Talk:Barack Obama: Difference between revisions
m Signing comment by 98.220.39.44 - "→"Most Watched Convention Speech in History": " |
|||
Line 302: | Line 302: | ||
:Got a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] for that info? [[User:GlassCobra|<font color="002bb8">Glass</font>]]'''[[User talk:GlassCobra|<font color="002bb8">Cobra</font>]]''' 09:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC) |
:Got a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] for that info? [[User:GlassCobra|<font color="002bb8">Glass</font>]]'''[[User talk:GlassCobra|<font color="002bb8">Cobra</font>]]''' 09:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
Hmm, I think so...[http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=114&sid=1472337] <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/98.220.39.44|98.220.39.44]] ([[User talk:98.220.39.44|talk]]) 09:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Hmm, I think so...[http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=114&sid=1472337] <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/98.220.39.44|98.220.39.44]] ([[User talk:98.220.39.44|talk]]) 09:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
Quick re-read seems to indicate the numbers aren't apples to apples. Less networks for Palin speech, but not broken out in article. Maybe undeterminable. |
Revision as of 09:25, 5 September 2008
Template:Community article probation
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barack Obama article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83Auto-archiving period: 5 days |
Barack Obama is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 18, 2004. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
To view the response to a question, click the [show] link to the right of the question. Family and religious background Q1: Why isn't Barack Obama's Muslim heritage or education included in this article?
A1: Barack Obama was never a practitioner of Islam. His biological father having been "raised as a Muslim" but being a "confirmed atheist" by the time Obama was born is mentioned in the article. Please see this article on Snopes.com for a fairly in-depth debunking of the myth that Obama is Muslim. Barack Obama did not attend an Islamic or Muslim school while living in Indonesia age 6–10, but Roman Catholic and secular public schools. See [1], [2], [3] The sub-articles Public image of Barack Obama and Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories address this issue. Q2: The article refers to him as African American, but his mother is white and his black father was not an American. Should he be called African American, or something else ("biracial", "mixed", "Kenyan-American", "mulatto", "quadroon", etc.)?
A2: Obama himself and the media identify him, the vast majority of the time, as African American or black. African American is primarily defined as "citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa", a statement that accurately describes Obama and does not preclude or negate origins in the white populations of America as well. Thus we use the term African American in the introduction, and address the specifics of his parentage in the first headed section of the article. Many individuals who identify as black have varieties of ancestors from many countries who may identify with other racial or ethnic groups. See our article on race for more information on this concept. We could call him the first "biracial" candidate or the first "half black half white" candidate or the first candidate with a parent born in Africa, but Wikipedia is a tertiary source which reports what other reliable sources say, and most of those other sources say "first African American". Readers will learn more detail about his ethnic background in the article body. Q3: Why can't we use his full name outside of the lead? It's his name, isn't it?
A3: The relevant part of the Manual of Style says that outside the lead of an article on a person, that person's conventional name is the only one that's appropriate. (Thus one use of "Richard Milhous Nixon" in the lead of Richard Nixon, "Richard Nixon" thereafter.) Talk page consensus has also established this. Q4: Why is Obama referred to as "Barack Hussein Obama II" in the lead sentence rather than "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr."? Isn't "Jr." more common?
A4: Although "Jr." is typically used when a child shares the name of his or her parent, "II" is considered acceptable, as well. And in Obama's case, the usage on his birth certificate is indeed "II", and is thus the form used at the beginning of this article, per manual of style guidelines on names. Q5: Why don't we cover the claims that Obama is not a United States citizen, his birth certificate was forged, he was not born in Hawaii, he is ineligible to be President, etc?
A5: The Barack Obama article consists of an overview of major issues in the life and times of the subject. The controversy over his eligibility, citizenship, birth certificate etc is currently a fairly minor issue in overall terms, and has had no significant legal or mainstream political impact. It is therefore not currently appropriate for inclusion in an overview article. These claims are covered separately in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Controversies, praise, and criticism Q6: Why isn't there a criticisms/controversies section?
