the article but to omit such a crucial aspect of his tenure in the State Leg. is inexcuable and calls into serious question the political biases and motives of wikipedia. The editors and administrators of this page have to step up and do a little work here as the information is relatively easy to find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.0.182 (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has a good answer, huh?

• Obama's explanation fort his "present" votes is that they were procedural, cast with other Democrats en bloc to allow otherwise good legislation to pass, even though that legislation included provisions that he and other Democrats found objectionable. In other words, the official record would not show the objecting Democrats as having defeated the otherwise good legislation by voting "no" because of a bill's unacceptable provisions, or show that they had voted "yes" to pass otherwise good legislation but which included some unacceptable provisions. Without including Obama's own explantation as to the reason for his "present" votes, the inference intended by ommiting Obama's explantation is that his "present" votes were independent and solely self-serving. That inference clearly injects bias into the article, and is good reason why the subject of Obama's "present" votes should not be included in this article if it doesn't include his explanation for those votes. K. Kellogg-Smith (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I copied my response from below:

K. Kellogg-Smith,

Thankyou for your reply and as I said there's no reason why you cannot include Obama's defense. Did you miss the part where I said his defense should be included? It should definitely be included. But why not include the facts as well as the defense? Simply because the Obama campaign has an official defense does not mean that the information should not be included or is not relevant. It is widely known, among Democrats and Republicans alike, that the "present" vote can be used as an option for politicians to "take political cover" as one commentator in the NY Times said. That is to say, the present vote is a convenient way for Illinois state politicians to avoid taking a stand on controversial votes that could potentially have political ramifications in the future. There are also other purposes served by this option, some of which you addressed. This information should also be included and it should be up to individuals to decide how they weigh this information. You don't have to do the work of Obama's campaign for him. Simply state the facts and both sides of this important and relevant issue and let individual users form their own opinions. Why ignore or obscure these undeniable facts? Introducing this information about his voting record does not introduce POV. It's simply a reporting of the facts. Fact: Obama voted present 129 times out of 4,00 votes. Fact: This accounts for 1/31 votes cast. Fact: Partial birth abortion and parental notification issues are not the only issues which votes present nor the only present votes for which he has been criticized, as the article implies now. Fact: Obama has been criticized by both Democrats and Republicans for voting present so many times. Fact: Obama and his campaign have a defense and a justification for these votes.

Why not include all of these facts in the State Leg. section? Its 1 out of 31 votes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.114.140 (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

1/31 = 3%. Somehow I don't think you've latched on to a decisive closing argument there, 136. --HailFire (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hailfire, it's really not for you to decide what the critical percentage should be. Just include the facts and let his record speak for itself without ignoring and hiding those aspects of his record which make you and the other Obamaniacs that administer this article a little uncomfortable. 129 times is a 129 times. And 3%, in this case, is not insignificant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.0.182 (talk) 05:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe. Certainly I would agree that it would be significant in this case.

--HailFire (talk) 07:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup. 3% is significant there as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.114.140 (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Practical question: How is present different than 'no'? I thought in order to pass a bill needed a majority. "Present" and "no" do not add to the majority.

A very good question as well. It comes down to proceedure and practicality in any attempt to correct any provisions that are disliked later on. If one votes "yes" then they will be giving fodder to any arguements against correction later on. If one votes "no" then one is voting against what is likely a good bill, or one with good portions, that just needs corrections later on, or clarifications. By voting "Present" it keeps him in the debate for future corrections without hurting his own arguement. It's a mechanism to allow a politician to keep the dialog open on a particular issue. In addition, in some states (I don't know about Illinois) they require a minimum number of members of their houses to vote on an issue in order to pass. 'Present' gives them a vote, even if a non-commital one, to enable a legislation to pass. I cannot speak of why Obama chose this tactic, but I do know why some have in the past, including my own father who was a state rep for NH for 2 years. It keeps the dialog going, to enable compromize and correction further down the road from a position of strength rather than one of reversing ones own opinion or hurting otherwise good legislature that might contain some portions that need clarification or corrections later on.(Downix (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC))

Interwiki

{{editprotected}} Please add: sl:Barack Obama. --AndrejJ (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Done - Revolving Bugbear 14:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Mother's ethnicity

When the article mentions his father's birth, it notes that he is of Luo ethnicity. I think it would be factually relevant to note, similarly, after mentioning his mother's birthplace that she is Caucasian or of white American ethnicity. I say this because his being mixed race seems a significant and interesting aspect of his early life and his background. It explains factually why the article refers to his "multiracial" heritage later. Admittedly, the article later backs into this fact by quoting him as comparing his mother's skin to milk, but that seems a back-door way to give a relevant fact. I raise this point with absolutely no hidden political agenda: I am not suggesting this go in as a way to make him look good or bad, instead I think it should go in because it is as relevant to who he is and to what he represents. 66.92.173.67 (talk) 02:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This has been tried to be fixed by several editors already. The real problem is that the "watchdogs" of this article, although being honest, sincere, hardworking, patriotic, and all-around good people, are not professional writers.Redddogg (talk) 04:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've mentioned before that the way the sentence reads now, just saying that his mother is "American", could be offensive to some people -- it is to me-- because it seems to assume that a person reading "American" will think "white American." I agree with you on the unprofessionalism of the article -- it is not written with the reader in mind, what he or she is interested in or might want to know. Steve Dufour (talk) 10:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I just read the interesting New York Times piece today on his mother's influence, and how having a white mother and growing up in a biracial family (not really "multiracial" as the article has it) shaped who he is. I cannot quite figure out why the watchdogs of this article get upset about info that is relevant and would be of interest to the reader. I don't think it's a political motivation, because the info doesn't serve to make him look better or make him look worse, it merely helps describe his background. 205.219.45.3 (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit it's rather offensive to me as well there. If you want to be technical, the only people that should be able to use "American" as an ethniticity are natives.(Downix (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC))

Voting Record

Would anyone be willing to make a list of every bill Obama voted on, including how he voted? For me, personally, since Obama is a politician what he voted on and how he voted makes more of a difference than his personal history and aknowledged character traits, especially when it comes to deciding whether or not to vote for him as President. Thanks in advance to the person willing to take on the task.

PS: It doesn't look very good on the Obama campaign that they haven't created this list already. Are they attempting to ignore Obama's voting record? ~Alma Entity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.151.116 (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The ADA lists 20 votes a year they consider significant, so there are 55 votes you can list there. The National Journal used... 99 votes a year? I'm not sure they've made the 2008 breakdown available yet. Does the "Congressional Journal" publish vote tables? It seems your proposal might make a good annex article, tho. Andyvphil (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You can get full records of voting and legislation history from thomas.loc.gov. For instance, see these two overview pieces:

• a pro-obama piece from 2006, listing wonky and non-wonky legislation
• a more detailed look at recent bills, titled "I Refuse To Buy Into The Obama Hype (but in the end, comes out pro-obama).

you will ideally want to find some similarly con-Obama analyses of his legislation, but I haven't found any yet. +sj + 17:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Andyvphil’s proposed changes

Following are Andyvphil’s proposed changes:

Addition to "Senate Career"

According to National Journal, a weekly magazine geared toward "Washington Insiders", in its 27th annual vote ratings, Senator Obama was the most liberal senator in 2007. The candidate shifted further to the left during 2007 prior to the Presidential primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate. Hillary Clinton ranked as the 16th most liberal Senator in 2007, voting differently than Obama on only 10 of the 297 votes considered in calculating the rankings.

On the other hand, the rankings by the Americans for Democratic Action seem to show an opposite trend, with a 100% rating in 2005 declining to 95% in 2006 and 75% in 2007. This is misleading, as the 2007 decline was due entirely to missed votes. In the sixty votes used by the ADA to measure a legislator's political liberalism during Obama's career in the Senate he has voted for the non-"liberal" result only once.

Jeremiah Wright

(He proposes titling the following section "Obama, his church, his pastor, and politics")

Obama joined Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988, three years after first coming to Chicago to take a job organizing the political activity of black churches in the city.A megachurch with 10,000 members, Trinity is the largest congregation in the United Church of Christ. The church is more Afrocentric and politically active than most black congregations and Obama began distancing himself from the political views of its dominant figure, recently retired 36-year pastor Jeremiah Wright, when he called Wright the night before the February 10, 2007 announcement of his Presidental candidacy to withdraw his request that Wright deliver an invocation at the event. Wright did however, attend the announcement, prayed with Mr. Obama beforehand, and joined the Obama campaign's African American Religious Leadership Committee.

Obama joined Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988, three years after first coming to Chicago to take a job organizing the political activity of black churches in the city. A megachurch with 10,000 members, Trinity is the largest congregation in the United Church of Christ. The church is more Afrocentric and politically active than most black congregations and Obama began distancing himself from the political views of its dominant figure, recently retired 36-year pastor Jeremiah Wright, when he called Wright the night before the February 10, 2007 announcement of his Presidental candidacy to withdraw his request that Wright deliver an invocation at the event. Wright did however, attend the announcement, prayed with Mr. Obama beforehand, and joined the Obama campaign's African American Religious Leadership Committee.

After Wright's retirement (his last sermon was February 10, 2008) copies of his sermons were offered for sale. News organizations like ABC News bought them and searched them for controversial material. ABC News found "repeated denunciations of the U.S. based on what he described as his reading of the Gospels and the treatment of black Americans." In addition to controversial comments after 9/11 that had been previously publicized ("We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is brought right back in our own front yards.") the site also quoted Wright as saying "No, no, no, not God bless America — God damn America!"

In March 2008 Obama went further then he had before, "vehemently disagree[ing with] and strongly condemn[ing]... inflammatory and appalling remarks Wright made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents." Obama said the remarks had come to his attention at the beginning of his presidential campaign but that because Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of Obama's strong links to the Trinity faith community, he had not thought it "appropriate" to leave the church. The campaign announced at that point that "Rev. Wright is no longer serving on the African American Religious Leadership Committee."