A6: Because a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praise and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per the Criticism essay. Q7: Why isn't a certain controversy/criticism/praise included in this article?
A7: Wikipedia's Biography of living persons policy says that "[c]riticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." Criticism or praise that cannot be reliably sourced cannot be placed in a biography. Also, including everything about Obama in a single article would exceed Wikipedia's article size restrictions. A number of sub-articles have been created and some controversies/criticisms/praises have been summarized here or been left out of this article altogether, but are covered in some detail in the sub-articles. Q8: But this controversy/criticism/praise is all over the news right now! It should be covered in detail in the main article, not buried in a sub-article!
A8: Wikipedia articles should avoid giving undue weight to something just because it is in the news right now. If you feel that the criticism/controversy/praise is not being given enough weight in this article, you can try to start a discussion on the talk page about giving it more. See WP:BRD. Q9: This article needs much more (or much less) criticism/controversy.
A9: Please try to assume good faith. Like all articles on Wikipedia, this article is a work in progress so it is possible for biases to exist at any point in time. If you see a bias that you wish to address, you are more than welcome to start a new discussion, or join in an existing discussion, but please be ready to provide sources to support your viewpoint and try to keep your comments civil. Starting off your discussion by accusing the editors of this article of having a bias is the quickest way to get your comment ignored. Talk and article mechanics Q10: This article is over 275kb long, and the article size guideline says that it should be broken up into sub-articles. Why hasn't this happened?
A10: The restriction mentioned in WP:SIZE is 60kB of readable prose, not the byte count you see when you open the page for editing. As of May 11, 2016, this article had about 10,570 words of readable prose (65 kB according to prosesize tool), only slightly above the guideline. The rest is mainly citations and invisible comments, which do not count towards the limit. Q11: I notice this FAQ mentions starting discussions or joining in on existing discussions a lot. If Wikipedia is supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, shouldn't I just be bold and fix any biases that I see in the article?
A11: It is true that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and no one needs the permission of other editors of this article to make changes to it. But Wikipedia policy is that, "While the consensus process does not require posting to the discussion page, it can be useful and is encouraged." This article attracts editors that have very strong opinions about Obama (positive and negative) and these editors have different opinions about what should and should not be in the article, including differences as to appropriate level of detail. As a result of this it may be helpful, as a way to avoid content disputes, to seek consensus before adding contentious material to or removing it from the article. Q12: The article/talk page has been vandalized! Why hasn't anyone fixed this?
A12: Many editors watch this article, and it is unlikely that vandalism would remain unnoticed for long. It is possible that you are viewing a cached result of the article; If so, try bypassing your cache. Q13: Why are so many discussions closed so quickly?
A13: Swift closure is common for topics that have already been discussed repeatedly, topics pushing fringe theories, and topics that would lead to violations of Wikipedia's policy concerning biographies of living persons, because of their disruptive nature and the unlikelihood that consensus to include the material will arise from the new discussion. In those cases, editors are encouraged to read this FAQ for examples of such common topics. Q14: I added new content to the article, but it was removed!
A14: Double-check that your content addition is not sourced to an opinion blog, editorial, or non-mainstream news source. Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons states, in part, "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims." Sources of information must be of a very high quality for biographies. While this does not result in an outright ban of all blogs and opinion pieces, most of them are regarded as questionable. Inflammatory or potentially libelous content cited to a questionable source will be removed immediately without discussion. Q15: I disagree with the policies and content guidelines that prevent my proposed content from being added to the article.
A15: That's understandable. Wikipedia is a work in progress. If you do not approve of a policy cited in the removal of content, it's possible to change it. Making cogent, logical arguments on the policy's talk page is likely to result in a positive alteration. This is highly encouraged. However, this talk page is not the appropriate place to dispute the wording used in policies and guidelines. If you disagree with the interpretation of a policy or guideline, there is also recourse: Dispute resolution. Using the dispute resolution process prevents edit wars, and is encouraged. Q16: I saw someone start a discussion on a topic raised by a blog/opinion piece, and it was reverted!