Repeat of Talk Comment in Previously Established 'Wright' Section:

HELLO ALL - I have spent several weeks away from this article, only revisiting to see how the Jeremiah Wright issue was being covered (as I have some historical knowledge of Rev. Wright). I must say that I was expecting a lively debate in the discussion boards, but I was not expecting any references in the article itself (given what I perceived to be an imbalance of passionate Obama supporters that seemed to have heavy editorial influence over the article). I am at least pleased to see the inclusion of certain facts in the article. I think it at least discusses enough to suggest to a reader that there is much below the surface on the Wright issue that requires further research. The reader can then dive deeper. I do, however, disagree with Bellwether...who, if left alone, would likely remove all references in the article other than Obama's claim to Christianity through his membership in that congregation. Rhetorical question: Does anyone on this board go to church on a weekly basis? Those of us that do attend church on a regular basis know how difficult it would become to receive a weekly sermon for 14 years that espouses views that are extremely contrary to one's own views. (Isn't that the time frame that was quoted by Obama as his membership in that church?) As one of the minority owners of a multimedia technology firm that owns diverse Internet TV sites, including StreamingFaith.com which has for years broadcasted the sermons of Rev. Wright, I can tell you that his sermons go way beyond the controversial clips they are showing on mainstream TV today. Networks on the right are going a little further by showing clips of Wright's claim that our government "invented AIDS to infect black people", or his claim that the government is "importing drugs to feed to black people" as part of its "plan to jail black people"...but the unedited sermons of Rev. Wright that have been broadcast over the years can only be described as the preaching of Hate and separatism. Even Obama must believe this to be true as he has distanced himself increasingly as the truth about Rev. Wright has become more widely known. Just to ask the obvious question: At what point during the last 14 years should we have expected a hopeful leader of our nation, one who preaches a message of national unity, to have stood up and walked out of Rev. Wright's separatist church? The big question, as the electorate evaluates this candidate, is "Why did it take so long?" ...As this relates to Wiki, remember, this is an article about a candidate for our highest office. Obama's decade long decision to associate with Rev. Wright cannot be erased with a few quick words of denouncement...and this article on Wiki that purports to be biographical in nature must include the ties to Rev. Wright to maintain its accuracy and completeness. Unlike the dentist analogy, Obama has over the years told us how important Rev. Wright has been to him...Obama made this bed by not walking away on principle earlier. Jtextor (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Not 14 years. Obama came to Chicago to organize black churches in 1985 and chose to sign up with Wright in 1988. <BLP vio 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)> And Wright didn't step down until last month. 23 years. Andyvphil (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

i had to rv some of andy's txt there because of a BLP violation.

"Talk pages are used to make decisions about article contents. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted, and even oversighted if especially problematic (telephone number, libel, etc). New material should generally be discussed in order to arrive at a consensus concerning relevance, availability of sources, and reliability of sources."

Jtextor you are getting close to that as well. Obviously everyone gets some leeway- but andyvphil has a long history of posting things unacceptable on the actual page, on the talk page instead. and totally without "talk" concerning the article. So anyways andy- I added the original wright text during the thirty-seconds it was totally unprotected.(believe it or not!) So obviously if you add something neutral, maybe (maybe) it would get consensus. If you continue to edit in your usual manner however, I will have no choice but to support all the other editors who rv just about everything you write. If for once, you could AGF towards us, we might AGF back towards you (even though that looks gross in writing). Jtextor- I think posting your text and sources, would be a much better idea than pushing the libel boundaries on the talk page with speculative crap. learn your lesson from andy's block history before its too late. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 02:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the sentence to my post that 72.etc deleted (<BLP vio 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)>) It is not by the wildest stretch of any reasonable person's imagination a BLP violation. And, contrary to what 72.etc would have you believe, I have never been blocked because some admin objected to the content of anything I've ever written on Wikipedia. Andyvphil (talk) 06:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Threaded discussion of Andyvphil's proposed additions

both are very well written, and both should be included (especially Wright). In regards to the National Journal, I think that is appropriate since there is already a few op-ed quotes in Obama's article, one saying something about him being the most likely man to change the world. With such a glowing op-ed quote already in the article, the national review quote adds appropriate balance for NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.46.9.46 (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• The quality of the writing isn't this issue. The appropriateness of the content presented for the main Barack Obama article (as opposed to the campaign article or the Wright/Trinity articles) is what I would like to see discussed. Bellwether ^B_C 22:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that both sections are well written; however, both sections are completely inappropriate. The "most liberal" section rightly reports the details, but presents them in such a way as to present a point of view. Due to the candidate seeking the nomination, any ranking based on 2007 data is likely to be extremely suspect because of a lack of available data for the judging criteria. The "Jeramiah Wright" section has no place in this article whatsoever. Parts of it would be fine in the articles for Jeremiah Wright, Trinity United Church of Christ, and perhaps Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008; however, almost none of it would be appropriate here. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• This pretty succinctly summarizes my views as well. Bellwether ^B_C 22:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

also 4 paragraphs is def. undue weight. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 23:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

But zero paragraphs is undue weightlessness. Let's see your alternative. Bellwether's "Our 'alternative' is that it stays out" isn't going to cut it. Btw, both the National Journal and ADA numbers are for three years, not just 2007, and if you think they are presented "in such a way as to present a point of view" Wikipedia policy is explicit as to what you should do: "balance it with your side of the story."

Wright's political views were the reason Obama joined his church, and his advice as a member of Obama's African American Religious Leadership Committee remained welcome for more than a year after Obama claims he became aware of how "inflammatory and appalling" those views were (after those qualities had somehow gone undetected for 22 years). Asserting without explanation that those views should be stashed behind a blue link is absurd. Andyvphil (talk) 04:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've removed the disputed content one last time. If you all want to let him shove it in the article whole cloth, without discussion and revision, then I won't remove it again. I'd suggest you take a look at his talkpage, though, as he has a long history of tendentious editing, and several blocks to show for it. This is just more of the same, non-collegial pattern. Search that page for "consensus" and similar words. I'm telling you, it's interesting reading. Bellwether ^B_C 10:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

And I've removed it again. Andyvphil must stop his blatant attempts to bend this article toward his biased point of view. He claims "consensus" for his edits, when the only support he has are from (a) other biased editors and (b) unregistered "newbies" who decided to make attacking this article their first Wikipedia experiences. No consensus among the longstanding editors exists to include this inappropriate and biased material. These subjects should be one-line mentions at best, without all the duplication and bias. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You badly need to read the policy WP:OWN. Barack Obama has become the likely Democrat candidate for the Presidency of the United States and this article is now the most viewed article on Wikipedia by a factor of more than two.[1] The days when this article was the private project of a happy band of Obama fans who could rely on the FA reviewers not knowing enough about the subject to know what what was being omitted are over. Andyvphil (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The POV is obvious to any third-grader. Wikipedia is a community, not a system that you could flip around. I would suggest User:Andyvphil to cease these childish games - seriously, it wastes everybody's time. I do agree with several points of Andyvphil, and that the material deserves more attention in the article than it is receiving. However, the edit Andyvphil made contains little more than presumptions and speculation. It's nothing close to a featured article standard. Herunar (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

As I keep saying, if you don't like it, change it. Just deleting the subject immediately fails featured article criteria [WP:FACR] 1(b). Andyvphil (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I cannot believe this page is still subject to constant obstructionist fan-editing! I'll rejoin the effort to bring balance and NPOV to this article when I return from vacation.--166.199.165.120 (talk) 03:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC) (Davidp)

Andyvphil wrote: As I keep saying, if you don't like it, change it. I didn't, so I did. --HailFire (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Cocaine

Cocaine Long before he ever ran for political office, Obama wrote a book about, well, himself, and his amazing his journey from messed up kid to, um, himself. It was quite an epic, considering he was 34 at the time. In that book, called "Dreams From My Father", he writes that he used marijuana and cocaine ("maybe a little blow".) Oddly enough, he writes that he didn't try heroin because -- wait for it -- he didn't like the pusher who was selling it. (Weren't there any other reasons?) In a later interview, he added "Teenage boys are frequently confused."

Oh no, the horror, the horror, we should never let anyone inside political office who has partaken in cocaine....

Get a grip guy. If we banned anyone who had taken drugs, oh hey, we wouldn't have anyone inside the current executive administration, including the current president who is an admitted clean and sober fellow having given up on cocaine and alchohol years ago. Rather than shocked at any of this, we should be proud of him and of Obama both for being able to brake free from the vicious cycle that lifestyle is.