A16: Unfortunately, due to its high profile, this talk page sees a lot of attempts to argue for policy- and guideline-violating content – sometimes the same violations many times a day. These are regarded as disruptive, as outlined above. Consensus can change; material previously determined to be unacceptable may become acceptable. But it becomes disruptive and exhausting when single-purpose accounts raise the same subject(s) repeatedly in the apparent hopes of overcoming significant objections by other editors. Editors have reached a consensus for dealing with this behavior:
Other Q17: Why aren't the 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns covered in more detail?
A17: They are, in sub-articles called Barack Obama 2008 presidential campaign and Barack Obama 2012 presidential campaign. Things that are notable in the context of the presidential campaigns, but are of minimal notability to Barack Obama's overall biography, belong in the sub-articles. Campaign stops, the presidential debates, and the back-and-forth accusations and claims of the campaigns can all be found there. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
Administrators have identified this article as problematic with regard to our biographies of living persons policy. In order to avoid placing special enforcement sanctions, which may include blocks, deletions, page protections, topic/article bans, and "any and all means at their [administrators] disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy", users are asked to take special care in editing this article to ensure it remains in compliance with policy.
If you violate biographies of living persons policy you may receive a warning and explanation on your talk page. If you again violate biographies of living persons policy, you may be blocked, banned or otherwise sanctioned with limited rights of appeal. Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious. Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies. |
This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barack Obama article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83Auto-archiving period: 5 days |
Website?
I think this should be in the section where it shows his website. The Obama for Illinois senator is old and outdated. http://www.barackobama.com/splash/first_to_know.html user:chasesboys
A couple comments
Howdy. I was wondering if {{reflist|2}} was ever discussed as an option for the article? According to the template's page it is suggested against using 3 columns. Also, it appears that the usage of the {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} and {{FAQ}} on this talk page are currently bugged somehow. They don't appear to be collapsing like they should be. I copied the related text over to my sandbox's talk page, and they both collapse fine there.--Rockfang (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- The article has been using
{{reflist|2}}
until this edit yesterday by Smuckers, and I have no objection to it being reverted. I don't have any experience with the collapsing sections myself. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The reason I changed it was because it looks nicer, reflist|2 is too crowded since the article is "carefully" referenced, reflist|3 looks cleaner and makes the article shorter. it is important to keep the article short as possible since it's becoming {{toolong}} I have added a {{verylongsection}} to the reference section. Have a nice day Smuckers It has to be good 17:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- Not all browsers have the ability to display columns like that anyway. I think it best left at
{{reflist|2}}
per guidelines. The{{verylongsection}}
tag does not apply to references, and the article is nowhere near "too long" according to WP:LENGTH. "Readable prose" currently stands at 31 kB (5038 words). -- Scjessey (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)- Internet Explorer does not display columns at all, and 3 or more columns looks terrible on small or portable displays. This is all being discussed at Template talk:Reflist currently. (That's the gist). -- Quiddity (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Update: I just copied the whole upper section to my Sandbox's talk page, and there, they all properly collapse. Any ideas?--Rockfang (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- The issue with the sections not collapsing was probably due to an error in {{WikiProject Politics}} that caused a broken link to appear on pages which have a /Comments subpage, which makes IE7's jscript crash if certain gadgets are enabled; this same issue came up recently at Template talk:WikiProjectBannerShell#Broken?. I've made the correction to {{WikiProject Politics}}, let me know at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#collapsing boxes if it didn't work. Anomie⚔ 23:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
mixed race
agian why do i have to keep putting this up here just coz your are so naive the way i've changed it here:- He is considered the first African American (although he is mixed-Race) to be a major political party's nominee for this office
sounds fine he's NOT afican amercian yes people alway call him that as he wants to help his votes, with out his racial backround his campian isn't strong enough he uses that to help him (anyone that says different is ling) by putting that he's afican amercian your inoring his mothers side and help with the naive people out there people, belive it or not people read wikipedia for information and you adding that here is why so many people wrongy think his race is different to what it is, mariah carey is the same race as obama (her dads an non american black man, her moms white-amercian) but if she went around says she afican american people wouldn't belivie her saying shes mixed race instead its unfair to exclude someones race (weather its mariah actually been half black, or obama been half white) read the part above in italic i thinks thats totally fine way to put it it fair on everyone that way. look at other peoples Bios like Lewis Hamilton or Halle Berrys mixed race people that are like obama made history as "the first black person" in something but also like obama is mixed so read theres it might help the way we write this, the only reason so many people don't think hes black is coz wqebsites like this adding one tiny little sentance with ( ) isn't that big of a deal, why do so many people here have a probablem with telling the truth in stead of ling.Veggiegirl (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- This issue has been discussed many times and we've reached a decision. Read the FAQ - above
- Wikipedia's main content criteria here are neutrality and verifiability. There is no reasonable question about his ancestry. We all know that. The vast majority of sources, including Obama himself, call him "African American." Many blacks in America are mixed race, many whites and Asians too. Race is a complicated thing. We go with the standard language here, and it is standard to call Obama African-American.
- If you want to change the way people talk about race Wikipedia isn't the best place to start. Wikipedia is at the end of the pipeline, not the start. We reprint what other people say, we do not make it up here.
- Please do not accuse other editors of ling
- I think you have a reasonable point that makes a lot of sense, but we just happen to have decided to go the other way. It wasn't a racist thing, just a way to keep the article standard. His mixed race heritage is discussed though, just not in the first sentence.
- New comments go on the bottom of the page
Hope that helps. Wikidemon (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ummm... If you have "one drop" of non-white blood you are considered non-white in almost all of the American South. Obama *is* an African American just like I am a German American though only my mother's side was entirely German... Though even there if you go back far enough they were Dutch, and then Franks, and they all came out of Africa at one time. This is not really a matter of genetics, it is a matter of identity, and he may define himself as it suits him. Just like you would not nit-pick a woman calling herself a lesbian just because she once slept with a guy when she was in High School. So; Get over it. --BenBurch (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- That was directed at the people who keep changing it, BTW, not the commentator it follows. --BenBurch (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- No offense taken. I'm happy to get over it and stop ling. Wikidemon (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- I moved this section back down to the bottom of the talk page where it should be. I also agree with the two users above. Everyone is so mixed race (I can count at least five other countries in my background) that the real question is what the person identifies themselves as. Barack Obama identifies as African America. Like others have said before, all this is covered in the FAQ section. Brothejr (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
so what if obama identified himself as mixed race? I've seen other unreferenced articles of people from mixed heritage that state they are biracial or mixed race when there's no tertiary source to justify it... Invertedzero —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
...or should these go straight to the disambiguation pages? Dalejenkins | 21:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
My druthers is that they both redirect here. DRJ (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes they should Smuckers It has to be good 22:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Easily the most notable article for either names. --GoodDamon 23:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- That's not an argument at all. Does Elton link to Elton John? No
- Does Angelina link to Angelina Jolie? No
- Does Clooney link to George Clooney? No
- Does Izzard link to Eddie Izzard? No
- I call for a re-direct to the disambiguation pages. Dalejenkins | 00:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, see also McCain. Cenarium Talk 01:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- That's not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS at all. That's an AFD policy. I'm just saying that we should follow suit with other articles and not be so USA-biased. Dalejenkins | 07:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not restricted in usage to AFDs any more. This is not USA-centric. Targets of redirects are based on the visibility of the pages. Cenarium Talk 12:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- To elaborate, you'll note that Jolie redirects to Angelina Jolie. So again, this should be discussed on a case by case basis. Here, I think that considering how frequently the entry Barack Obama is viewed compared to the pages Barack (disambiguation), Obama (disambiguation) and their relative, makes the choice quite easy. The same goes for McCain. Cenarium Talk 02:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- That's not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS at all. That's an AFD policy. I'm just saying that we should follow suit with other articles and not be so USA-biased. Dalejenkins | 07:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, see also McCain. Cenarium Talk 01:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- I think it should go to a disambiguation page. This may be curmudgeony but people ought to learn how to use the search bar. If we bend over backward for people who can't be bothered to specify the full name of who they're looking for we're encouraging a bad habit. Wikidemon (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm with Wikidemon and Dalejenkins here. A DAB page is better. Not all the world is the USA, and the name has other meanings. And extra click required of the lazy isn't so much to demand.LotLE×talk 03:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Let me clarify my own comment. I think a redirect to Barack Obama by last name is reasonable (but wouldn't object to going to the DAB page). However, on first name the DAB page is definitely, strongly more appropriate. I'm sure examples in both directions can be located (I'm not sure, for example, what all those firstname-only singers have), but an unusual last name seems reasonable to associate with its most common holder... as long as the DAB notice is at the