Wright proposal

68 wrote: for that reason alone this friend is worth talking a little bit about. So maybe this dispute comes down to how we define the meaning of the word little. For me, this version that made a brief appearance earlier today had at least some consensus building potential. I would also suggest we add text linking the term black church to help interested readers put that term in historical and cultural context. Can we establish an interim consensus for restoring that version while discussion about any necessary additions continues? We need to hear from editors on both side of this ongoing condense/expand debate. Any support? --HailFire (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hum my feeling is that ultimately the pastor business MUST be discussed. The article gives obama a glowing report much like the media. The fact that the page includes nothing for notibility or substance on the issue might hint to the bias of some editors. Realist2 (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the controversy around Obama's former pastor must be discussed. I think the historical and cultural context of the black church should not be too emphasized but a link to the wikipedia article should be provided for those who want to read more. The main question wikipedia readers care about, really, is how much did Obama know about his pastor's fiery comments and condemnation of the U.S.? There may not be any definitive answers yet, but here are some articles. [2] [3]RonCram (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

this version is not bad but it does not go quite far enough, IMO. There is far more to the relationship than that passage details. For example, they were close friends over a 20 year span, Wright baptized Obama and his children and married he and Michelle, Obama attended Church there regularly for some 14 years and Wright served (he just left this position a few days ago) with Obama's campaign ("African American Religious Leadership Committee"). Are we to believe that Obama was not regularly exposed to or familiar with Wright's inflammatory rhetoric? As someone said abov, those of us that attend Church regularly would have a hard time sitting through sermons we strongly disagree with and find offensive, week after week, year after year. This is not proof that Obama holds these views but it is "evidence" that would be admitted in a court of law. In any event, the facts should be included, in addition to Obama's recent denouncements and readers should be left to judge for themselves. The basic principle of this "guilt by association" factor is that though one is not responsible for the views of one's friends, we are responsible for how we react to the views of our friends and associates. Obama has certainly had many years of experience and friendship with Wright and thus he has had many opportunities to denounce Wright's extreme worldview and Wright's praise of Farakhan and others. The fact that he is only explicitly and publically doing so recently does raise questions. It's certainly possible to have friends and associates that one disagrees with but we are responsible for, at the very least, making our disagreements known and articulating the reasons for our disagreements. There is also a direct proportion between how evil and hateful the views expressed by others (especially friends) and how great is our responibility to speak out forecully against them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.0.182 (talk) 17:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• No. "Our responsibility to speak out forcefully" must specifically exclude Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; our personal opinions are utterly irrelevant here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that wikipedia must speak out forcefully. I said that Barack Obama is responsible for the ways in which he reacted over the years to Wright's inflammatory and sometimes hate-filled and anti-American rhetoric. Some might say that his failure to speak out forcefully might imply some kind of tacit consent (this is of course speculation). In any event, Wikipedia IS responsible for reporting relevant facts and truths regardless of whether these facts or truths are controversial or uncomfortable for the Obama supporters that seem to control the content of this page. This article purports to be a biographical sketch and as such, should include the relevant details of Obama's longtime friendship and protege relationship with Wright. As it stands, the article is incomplete and misleading. It seems that the only "personal opinions that are relevant" are those of Obama's supporters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.0.182 (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

How about this? Any better? --HailFire (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Every other politician who has a biography I've read here at Wikipedia has a "Criticism and controversy" section. Where is the "Criticism and controversy" section in this article? Barack Obama has been the subject of a lot of criticism, especially in the past seven days with the Tony Rezko trial and the Jeremiah Wright controversy, but you'd never know it from reading this article. Let's do our best to be NPOV here. Who would like to step forward and draft the new section? Kossack4Truth (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

if SEVEN DAYS is your standard for notability then there is a few websites I would suggest before WP lol. PS you guys are very transparent when you keep requesting a criticism section even though WP discourages them. Its very amusing to see five different IPs post here every day with the same anti-WP statements and requests. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

and to the person who says "they were close friends over a 20 year span, Wright baptized Obama and his children and married he and Michelle, Obama attended Church there regularly for some 14 years" and thinks that is somehow different than saying he was Obama's pastor for 14 years. You need to re-read what you wrote! A Pastor's exact job description includes marriages and baptisms. Other than the first five years of their friendship, you make a lot of hot air but I'm not sure how much "there" is there for your claims. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't look at Hillary Clinton's or John McCain's pages. It's been discussed on several pages, and "Criticism" sections have gone away in most cases. Paisan30 (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

(EC)I trust you've noticed that John McCain, John Edwards, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Chris Dodd, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, etc. do not have a criticism and controversy section. But other than that, you're absolutely correct, every politician on Wikipedia has a criticism and controversy section.. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton has a section called "Whitewater and other investigations" which includes information on certain scandals where she was a subject of investigation, such as Travelgate. So, based on that article, am I correct in thinking that information that may be considered embarrassing is still appropriate for the article as long as the section is not called "Criticism"? If so, I think that is fine. If embarassing information is to be excluded, the article cannot be said to be NPOV. RonCram (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"Other than the first five years of their friendship, you make a lot of hot air but I'm not sure how much "there" is there for your claims." You're not sure indeed. Obama himself has repeatedly admitted to the fact that Wright was his close friend and spiritual mentor for some 20 years and that he brought him to the Christian faith. Obama attended sermons there for 14 years(!) and Wright even served in Obama's campaign. As I'm sure you know, there is no law that one has to be married or baptized in one's hometown parish and that's exactly why people usually choose to be married by priests/pastors that they have a personal relationship with. And Obama titled his autobiogrpahy after a sermon given by Pastor Wright... Yes they were, in point of fact, very close friends and Obama has stated as much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.0.182 (talk) 04:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

5+14=19 which is what i meant... "people usually choose to be married by priests/pastors that they have a personal relationship with."--source that lol! its called advocacy on the talk page, and its against policy. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hailfire, to my mind that's a little better but there is still quite a bit missing and readers do not get an accurate sense of the depth of their relationship. I appreciate your efforts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.0.182 (talk) 04:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys - be real clear here: there are people out there who believe that you can't criticize Obama AT ALL, and they are never going to change their minds. Arguing with them is pointless. For this reason, you make a relevant change like the new one to the presidential campaign section, and defend it with facts. As you can see, you get some idiot who wants to 'revert to the last version that made sense,' however facts have this way of asserting themselves, and you can pretty much rely on them, no matter how big a skeptic you are.

Obama is a disciple of Wright. <BLP slander violation reverted (strike 2) 72.0.180.2 (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)>. The involvement of Wright in his campaign is relevant AND historical, and belongs in his record. To say that a man is not influenced by the opinions of his pastor of twenty years, who officiated his marriage and baptised his children, is ludicrous and the other campaigns are all over it. It isn't going away.(talk) 12:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

72.0.180.2, what's your point? Simply reporting and including the FACTS is not advocacy. Willfully, ignoring pertinent, relevant facts is advocacy. If your only point is that the fact that Wright baptized Obama, married he and his wife and baptized both his children is only an accident of Wright's capacity to perform the various sacramental functions of a pastor, I'm afraid you're still missing the main idea. It was his friendship and personal relationship with Wright that brought him to the United Church of Christ to begin with. This is a particular kind of Church; a Church which incorporates afrocentricisn and black power politics with the teachings of Christianity. Of course, were Obama only interested in the teachings of Christianity per se he could have been baptized into one of the more mainstream Christian branches like Catholicism, Presbyterianism, Southern Baptism or whatever. But he didn't, he joined this particular kind of Christian Church and he did so precisely because of his relationship with Wright. That Wright has been a part of so many of Obama's fundamental life experiences (wedding, baptisms etc.) is something which has only deepened their personal bond. Are you denying that the 2 shared a close friendship over the years? Are you denying that Wright was Obama's most important spiritual and religious influence? Are you denying that Obama attended Church services at that Church for some 14 years? Are you denying that Obama titled his autobiography after a sermon by Wright? Are you denying that Wright served, until just a few days ago, in Obama's campaign? What exactly are you saying? Was Wright not an important influence in Obama's life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.0.182 (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

actually I am trying to explain to you, that you can't put unsourced slander even on the talk page per BLP. Also you are not supposed to re-add BLP issues without consensus on talk. Not like you to care much. Using the word "disciple" is far stronger than "follower" or "supporter" and it has a pre-eminent religious definition superseeding the causal definition you use. All of which you surely already know, which is why I rv-ed you again. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No, those were pretty much my points —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fovean Author (talk • contribs) 15:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk Page Spam

I feel BLP policy allows us to RV talk page statements that do not discuss, or barely discuss, the actual article and are "drive-by" posted by IP's who do not otherwise participate. Specifically I feel this is a form of advocacy, prohibited on talk pages. It also, sometimes, bumps up against BLP content policies. So, like good editors, I feel we should discuss this before i start unilaterally making edits. lol andy. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC) also remember not to feed them people....

Obama and Hillary

I have read they are going to show a common candidature, with Obama as President and Hillary as Vicepresident.--Nopetro (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You did not provide any sources. It looks to me like nonsense. Hillary talked about naming Barack as her VP and he rejected the idea. I do not know of any offer by Barack to Hillary. RonCram (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Build consensus

Clearly this is a popular article at the moment. The normal procedure of making bold edits isn't going to work here because there is so much disagreement and controversy over every single edit. Please seek a broad consensus (from established editors) on this talk page for anything other than minor grammatical changes. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The article was long overdue an update on primary results etc, the article magically managed to avoids the fact that clinton had own anything lol. As for the stuff on his reverand, there has been discussion and the article provides a little snipet of info on the issue, it can be expanded latter but the bare bones of the story are down which is a good thing. Realist2 (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but none of the edits you describe have reached any kind of consensus here. Furthermore, most of them were buried amongst the usual POV edits that crop up from time to time (when Andy's awake, mostly). Please also remember that this is a Biography of a Living Person, which means that information should be of a largely biographical nature. Campaign-related stuff should be considered for addition to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. Please do not constantly revert back to the messed-up version of the article without first building a proper consensus for the individual edits. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Let others contribute to the artice. Let others join the debate. If everyone ages with you that its a load of rubbish then that fine by me, this is obviously a very controlled article. Let others express either viewpoint before you revert their work. Give it a day, if people hate it then revert it latter. Alternatively insert neutrality tags like i sugested. People will soon take care of them. Realist2 (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not a simple as that. What is currently happening is that certain editors (like User:Andyvphil) are making sweeping changes to the article without first seeking consensus, and in fact completely against the established consensus. There are so many of these types of edits that they are becoming almost impossible to discuss and verify. We must promote a culture of caution and consensus-building on an article as important as this. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey is engaging in mass unconsidered reverts with misleading edit summarys and falsely marking his reverts as minor.[4] [5][6][7][8]. He's restoring outright errors (the mistitling of the pronunciation cite and the misattribution and misquotation of Soetoro-Ng spring to mind) and deleting "pro-Obama" material (the community-organizer and voter registration are obvious examples) that I'm sure he would be quite happy with if he actually looked at it, as well as the NPOV stuff he doesn't want to see. And he's violated 3RR. Time to ask admin help, I think. Andyvphil (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Added another. Hes made 5 reverts. --Realist2 (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary. I've gone to great lengths to try to only revert those edits that conflict with the prevailing consensus here, as you will see in the article's edit history. It is extremely difficult to pick out the good from the bad because there are so many conflicting edits. If you could simply follow the accepted practice of seeking consensus, then this problem would not arise. I implore you to adopt a more cautious approach to your editing of this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a load of crap if ever I heard one. You revert ANYTHING that isn't pro-Obama, and when you've done your three reverts, your sock-puppet accounts come out. There is NO WAY to discuss Obama and not discuss the influence of his minister of 20 years, who conducted his marriage, influenced his book and baptised his children -- Fovean Author (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

My what? I don't have any sock puppets. Ask someone to do a check user on me if you don't believe me. My ONLY username is this one, and always has been. Furthermore, you are utterly and completely incorrect about your facts and assumptions. Being an atheist, I couldn't care less who had a relationship with who and for what. And being British, I cannot even vote in the US election. I'm only interested in ensuring that the article maintains the high standard required of a Featured Article. Any reversions I have made have been performed due to the addition of POV or misleading information, or information that is being duplicated in better locations, or information that is just plain made up. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

also, even andyvphil admits you RV pro-Obama text as well, so claims of POV seem pretty thin.

love, the sockpuppets 72.0.180.2 (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Although Scjessey describes me as a "moron" I will say, this is NOT the place to make accusations of sock puppetry!!!!!!!! Fovean Author, thing about what your saying when you make such accusations. If you have evidence to support your claims report it, but DONT bring it here. --Realist2 (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Very well then, let me sock you no puppets and instead insert any historical information of the relationship between Wright and Obama (or anyone else for that matter) to a section which details the effect of increased scrutiny on Obama. Seeing as tomorrow we shall see Obama specifically deal with this issue in a speech (both of race and as a result of increased scrutiny), I believe that any argument that it is not a part of his biography is moot. -- Fovean Author (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree about your content concerns but accusations of SP are a no no. --Realist2 (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

you guys are crazy if you think a whole new section isn't undue weight, in a BIO page. and the title doesn't work on a bio page either. Like lots of users keep telling you, this is the exact reason the 2008 Obama campaign page exists, for fast moving documentation. If you think these edits (a whole new section for news of the past two weeks) are acceptable to the bio page of a 40-something man, you haven't read wp:recentism and it recommendation of a ten-year rule of thumb for inclusion (will the increased scrutiny section been notable as such in ten years? of course not) Fancy-cats-are-happy-cats (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't belong here in the BIO. The version that Fovean is repeatedly trying to force contains as much information about the recent Wright furor as all events in the 2008 presidential campaign. If that's not undue weight, I don't know what is. This issue already has a perfectly weighted statement concerning Obama's relationship and later distancing from Jeremiah Wright. The details are only relevant to his campaign, and that's where they belong. johnpseudo 21:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I just created fancycats (first account ever yay) for the purposes of RV-ing fovean but it wouldn't let me edit for 4 days THANK GOD! So I can't get fully involved quite yet but I support your editing efforts. I f I could edit today I would be drastically cutting down on his txt...(maybe not a full rv) 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me to be nonsense to talk about "prevailing consensus" at this point. Some editors evidently do not want anything negative about Barack. Others want to advocate against Barack's campaign. Neither POV is acceptable. The article has to be NPOV. The Rev. Wright has become an issue in the campaign. The article needs to deal with that but it needs to do so without inflammatory language and it needs to use only WP:RS written by established journalists and not politicians. You have to provide sources for any edits to the article. I suggest using these articles as sources. [9][10][11]Can we all agree that the article needs to discuss Rev. Wright? Do we have consensus on that point? RonCram (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that the Rev. Wright issue has become important for the campaign; however, that becomes a matter for Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 rather than this biography. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

RonCram, several of the pro-Obama claque (all except Hailfire, who is much the brightest of the group) have said repeatedly that info about Wright belongs only in Wright's bio. The only consensus we are goung to get is (WP:CON) "rough consensus", based of weighing the strength of arguments and discounting WP:IDONTLIKEITs.

Do you have problems with the sourcing or tone of this edit?[12] Will try to work with you on this. But not today. I've been at this too long, past when I should have slept. Andyvphil (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Rev. Wright is more than just a campaign issue. He was a major influence and inspiritation in Obama's life and spiritual formation. Knowing about the longtime relationship with Wright is certainly more important than knowing that Barack likes chili and is a "pretty good poker player." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.114.140 (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, we should also reinstate the removed information of their long standing friendship as well as the criticism obama recieved for not reacting strongly or swiftely. Realist2 (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

My recent edits

Hello all. I didn't see the plea to build consensus on "anything other than minor grammatical changes" before I expanded the Wright controversy section and added some brief mention of related criticisms. I apologize. Under normal circumstances, I'd probably never go to a talk page for fixing an obvious problem like an oddly misdirected section topic. Basically, the previous title for the section (and subsequent prose) read: "The media were criticized for not criticizing Obama, so then they criticized him". I thought it was prudent to clarify that the section is about Obama, not the Media.

I also added a few sourced paragraphs for a greater "criticism during presidential campaign" section about related scrutiny. Objections? Okiefromokla ^questions? 04:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

yes- because this is a BLP, we have to meet those standards, and certainly Media is the easiest and most common way to get RS'es. So we tend towards a media perspective. Also verifiability is easier meet to say what has been reported and not what is True if you know what I mean. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Rezko and Obama

Given all of the innuendo and discussion about Rezko and Obama in the media, I think we need to have a page somewhere (not on this page) that discusses this relationship in full so that we can link to it if people want the full information. I bring this up here so that those involved in the Obama articles can have some input. Also, the recent full interview he gave with the Chicago Tribune goes into great detail about what exactly happened and would be useful for anyone who wants to create a better description of the facts in wikipedia Link to story. Remember (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

And why not on this page? It seems every politician and media pundit has a "controversies" section on thier Wiki bios. Why not Obama as well? Then again, considering it took a year to even get the briefest mention of Rezko on this page (mentions repeatedly got scrubbed), I guess the answer should be apparent.

There is certainly more to the Obama / Rezko issue than a single land deal (like the fact Obama has given back "Rezko cash" on several occassions, has mis-represented the amount he's received from Rezko, and the political connections between the two that this particular page just glosses over). Ynot4tony (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Since you have a far right ideology seen here and here refering to liberals as "Liberal twinks" do you honestly think we could care a less about your views? Oh and say bye to Bush for us while your at it. Realist2 (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There isn't enough info for an entire article on the Obama-Rezko connection. I'm not even sure there is enough information for a Tony Rezko political connections article. One thought would be to expand the section in Rezko's article and if at some point it gets large enough, then it can be moved on to a different article. Although, the section needs to be expanded to include all of Rezko's connections, not just his connection to Obama. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Early life and career article?

Considering the current rapid expansion of this section, and the apparent enthusiasm of several editors to add still more, is it time to create Early life and career of Barack Obama? There are enough sources out there to build a good article, and plenty of examples where this has been done for other political figures [13][14][15] whose early lives are subjects of close study and popular interest. --HailFire (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Any examples of non-presidents? I personally wouldn't - though he is a prolific autobiographer, I know. If his early life keeps overflowing here though, you might have to. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Searching Wikipedia for "Early life of" brings up more examples. Others use an alternate title style that puts the person's first and last name first--for example, Abraham Lincoln's early life and career. I think a new article offers a remedy to the overflow problem, which does concern me, as despite substantial evolution of text in the last year and a half that I have been here, this article's size has remained stable in the recommended "32k of readable prose" range until quite recently. --HailFire (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just looking up a similar issue, I noticed some the early life edits andy made were sort of at odds with the similar section's consensus on the Obama campaign page. So here is the relevant text we are using over there:

"The Clinton and Obama campaigns quickly denounced the allegations. Investigations by CNN, ABC and others showed that Obama had not, as Insight had written, attended an Islamic seminary. Instead, for his first three years abroad Obama attended St. Francis Assisi Catholic School, and in his last year transferred to State Elementary School Menteng Besuki‎, an Indonesian public school for children of all faiths in the majority Muslim nation. A series of Chicago Tribune reports found that "[w]hen Obama attended 4th grade in 1971, Muslim children spent two hours a week studying Islam, and Christian children spent those two hours learning about the Christian religion. The series also stated: "In fact, Obama's religious upbringing in Indonesia depended more on the conventions of the schools he attended than on any decision by him, his mother or his stepfather. When he was at a Catholic school for three years, he prayed as a Catholic. When he was at a public school for a year, he learned about Islam." "

I noticed he has yet to start using the english name of the first school, even though he accepted that as consensus a long time ago on the other page. Also there is an attempt to "add" a year Obama was indonesia, in andy's new text... by saying "almost three years" and then "finishing third and fourth grade" like implying there were five years in question and not four. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

72.0.180.2 as you have now made an account on wiki i would take my advise and start using it before you get yourself into trouble. Realist2 (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

this IP was around when your granny was in diapers son. fancycats is just for editing semi-protected pages, as I posted on that page as soon as I created it. Also all the regulars around here know me and are not very worried that me and fancycats are up to trickery. the fact you are is, however a good and hilarious thing, so let me tell you a little about fancy cats- dear realist, it is true, the happiest cats are also the fanciest cats. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Lol fair enough i cant argue with that i suppose but i was only trying to warn you, ill leave you to it. How you can handle 2 accounts is a mistery to me tho, ones hard enough. Realist2 (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

fancy cats is only two hours old so we will see if I can indeed handle both or if I just switch over- it will depend on how much I edit here vs Obama camapaign wp, where I am much more active. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Im sure either way you will be fine, just make it clear to all that you have 2, and never no matter how tempting use them both to get your point across or use them to win edit wars. Realist2 (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• This may help: Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Alternative_account_notification --HailFire (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