top of that article. First name is just too informal to do that. LotLE×talk 03:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- So we'll change Barack, but not the Obama? Dalejenkins | 10:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. No reason has been given as to why to change the redirects. The Barack Obama is the most likely destination of users who search for these terms, and so to move the redirects would be more ineffective despite claims of this being a 'world view'. Harro5 10:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- "Barack Obama is the most likely destination of users who search for these terms" - how do you know that? Dalejenkins | 10:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- According to http://stats.grok.se/, Barack_Obama has been viewed 1 350 292 times in June and Obama_(disambiguation) has been viewed 6 203 times in June (the first number is probably much higher nowadays), while Obama has been viewed 134 130 times, so it confirms that Barack Obama is the most likely destination for a search at Obama. Now for Barack, the numbers are not determinant. Actually, a redirect to the dab page may be justified here. Cenarium Talk 14:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not a huge fan of using pageview numbers to justify things like this. One can throw around impressive-sounding numbers, that don't really directly relate to the situation at hand in any meaningful way (unless grok also states the intent of the visitor?). I prefer to go by what links to the redirect. And, this says that one mainspace article links to Barak, and, the context of the link is actually supportive of it linking to a disambig page. SQLQuery me! 14:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Additionally, of the 15 pages that link to Obama (History_of_Wikipedia, Amber_Benson, Bob_Barr, Robert_L._Johnson, V._Gopalswamy, Webster_Tarpley, Timothy_Davlin, Reliability_of_Wikipedia, United States presidential election, 2008 timeline, Global_Language_Monitor, Pete Miser, T-Shirt Hell, Obama Works), all fifteen are in the context of the senator, and, should likely link here. SQLQuery me! 14:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Obama does not hold kenyan citizenship
there are rumours that obama holds kenyan citizenship, for example http://www.politicalgateway.com/main/columns/read.html?col=731
However, he is not, as if someone is born abroad to a kenyan father, they only obtain kenyan citizenship if they were born in or after 1963. Obama was born in 1961. Also, if a Kenyan citizen holds another nationality aswell as kenyan citizenship, he or she automatically loses his/her kenyan citizenship at the age of 23. Since Obama was a US citizen at the age of 23, this is another reason he does not hold Kenyan citizenship. Here is my reference for that statement: http://www.kenyahighcommission.net/passports.html
Is this worthy of inclusion in the article? some feedback would be goodGuitar3000 (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Nah, don't include. Dispelling every rumor about a non-fact is a matter of tilting at windmills. Even the brief blurb about his misperception as being Muslim feels slightly out of place, though I think that was included by way of reference to his actual Christianity in an OK way. I guess we might be able to clarify that he is a USA citizen if that is not sufficiently prominent (but probably it already is). LotLE×talk 17:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Illinois "13th District"
The section on his State Senate service says he's from the "13th district", but it links to the Illinois 13th Congressional District in the US House of Representatives, not the Illinois State Senate. Could someone who knows more about IL politics than I do fix that so it's right? \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 02:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- It is my understanding that State senate positions follow congressional districts in Illinois, and this is supported by the sources that always seem to refer to Obama (and Palmer before him) being in the 13th Congressional District. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Clarification of 2008 campaign tax plan
Currently the description here indicates that Obama would repeal tax cuts for those making over $250,000 which is a bit misleading. It is my understanding that the provisions of EGTRRA and JGTRRA will expire in 2010 and Obama's plan would renew most of the provisions of EGTRRA/JGTRRA expect those impacting the rates for individuals with incomes over $250,000. Perhaps this summary should be a bit more specific (accurate) on this issue? Jogurney (talk) 04:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Obama is NOT half white
Obama's mother has native american descent. This means the strongest ancestry in his blood is black african. Why is this not mentioned?YVNP (talk) 10:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