So now, can we please return the discussion in this talk page section to the original proposal about creating an Early life and career of Barack Obama article? --HailFire (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be great, but like I detailed above, the text we have now has slight problems already, I hope it doesn't get worse if we do a split. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The proposed sub article offers better scope for a more structured and informative biographical account of Obama's early life. One year ago we did not have much more than Obama's first book for details covering 1961 through 1995. The explosion of reporting on nearly every element of this period has brought us a wide range of reliable, linkable sources, I'd guess more than might be available online for any other recent public figure. Given the intense level of reader interest that made all those news stories marketable, Early life and career of Barack Obama is likely to quickly become one of the most popular articles on Wikipedia. --HailFire (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, don't expect many people to read such an article. Using the http://stats.grok.se/en/ page view counter:

In March 2008, so far:

• Views of John McCain: 550,479
• Views of Early life and military career of John McCain: 9,079

For February 2008:

• Views of George W. Bush: 563,193
• Views of Early life of George W. Bush: 3,739
• Views of Professional life of George W. Bush: 1,928

• Views of Abraham Lincoln: 641,569
• Views of Abraham Lincoln's early life and career: 3,552

• Views of George Washington: 407,240
• Views of George Washington's early life: 4,576

Anything moved into one of these subarticles, quickly loses about 99% of its readership. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

So? That's where it should be. It doesn't matter how many people read them. If they're interested, they will. How do you know how many people DON'T want to read the excessive stuff in the main page? Herunar (talk) 12:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that all these readers don't want to read the subarticles, I think they sometimes aren't aware of them (witness the many talk page comments I've seen that X is missing, when X is in a subarticle; I also think the "main" template has visibility problems). But I can't prove this. Anyway, what I gave is just a (perhaps surprising) data point that's recently become available to us; I had always thought the drop-off would be on the order of 10-to-1, not 100-to-1. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Just did it, improvements needed. --HailFire (talk) 07:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In response to my edit summarized as major edit: revert to version of 2008-02-26 for quick start on summary style; added {{main|Early life and career of Barack Obama}}; linked Sr. & DfMF, Andyvphil reverts and writes: unacceptable to begin with revert. And why is that, Andyvphil? --HailFire (talk) 12:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Because there have been many major improvements since 2/26/08 and it makes no sense to lose them and begin the process of spinout from an obsolete and defective version. If there is material that you think doesn't need to be here now that you've created a spinout, delete it and we'll see if there is agreement on that. Each step you take should in that way be understandable and acceptable. Reverting is neither. Andyvphil (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Andyvphil, what specifically is obsolete and defective about this version that was in place just a few weeks ago and has already passed FAR twice?[16][17] Let's get a summary section in place quickly so we can restore some stability and quality back to this part of the article, not reinvent the wheel. If there are editors who think important moments in Obama's early life and career have gone missing, we can put them back in. It's not like events between 1961 and 1995 have changed substantially in the last three weeks or that there are a multitude of new and useful sources that have become available during this time. Everything that was in the section before recondensing is still here. The three paragraphs I am asking to reinstate remained more or less the same for over one year because multiple editors of all POVs agreed that it met all requirements of a featured article, including neutrality. There are many editors here (where is Dereks1x when we need him?) who can attest that POV statements have been tested and painstakingly challenged even before you joined the party. Give a little please, my fellow active editor... it will be alright, and we'll both sleep better! --HailFire (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

To start with, the last paragraph is total crap. "On returning to Chicago, Obama directed a voter registration drive." Sheesh. You actually slipped empty garbage like that past FAR? Bad enough they didn't realize the Obama-specific stuff that was missing, but finding sentences like that and not saying "wtf?" speaks ill of whoever signed off on the nom. Time to stop leaning on the FA broken reed. It's well established that it's bogus. The current version gets it pretty much right. The Feb version didn't. Start from now and summarize/delete what's no longer needed in steps that make sense. I've already said this. What's your problem with that procedure? Andyvphil (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

rogueIframe : avast Conspiracy for destabilize the credibility of barack obama.

A member's of the antivirus avast company, create hoax trojan rogueiframe. this member with desired will destabilize the credibility of the official website of barack obama to the presidency of the USA. for that it took the code which has to find on the site and to declare like important Trojan. the inofancif code of this hoax :

document.write('<iframe src="page.html" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" hspace="0" vspace="0" frameborder="0" height="1" scrolling="no" width="1"></iframe>')

March 17 this imaginary Trojan is set up, it will take 24 hours for the company of avast to react and remove this false information this day.

link RoguIframe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.248.230.186 (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Section on his churches "black value system" and preacher

I just think this section is urgently needed. In the Ron Paul article one of the largest sections was in reference to the "newsletter controversy" which supposedly wasn't directly an act of Ron Paul, but associated with him. The controversy about Obama attending a black nationalist church and his preachers radical speeches could not be more similar to the Ron Paul controversy even in fiction. Tthe Ron Paul section was up as fast as the news broke, where is the info here? The Black Value System (now removed from his churches website but available on the web archive): 1. Commitment to God 2. Commitment to the Black Community 3. Commitment to the Black Family 4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education 5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence 7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect 8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of ‘Middleclassness’ 9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community 10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions 11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System 12. Personal commitment to embaracement of the Black Value System.’ Essentially switch the word black with aryan and you get the picture. It's breaking in the mainstream already. Some links to his preachers speechers would be handy in the article. The other candidates pages seem to include a lot more criticism where as this looks almost as though its a baseball card talking about his vast achievements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.211.229 (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I second that, a section on his chruch's controversy is greaty needed KingsOfHearts (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Campaign section

I've just reverted the last two edits (diff) because (a) they restored controversial Rev. Wright stuff against current consensus and (b) they broke some references I'd been painstakingly working on. Please seek consensus! -- Scjessey (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, an expanded account of the Jeremiah Wright controversy is more suited to Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. The campaign section in this article only needs to be a brief summary, or it will conflict with the ideals of WP:RECENT. Hasn't this already been agreed upon many times? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a lengthy account, but a proper brief summary is needed because of the criticism associated with them. The current version gives disproportionate weight to Obama's response and gives Wright's comments, and the criticism associated with them, only a passing mention. There are NPOV and undue weight issues there. My proposed revision is this:

Obama has faced criticism stemming from a March 2008 ABC News report that highlighted several sermons from Obama's long-time pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. In them, Wright accused the federal government of selling drugs to blacks, creating the HIV virus to infect blacks, and perpetuating racism that led to disproportionate imprisonment of blacks. In one sermon, Wright said that the United State was responsible for the September 11th, 2001 attacks and urged black Americans to ask God to "damn America." Following the story, Obama faced criticism for referring to Wright as his "spiritual advisor", attending the church for 20 years, and maintaining close personal ties to the minister. Obama points to Wright as the inspiration for the title of his book The Audacity of Hope and placed Wright on his campaign's African American Religious Leadership Committee in December 2007. Obama had begun distancing himself from Wright when he withdrew a request that Wright deliver a speech at the announcement of his presidential bid, but when several videos of Wright's sermons appeared on YouTube in the first week of March 2008, Obama released a statement "vehemently disagree[ing with] and strongly condemn[ing] ... inflammatory and appalling remarks Wright made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents." Obama said the remarks had come to his attention at the beginning of his presidential campaign but that because Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of Obama's strong links to the Trinity faith community, he had not thought it "appropriate" to leave the church. After the publicity of March, the campaign announced that Wright has left its African American Religious Leadership Committee.

This is only slightly longer than the previous version, but much more balanced. Okiefromokla ^questions? 20:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Tell me if you think these proportions are well-suited for this article:

1. 270 words for a 2-week controversial-remarks story surfacing during a lull in campaign news in mid-March, 2008.
2. 266 words for Obama's entire State Senate career.
3. 275 words for the entire first year of Obama's campaign.
4. 228 words for Obama's entire Senate campaign.

This just needs to be put into context. It is a very important development in the Obama 2008 presidential campaign. It is not a pivotal event in Obama's life. Leave a small mention in the personal life section (the details that relate to his personal life), leave a 1-2 sentence mention in the campaign section (the details that relate to his campaign), and move the rest to the campaign article. johnpseudo 20:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for those word counts. Your suggestions sound reasonable to me. I'm hopeful that we are getting closer to restoring some stability to the personal life section. --HailFire (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

So your opinion is that the Jeremy Wright:

1. Obama's minister of 20 years
2. The person whom Obama credits with his conversion to Christianity
3. The person who married him to his wife, Michelle
4. The person who baptised BOTH of Obama's daughters
5. The person whom Obama credits with inspiring his book
6. Who SERVED in the Obama campaign (until being dismissed)
7. Whom Obama prayed with before announcing his candidacy

Was not pivitol in his life? Tell me, what does he have to do to become pivotal, after all that? Squat down and birth a mini-me version of him? Maybe donate a kidney and then perform the surgery himself? No - this is classic censorship by you Obama supporters, because as we've seen, if it SUPPORTS Obama, you guys have NO problem with posting it here.

Perhaps you'll believe Barack Obama, who said today that Wright was pivotal in his life. Does THAT make him pivotal in his life? Or is Obama not a credible source?

-- Fovean Author (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you actually don't know whether the editors who are arguing to reduce the size of the parent article summary are "Obama supporters" or not and I object to your tone and accusations. Some of us work as much on this article as on other politicians' articles, and guess what: we do it without regard to our own private political positions, and you don't know what those positions are. So why don't you give it a rest already? We're here to make the article better. Try it, you'll like it. Tvoz |talk 02:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, from my user page, my bias is transparent. Personally, I think that's a good thing. However, I totally disagree with Fovean here- yes, the person is pivotal in his life... in his own words he's "like family to me". But for one, there is a big difference between including biographical information on someone as they relate to Obama's biography and including a huge paragraph on the horse-race of a controversial-remarks story that recently developed in the media. For comparison, take the remarks that Michelle Obama- another of Barack's family- made that were similarly controversial. Even if those remarks were as controversial as the remarks made by Wright, they wouldn't belong here in his biography. They would belong in the campaign article, because that's why they would be notable. The context in this article is Obama's life. Wright has made a pivotal impact on Obama, but this little story has not. He hasn't gotten a divorce over these comments...his campaign hasn't been changed by these comments nearly as much as past primaries and caucuses. These comments may prove to have a more pronounced impact on the campaign, but giving them huge weight right now would be trying to predict the future. johnpseudo 02:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

So as you can see, Tvoz, I DO actually know that the editors who are arguing to reduce the size of the parent article summary are "Obama supporters". I think that now, however, we've got the right balance of info on there. -- Fovean Author (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia policy to assume good faith, Fovean. And my support of Obama doesn't negate that policy. Every edit I make is in order to improve the article, never to make Obama look better. johnpseudo 15:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Okie, because of the size of this article, certain "sacrifices" have to be made on sections that are large enough to support a child article and, unfortunately, one of these sacrifices is covering a single event within the subject area of the child article in detail. One of the ways to look at the presidential campaign section is to see it as the lead for the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 article. If you look at it as a lead and follow WP:LEAD then the campaign section as a whole should be 3-4 paragraphs long in total. Is Wright controversy really worth a quarter of the paragraphs that we should have to cover the entire presidential campaign, or is it acceptable to leave a 1-2 sentence summary of what happened on the main article and leave the actual details to the presidential campaign article? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this - we need this to be a summary. The section has grown too large and in doing so is becoming too focused on the most recent events. Tvoz |talk 02:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

My opinion, for what it is worth, is that the dust-up over Rev. Wright may be significant enough to require a large space. Barack gave a nice speech today that may stem the tide against him. It was necessary for him to do so because he had lost so much ground in the polls. If it stems the tide, then Rev Wright becomes less important and the section can be dramatically reduced in size. If Barack's poll numbers continue to fall, then Rev Wright is still an issue and readers should have access to that information that explains why. This situation is still in flux. RonCram (talk) 02:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If it does continue to be a problem for the campaign, then the campaign issue should go in the campaign article with a brief summary of the information in this article that is supposed to be about his entire life. Putting all the details in this article give undue weight to the event when you compare it to his whole life. Jons63 (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

(EC)The Wright controversy is currently 2 paragraphs in a 6 paragraph section. It is certainly not 1/3 of the notability of Obama's presidential campaign. At most, this entire thing, so far, is worth two sentences in this article. One covering the controversy and the other covering Obama's response to the controversy and then a full and proper covering in the campaign article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Obama looked to have the nomination wrapped up and probably the general election also. After this dustup with Rev Wright, he is trailing both Hillary Clinton and John McCain in the most recent polls. Perhaps the Wright section does not need to be very long now, but if he loses the election readers will want and deserve more information on Rev Wright in this article. In such a case, Rev Wright would deserve at least 1/3 of the section on the presidential election.RonCram (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Er...no. That would still be a matter for the campaign article. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Er... no. As long as the community decides there should be a section on the campaign on this article, then Rev Wright would need to be prominently discussed in the section. Think about it. If the Rev. cost Obama the election, then he becomes THE most important issue in the campaign. I am not saying Rev. Wright needs to be that prominently discussed now. To do so might make it look like Wikipedia is trying to impact the election. That is NOT the role of an encyclopedia. But if Obama loses, you can rest assured Rev. Wright will be prominently discussed. RonCram (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That is entirely irrelevant. Try to understand that this is a Biography of a Living Person, not an article about a campaign. The campaign article is the place for this kind of stuff. Furthermore, you are suggesting that it becomes important "if the Rev. cost[s] Obama the election", which violates WP:CRYSTAL. Also, deciding that it would require some arbitrary fraction of a section is ridiculous. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Too much Wright is wrong

There is still way too much weight given to the Jeremiah Wright controversy, which is more about Jeremiah Wright than Barack Obama. It should be a brief summary comprising one or two sentences. The details can be more thoroughly explored in the related articles, as I have stated previously. I believe a consensus on this matter has already been reached, but we may as well seek agreement again. What say you, fellow Wikipedians? -- Scjessey (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? Wright was this guy's pastor for 20 years, married him to his wife, baptized his children and inspired his book. He served on his campaign and now Michelle Obama quotes him.

Two sentences for that? Really? -- Fovean Author (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Obama didn't inherit his churching. Wright inspired Obama to join his church and stay in it for twenty years, showing up pretty regularly for the sermons and finding them acceptable, apparently. In fact, the political positions Wright advanced are what Obama says inspired him to join the church (I've quoted this above, if it hasn't succumbed to the 5-day cleanout). Should tell us quite a bit about who Obama is, a question otherwise obscure despite this article, in its current state. Andyvphil (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

...and, btw, the idea that this is a slow-week news story is obtunded. Obama's viability comes from the idea that he's a Democrat Colin Powell, somebody whites can be comfortable voting for. And the fact that he sat still for Wright for 20 years is a big problem for that image. Might look like I'm quoting Steyn, who I rewrote after someone else put his comments in the article, but I wrote "It turns out that the politics he thereby chose to associate himself with, and which were the foundation of his own entry into politics, are controversial... and is bound to get more controversial if and when he has to start... competing for the center rather than the left wing of the electorate. You can't keep this out of his bio and deserve FA, and unless he loses to Clinton events are bound to overtake you anyway." just before the overtaking took place. Andyvphil (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, two sentences would be perfect. No matter how much you two bang on about how important Wright is, he is not as important as many other influences in his life, including (but not limited to) his mother, father, education, etc. What you are doing is placing way too much weight on the controversy surrounding the Rev. Wright (which is a WP:RECENT problem) and then claiming that all this text is justified because Obama knew the guy. In fact, I could do it in a single sentence that would be more than sufficient:

Obama is a longtime friend of pastor Jeremiah Wright, whose controversial sermons caused a period of discomfort during the campaign for the Democratic nomination.

It doesn't have to more detailed than that, since the "daughter articles" provide all the necessary information. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh. The new version of the Wright section by User:Johnpseudo is a substantial improvement over the previously bloated version. It strikes a perfect balance between the necessary brevity and the need to cover this important issue. Nicely done! -- Scjessey (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It covers the facts without glossing them over or giving them undue weight. This is the version that the article needs at this point. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Evidently, Fovean Author doesn't agree. He vandalized my user page (diff) when I restored his revert of it. Classy move, huh? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That is unfortunate. I love that you're British and it's harder to make the accusations of partisanism stick to you in connection with this article, though. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That's what a summary is, yes. I agree that too much is now in the Presidential section here, as the detail more appropriately belongs in the daughter article. To be clear- the only reason I just added to the section is that the previous edits had lost the second half of a sentence, leaving it grammatically broken and lacking in meaning. But I support shortening this section. Tvoz |talk 01:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The "Buried in Eloquence, Obama Contradictions About Pastor" story from ABCNews misrepresents the facts, and it shouldn't be included here because it is from the "Blotter" portion of ABCNews and doesn't constitute a reliable source. johnpseudo 21:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you a referring to a segment I have already removed twice, despite discussing the matter with the adding editor. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think the "Blotter" portion of ABC News is not WP:RS? The Blotter portion is from the "Brian Ross and the Investigative Team" of ABC News. This is supposed to be their crack team of investigative reporters that get scoops, not the standard reporters who go to news conferences and reports what all the other news outlets are reporting. ABC News is a reliable source, especially anything by their "Investigative Team." What about the article do you think is inaccurate? [18] RonCram (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The word "blotter" is a synonym for "blog", which is what that section of ABCNews.com is. Blogs are unreliable sources, especially for biographies of living people. The inaccurate part of the article is the entire premise. Obama didn't contradict himself: on the one hand he said that he hadn't heard those particular statements that Wright had made that were circulating on Youtube, and on the other hand he said that he had heard some controversial statements Wright had made. johnpseudo 02:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"Blotter" is not a synonym for "blog." Blotter is a word that pre-dates the internet. Check Dictionary.com. Blotter means "a book in which transactions or events, as sales or arrests, are recorded as they occur: a police blotter." ABC News allows readers to comment on stories on "The Blotter" but that does not make it a "blog" in the normal sense of the word. "Blog" is normally used to refer to a one-person web blog where there is no editorial oversight such as required by the standards of journalism. The Blotter has multiple contributors from Brian Ross and his team of investigative reporters and does have editorial oversight. The story in question was written by Brian Ross and Avni Patel. Go to abcnews.com and click on the "Investigative" tab and it takes you to "The Blotter." The Blotter is WP:RS.RonCram (talk) 04:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the premise you believe is inaccurate, the admission by Obama that he had heard controversial statements by Rev. Wright was new. He had never before admitted hearing anything controversial. People had a hard time believing Obama could be a member at the church for 20 years without ever hearing anything controversial, but that was the impression Obama had left people with. I do not see anything inaccurate about this news article.RonCram (talk) 04:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The article's first paragraph says that Obama, "contradicted more than a year of denials and spin from him and his staff about his knowledge of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's controversial sermons". This seems at odds with even your interpretation. As far as I know, Obama never denied that he had heard controversial statements from Wright. This article is wrong. (With your consent RonCram, can we move this discussion to the campaign article?) johnpseudo 14:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Presidential campaign edit needed

In the Presidential campaign section, the paragraph beginning:

After Super Duper Tuesday, he won 16 of the 18 contests that followed, though he lost the Texas primary popular vote. Her husband, Bill Clinton, had predicted the end of her campaign were she to lose either Texas or Ohio; she lost the state of Texas by four delegates.