>>> Well, you can say his mother was Native American and so he is not white, but that doesn't make him more black, that makes him less white and more Native American... and... was she? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.5.19 (talk) 05:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Currently Barack Obama identifies as an African American. We use the general term White American to cover his mother's descent and not delve deeply into his mother's ancestry. This article is also written in an outline style that only covers the basics and most important information about Obama, leaving the rest to daughter articles to delve deeper into the various subjects. While it may or may not be true that he has native American ancestry, it does not merit a mention in the article. If we mentioned every single facet of his ancestry delving way back to the middle ages, the page would be triple the length that it is now. It is also important to use the identity that Obama himself chooses to associate with and not apply the various other things that people tag onto him, that he himself does not use. Brothejr (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Does that matter? LTIC the One drop rule still meant he is legaly black. --Deuxhero (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- We're here to describe not prescribe what his identity is. .:davumaya:. 05:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Does that matter? LTIC the One drop rule still meant he is legaly black. --Deuxhero (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
References
Make the references part two columns please.--212.175.40.242 (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- They are in two columns already. Older, less standards-compliant browsers may not support multiple column CSS. Get Mozilla Firefox! -- Scjessey (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Or Safari 3. --frogger3140 (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Finance Section Request
I would love to see some detailed information on Obama's finances, if someone has the time to do some digging. I don't think the 1.3 million net worth figure is still accurate, though I understand that the generally accepted value right now. Icaruspassion (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- If you have a reliable source that contradicts the reliable source we currently have for the $1.3 million, you are more than welcome to update the figure. Until then, there isn't much we can do. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, MSN reports [...]Since then his wealth has ballooned, notably due to sales of two books, "Dreams From My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope." In 2007, he collected royalties of $815,971 on the former and $3,278,719 on the latter[...]
- And the revenue from his books is widely reported and documented. --Icaruspassion (talk) 04:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- That MSN article states that his net worth is between $2,022,016 and $7,356,000. I am not sure whether that is good enough for use in the article. However, that range is $5,333,985--not an accurate figure. However, that evidence contradicts the $1.3m figure from Money magazine... Any ideas on how to deal with this? —Kanodin 05:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- What his net worth is right now is not important. The number reported relates to the tax return that was made publicly available, and it can be updated when the next return is released. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- That MSN article states that his net worth is between $2,022,016 and $7,356,000. I am not sure whether that is good enough for use in the article. However, that range is $5,333,985--not an accurate figure. However, that evidence contradicts the $1.3m figure from Money magazine... Any ideas on how to deal with this? —Kanodin 05:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Obama and gay marriage
Since Obama's church (United Church of christ) strongly favours gay marriage, it would be very interresting to know his position about the subjectMitch1981 (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- This is not the place to ask such questions; however, you can find the information you are looking for here: Political positions of Barack Obama#LGBT issues -- Scjessey (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Signature
He really has a fancy signature. Where did you get it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.173.72.253 (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Barack_Obama_signature.svg (ultimately from the Senate web site). The source of any image on Wikipedia can be found by clicking on the image. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Question about Legislation
"Obama voted in favor of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and cosponsored the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act.[55] In September 2006, Obama supported a related bill, the Secure Fence Act.[56] Obama introduced two initiatives bearing his name: "Lugar–Obama," which expanded the Nunn–Lugar cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons,[57] and the "Coburn–Obama Transparency Act," which authorized the establishment of www.USAspending.gov, a web search engine.[58]"
Should the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act be included in this list as it was never put into law? All the other acts listed in this paragraph were passed by the Congress and signed by the President. Including the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act in this context may give the reader the impression that it was enacted into law. There are many other pieces of legislature that Senator Obama sponsored that were also not enacted into law. Why are some of them not included or why is this one piece of dead legislature included?