Needs to be corrected. Barack is not a "her" and "his" husband is not Bill Clinton. Someone has been doing a little too much cut and pasting without looking at what they are doing. 199.125.109.52 (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. It's been fixed for now. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that you added "for now". There is a lot of copyediting that could be done. Please - featured articles are supposed to have "professional, even brilliant" prose. 199.125.109.52 (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh. No doubt on the copyedit. The whole presidential section could do with a touch-up, but the constant edit warring over the last few weeks has made that next to impossible. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

My comment about copyedit was prompted because while I was counting sentences to see if there were more references than sentences (I lost count around 220) I noticed a reference that was both preceded and followed by a period (I was doing a search for periods). The biggest copyedit I can see is to format a half a dozen unformatted references that have crept in. And is it correct to say "According to National Journal, a weekly magazine" - shouldn't that be "According to the National Journal, a weekly magazine"? Someone may have fixed it but there was also a botched wiki link to the "Texas primary and caucuses". 199.125.109.52 (talk) 23:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

But yeah, we're working on the references to get them into proper format and what not. I fixed the bad Texas wikilink (I forgot to put the closing brackets earlier) and will see if I can find the before and after periods. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

His sister Maya

I tried to link to his sister's article, but for some reason, it took at least three times and someone pulled the link once. Why? What does anyone have against her?Ericl (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well for one, you put a broken link the first time. Secondly, she may not be notable. I don't have much of an opinion on the matter. johnpseudo 22:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Article length

Oh if only Wikipedia would bring back the 32 kB page limit, or at the very least establish a new hard limit of 64 kB. Here is how this article shows up on Google:

Barack Obama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hyperlinked encyclopedia entry provides an extensive personal and political profile of the US Senator for Illinois and candidate for US President.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama - 520k - Cached - Similar pages

Yes, 520 kB, although 420 kB is from images. The source code is 141 kB, and it hangs up my computer trying to load it. And please, 226 references? Surely some of those references could have been used for two sentences in the article instead of only one. 199.125.109.52 (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The size restriction is on readable text, not total page size. Please see WP:SIZE. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I've read wp:size, thank you. It allows grossly too large articles, but also says that over 60 kB probably should be split and over 100kB almost certainly should be split up. What does that tell you about this article, which is 141 kB? There are only two sub-articles, but they should be utilized to take out all but a few sentences for the campaign and political positions. There are other sections that could be replaced with a summary and sub-articles created. 199.125.109.52 (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet again, it is only readable text that counts. References, images, lists, etc are not included in this count.This article currently has 42kb of readable text, well within the guideline. There is a lot of source bloat, but unfortunately the amount of disagreement that there has been over this article has pretty much required that everything that is added be sourced or else someone will remove it as being POV. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

IP 199, you are mistaken on size; the relevant guideline is readable prose between 30 and 50KB at WP:SIZE. This page is currently at 38KB readable prose and 6800 words; well within guidelines. Please read and understand WP:SIZE more carefully; older technical restrictions no longer apply and the goal is to be within average reader attention span. For comparison purposes to other featured articles, pls browse here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that all of the editors who commented take some time out to watch Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. "Morons, I'm dealing with morons" (they don't rob us when we are going up the mountain, only when we are coming down the mountain). If you click on Edit on any page with more than 32 kB it tells you the size of the article. It is only that count that matters, no other count. This article causes my computer to hang up because it is 128 kB (it has been trimmed about 13 kB), what does your edit count say? See for example[19] 199.125.109.28 (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Entertaining analysis. You are, however, wrong. See WP:SIZE and read the part about readable prose. Thank you. Tvoz |talk 15:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:SIZE allows grossly too large articles. Over half of the featured articles are less than 20 kB. Less than 10% are as big as this article. How anyone can love being wright when they are rong is beyond my comprehension. It's like driving a car into an intersection with crossing traffic that has run a red light - you are right, but you are dead right. The goal should not be "see I told you so" but "ok, what can we do to fix it?" 199.125.109.28 (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Recommendation part 1: For now mostly leave article alone but put a top-section header at the top of the page to make editing easy. use appropriate tags to move the TOC to the right place in the readable page. Editors who wish to edit the top section without editing the whole article should log in, change their preferences to enable editing of the top section, and enable JavaScript in their browsers.

Recommendation part 2: After he is elected or defeated, consider trimming out sections that didn't have a long-lasting impact on history. In the meantime if there is anything more than 4-6 years old that won't have a long-term impact, consider trimming or eliminating it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There isn't any reason to edit out sections because... the article is only 38k of readable text. The only way to reduce the total size of this article is to A)cut down on the number of sources B)eliminate the use of the cite template. Eliminating content that is more than 4-6 years old isn't going to help because the primary areas that have the most sources are the most recent events. No idea why this is so difficult for people to understand. 38K of readable text - 128k of total content = 90k of non-readable text with almost all of that non-readable text being the 180+ sources this article currently has. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the article length is that much of a problem. I am finding that it is more of a latency issue. It seems to take forever to get a connection to the page, but once connected the load time is really quite quick. Perhaps this is more a reflection on the popularity of the article? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW: This talk page is currently much larger in size than it's parent article, yet it loads instantly for me. That surely adds weight to my argument above. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No pictures on the talk page. It is the pictures that slows down the article. Has nothing to do with popularity. With the photos the article is 460 kilobytes. This talk page is only 183 kilobytes. Both load just as fast for me. SayCheeeeeese (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The easiest guideline is just what the byte count says when you edit the article. I am having trouble with the article, which is now down to 128k text and 480k with the pictures (thank you Bobblehead for doing some chopping), but not having trouble with the talk page which is 180k, so I think it is more how many bytes have to be loaded, but for simplicity I would not want anyone to do anything other than look at the byte count in the edit window - if it says over 60k split the article into subpages and use a summary style with only a few sentences where now there are a few paragraphs. Clearly it makes no difference if the text is readable or references vs. text. The browser can't tell the difference between them. Since most images are reduced to thumbs they should not be a big factor. I will watch for more pages that hang up the browser like this one does, but I was really curious to read about this person (Obama) and got nothing, just the need to reboot the computer. I tried again and the page eventually loaded, but seriously why on earth create a monster page that takes ten minutes to load? I am not asking for odd responses like the two numbered recommendations above, which are totally bizarre, I am just asking to keep the edit byte count below 64k in all articles. Readable text is also important, but seriously, with the attention span that people have on the internet do you really expect anyone to read more than 10k? 199.125.109.28 (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing citation with incorrect "madrassa" use in title

Earlier I replaced an existing citation that had an incorrect use of the word "madrassa" in it's displayed title (see Madrassa#Misuse_of_the_word for the correct use - it means any kind of school in both Arabic and non-misused English).

The misleading citation (now back up) is called "Obama madrassa myth debunked": the actual Chigaco Tribune article's content is fine - it's just the title being displayed on its own that will mislead readers into seeing madrassas as Islamic and/or radical (which is the developed suggestion in the "Insight" story/slur). It is displayed for all to misread at the base of our article! I had previously created a discussion on this particular citation - but it's now been 5-day auto-archived.

I replaced the misleading citation with an already-used citation that covered ALL the points in the preceding sentences that needed referencing. The new citation used the word "madrassa" correctly - ie. it specifically details an "Islamic" madrassa - as oppose to just saying "madrassa" and assuming an Islamic and/or radical form.

Unfortunately, many articles over a period of time (and readily available on the internet) did misuse the word. That does not make it right though - The New York Times has issued a correction over its own incorrect use of "madrassa" - saying "while some are radical, most are not".

I'll give it another go - can anyone reverting it please say why here? --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

For one thing, the Sun article doesn't contain the non-misleading version of Maya's quote about her father, so that cite no longer works. That could be fixed by citing direct to NYT source, but the function of citation is not merely to support the current text, but to facilitate exploration of the available material. And Barker has several pieces containing material not duplicated in Sun. I am not going to bury a source just because you don't like the title. Also, btw, I'm not convinced you are correct that Madrasah in all its various spellings "correctly" just means school, with no implications about its curriculum. Not only did the correspondence I had at danielpipes with an Indonesian indicate that he understood it to refer to schools with, among other things, a specifically conservative religious curriculum,[20] but consider this Pakistani example: "Pervez Hoodbhoy, who taught physics at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad... noted that his 'university has three mosques but no bookstore. It is becoming more like a madrasa in other ways too.'"[21]. And consider [22]. It appears that the claim that "madrassa" is an exact synonym for "school" is not true in Indonesia or Pakaistan or much of anyplace else, not merely the US. What is clearly true is that it shouldn't be construed as implying a radical anti-US ideology on the model of Bin Laden, but is it anywhere applied to a school that does not teach from the Koran? Show me one example. Andyvphil (talk) 11:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

1. I'll look for an example of "madrassa" used for a non-Koranic school - Muslim people do learn other things than the Koran you know! The word being Arabic, and us being English-speakers - the native Arabic and the strict English meanings are the important ones here - because this is an encyclopedia, and we must use referable, dictionarial terms - and not colloquialisms, bastardised meanings and slang. Often madrassa is translated over to "school" or "college" (etc) I agree - but that is beside the point.
2. "the function of citation is not merely to support the current text, but to facilitate exploration of the available material." - what? You must be joking!! That function is for "See also" etc!!! - citations are meant to purely (and only) cover the written text!! That is fundamental. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Lewis (talk • contribs) 15:43, 19 March 208 (UTC)

Comment I use footnotes in WP to do further research all the time. Borock (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll take another look, but I believe while you were at it, you also removed other citations, so I reinstated what we had which was well vetted. It seems to me that it is not our job to pass judgment on the words in titles of source articles, as long as the source articles are from reliable venues - we are responsible for the words that we write, absolutely, but I am not convinced that we are also to review the titles that responsible journalists use in their articles. Tvoz |talk 01:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If it was just misused in the cited article I wouldn't mind so much (though I'd still look for a better ref) - but we presented the misleading title on its own on our article. I hadn't realised I removed the other citation - it was a complex nest of cites. I just tried to make the edit again and all the cites got messed up, so had to 'undo' myself! Can someone do me a favour? I basically want < ref name="baltimore"/ > put in place of the first "Chicago Tribune" citation in the group! (straight after the words "fourth grades"). Couldn't make out what I was doing wrong.

The Chicago Tribune reference isn't lost btw - it's made use of on the 2008 campaign page. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I see the Madrasah citation has been moved to the campaign article, but this discussion caught my attention and I can't bear to not comment. Matt, that's fine that "madrasah" is an Arabic word that translates as "school", but you do realize that Arabic is not the native language of either Pakistan or Indonesia where it's cited as being used, right? In both of these countries, "madrasah" is a loanword from Arabic, presumably brought along with the spread of Islam or following at some later period through contact with other parts of the Muslim world; how the word is used in those countries is relevant, and it's not for you to say that it's being used wrong.

As for dictionary definitions in English - according to WordNet, a madrasah is a "Muslim school in Bangladesh [or] Pakistan".

There's every indication that the word is legitimately associated with Islam in these countries; and the article title does not incorrectly imply a connection with radical Islam - attending a Muslim school was bound to be a source of controversy during the election, whether it included radical fundamentalist teachings or not. Vorlon (talk) 07:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Net Worth

Could we include a longer bit about this in Personal Life? I think it would be prudent to get all the three remaining serious candidates' NWs straightened out and included, as I voiced on the Hillary page. The McCain page already has his NW in the infobox and the subject of net worths was of substantial interest in the 2004 presidential campaign, why not now? PulpatineFiction (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it is of interest to the 2008 campaign, it may fit better in one of the 2008 campaign articles. In this election year, we need to be vigilant that this article (and the articles of other presidential contenders) doesn't become some kind of candidate assessment piece, as that is not its reason for being or long-term purpose. I don't agree that net worth needs repeating in the infobox, too much clutter there already. Also, such calculations are more art than science, and therefore prone to wide ranging interpretations and POV distortions. I think we already have enough about it here, from a source (Money Magazine) that most would consider reliable in making that kind of calculation. Just my thoughts, others will no doubt see it differently. Thanks for contributing here. --HailFire (talk) 06:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"Barack"

the Barack means a peach in Hungarian :-)

Yes, so we've heard. Köszönöm! --HailFire (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

James Meeks

Obama has been linked to another Baptist Minister in Chicago. He is James Meeks a part of th Southside Baptist Church. We should add this to the article ASAP.(Rhinostampede (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

Linked how? Sources? I saw Obama on TV once, so should I be in the article too? I once held a door open for the late King Hussein of Jordan, so I reckon I should be in his article too. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

POV stuff that keeps being added by User:Andyvphil and User:Jwvoiland

These two editors continue to add or edit the article to deliberately distort reality to favor their worldviews. For example, the following paragraph was added in response to A More Perfect Union:

ABC News reported that "buried in his eloquent, highly praised speech on America's racial divide, Sen. Barack Obama contradicted more than a year of denials and spin from him and his staff about his knowledge of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's controversial sermons." Critics have found the response not only contradictory, but inadequate. For example, Mark Steyn, writing in the National Review observed "Obama is not supposed to be the candidate of the America-damners: He’s not the Reverend Al Sharpton or the Reverend Jesse Jackson or the rest of the racial-grievance mongers. Obama is meant to be the man who transcends the divisions of race... Yet since his early twenties [Obama]’s sat week after week listening to the ravings of just another cookie-cutter race huckster... the Reverend Wright['s] appeals to racial bitterness are supposed to be everything President Obama will transcend. Right now, it sounds more like the same-old same-old." In the speech, Obama referred to his white grandmother and later explained that "she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know ... there's a reaction in her that doesn't go away and it comes out in the wrong way."

The overwhelming response to the speech by the mass media has been positive, yet the addition of the paragraph above implies the complete opposite. This is clearly an attempt to manipulate the article to suit a personal agenda. Even if the paragraph was truly representative of the media response, it is far too detailed to be including in this WP:BLP. For too long, the factual integrity of this article has been threatened with POV edits like those performed by these two editors. Even a cursory glance at their editing histories will give an indication of their motivations. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Categorization and ranking of Obama's politics

Do voting record-based categorizations and rankings from partisan or nonpartisan sources help improve readers' understanding of Barack Obama's Senate career or his politics? An example of the disputed text is linked here.

Pointers to earlier discussion

• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 13#Liberal
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 13#Requested full protection
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 13#Andyvphil and his attempts to make large, unilateral changes to the article without discussion
• Talk:Barack Obama#Andyvphil’s proposed changes

Summary statements by editors who are parties to this dispute

• One nonpartisan source lists Barack Obama as a "Rank and File Democrat".[23][24] How is this notable to our purpose here? Readers' understanding of Obama's career or his politics will not be supported by a series of political rankings provided from either partisan or nonpartisan sources. Statistical analysis of voting records is easily manipulated and such surveys almost always reflect some kind of partisan POV. Also, categorizations and rankings derived from such analysis risk conveying a false impression of neutrality. Stringing together a series of such surveys that reach different conclusions does not in any way assist readers' understanding of the underlying complex decisionmaking and negotiating processes that go into determining votes on proposed legislation. "Findings" of these surveys should not be included in Obama's lead biography article, and their usefulness in other political articles is also doubtful. Let readers decide for themselves where a politician fits according to their own criteria and analysis of the issues. --HailFire (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Commentary by editors who have not previously been involved in this dispute

• I'm not personally a big believer in the political spectrum, but many readers and commentators are, so I think it's useful to include a variety of measures of a political figure's placement on such spectrums. It can also be useful to include a variety of interest group assessments ("Jane Smith has a lifetime 85% rating from Americans for Eating Radishes", that sort of thing). Again, not perfect but usually tells you something. It's important to include a variety of these measures and metrics, not just one, and to use lifetime averages, or give the results for several years, as any particular year can easily be an outlier. For the three senators currently running, 2007 is especially problematic for such ratings, since they all missed a lot of votes due to campaigning and thus the sample size is even smaller than usual. Examples of the approach that I think is valid and useful are in Hillary Rodham Clinton#Political positions and Political positions of John McCain#Organizational ratings. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Editors could show their sincerity by visiting some articles about conservative politicians and removing the word "conservative" there. ;-) Steve Dufour (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  conservatives are generally proud of that label however- there are been no effort to find a "new" euphamism like there has been for liberal/progressive. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  How or whether Obama self-identifies on a party or spectrum basis is not really what was being asked here. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Neutral Point of View Flag

User:Scjessey admits that only favorable information is allowed on this page.

On his and my talk page, User:scjessey explains that only favorable information belongs on the Barack Obama page. Information about Obama's voting record, information about Obama's yearlong denial of his knowledge of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's sermons does not have "any place in the BLP. That should be on the campaign page, if anywhere." User:Scjessey talk

This of course is a clear admission that the Barrack Obama page violates the NPOV policy. Jwvoiland (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)jwvoiland

This article has been flagged for violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Jwvoiland (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)jwvoiland

Please paste here where Scjessey made the statements you claim he made. I see you accusing him of such but I'm missing the part where he states that no negative information may be added. Also, I think you are using the tag as a weapon because you are having a disagreement with other editors. Therefore, it should be removed. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree that Jwvoiland is using the neutrality tag as a weapon in a content dispute, a clear no-no among experienced editors. I presume this is because he/she is a new user with few edits. Let's not bite. --HailFire (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to remind everyone to comply with WP:3RR, to not edit war, and to use the dispute resolution process. If you find your additions being reverted by multiple users, chances are, your changes are not going to get in the article and you should really not revert it back into the article, but rather come to the talk page and try to work with the other editors to find a consensus. If you are still unable to get your content added to the article, proceed up the chain of dispute resolution. Conversely, for the editors that are reverting additions, please remember that consensus can change and don't automatically kill a discussion by saying, "We've already reached consensus on this!" Rather, point them to the consensus agreement and ask if they are willing to follow it. If they are not willing to comply and there isn't much interest on the page to rediscuss their changes, suggest they create an RFC. If they fail to comply by the consensus while they are trying to change the consensus, you should start down the disruptive editing path to get community and administrator support. This fairly constant fighting over content is unproductive and detrimental to the article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the tag for a second time, as there is no justification for it being there. Controversies regarding the presidential campaign are discussed in the article for the presidential campaign. Blocks will be issued for continued disruptive behavior. Grsz 11 17:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't put the tag back on. It's a featured article. It's highly viewed. Tagging is disruptive. Will ^(talk) 17:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I just came back from being out and found this little discussion. It seems pretty clear that I didn't say anything about only allowing favorable information on this article from my editing history. Anyway, it looks like someone else has taken care of this problem already. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, until tomorrow at least, if the user comes back and continues along the same tact, just pop over to AN/I and see if anyone is willing to implement some preventative measures again. The threshold is usually lower than four reverts if they are coming off a block for edit-warring. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The flag isn't necessary. Anyone who reads it, and compares it to the articles about George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton and John McCain, can easily see tha tit's an NPOV violation. Without criticism, it's a hagiography. Banishing controversial material to other articles that no one will ever read is a whitewash. Let's be neutral about the subject. Kossack4Truth (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree. The quality of an article has nothing to do with how it compares to other articles, and the key criticisms of Obama (Rezko, Wright) have been adequately covered. Besides, the three individuals you are comparing Obama too are more worthy of criticism by a considerable margin. Have you considered that the reason the article contains little criticism is because there is little to criticize about Obama? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

about Bahasa.

Bahasa is the national language of Indonesia. Bahasa is the popular synonym of Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian Language). Malaysia never stated Bahasa as their national language, because they have stated that Malay language and English as their national language.

I am strongly suggest to delete the world "Malaysian" in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.95.225 (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)