I would like to suggest that the reference to the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act either be removed or earmarked as dead legislation. Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- The purpose of this article is to describe Obama and his actions, not Congress's actions. If a Bill isn't passed, perhaps it should be labeled as a 'Bill', not an 'Act'. Flatterworld (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- A failed bill can well be important to a politician if it's something they actively worked for. I don't have any specific background on how much this bill was important for Obama, but let's discuss the specifics of that association rather than the abstract (incorrect) principle that only passed legislation mattered to the bio subject. LotLE×talk 17:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Controversy re: Rezco/Ayers
What about Obama's alleged ties to Rezco and Bill Ayers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.201.111 (talk • contribs)
(Comment restored after total brain failure and Twinkle-madness on my part -- Scjessey (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC))
- These two issues appear to be speculative in news stories that have yet to gain a formal influence on Obama's life. To talk about them in the article now would be a crystal ball of a poor synthesis. It would be the same as a "controversy" with Louis Farrakhan. These issues if they come to light may be better placed in 2008 general election. .:davumaya:. 16:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Is that you, Megapen? If so, you spelled Rezko wrong again. The answer to your question can be found above and in any of the several dozen recent archives where this has been discussed. It is a violation of WP:UNDUE, and wholly innappropriate for this article. The Ayers controversy in mentioned in the article on Obama's campaign, where it belongs. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Use of National Journal's flawed study to summarize Obama's 2007 senate career
Section U.S. Senator, 2005–present reads "the National Journal ranked him as the "most liberal" senator based on an assessment of selected votes during 2007."
That study was selectively bias, and doesn't serve as a neutral summary of Obama's 2007 senate career. Here is an article from Media Matters with more detail (and links to even more detail) explaining the bias of the study;
...as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, the National Journal based its rankings, not on all votes cast by senators in 2007, but on "99 key Senate votes selected by National Journal reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale." In contrast, a study by political science professors Keith Poole and Jeff Lewis, using every non-unanimous vote cast in the Senate in 2007 to determine relative ideology, placed Obama in a tie for the 10th most liberal senator.[4]
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- archiving per WP:NOT#FORUM - Wikidemon (talk) 06:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Bastard Child
Does anyone know if Obama was born out of wedlock, and is a "bastard" child?
How Muslim is he Anyway?
I would like more insights about how much time he studied in a Muslim school, what his views on Islam are, and why he says he is "not" Muslim, and why a lot of Americans beleive that deep inside, yes he is.
Does anyone know if there is any tie, or if some people would have us bleive there is a tie, between how Muslim he is with the fact he wants to "talk to Iran" and Syria and all these other foreign policies he has that just... SEEM to be very pro-fundamentalist? I am not giving an opinion on whether or not they ARE, I would just like to know more about the subject and think it is of superb importance to talk about it in the article.
24.27.130.12 (talk) 05:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- According to this, Obama's parents were indeed married; however, Obama Sr. had another wife back in Africa. GlassCobra 05:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hello. Thanks for your interest in Obama, the subject of this article. The answers to the questions you ask are probably found on Wikipedia by paging through this articles and various others linked to it, and then clicking on the sources used to verify the material in the articles. All of the strong sources we have show that Obama is Christian, not Muslim, although if you go back a generation or two to different parts of his family, some of his relatives were and are Muslim. If you want additional material there are a number of biographies, autobiographies, and news articles about Obama. This is not really the place to ask questions of a general nature - this page is for suggesting improvements to the article and it gets distracting if we turn it into a general forum for discussing politics (there is a policy on that - WP:NOT#FORUM. Hope that helps. Wikidemon (talk) 06:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
"Most Watched Convention Speech in History"
Should this sentence be removed now that the numbers for the Palin speech have been reported as over 40 million? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.39.44 (talk) 09:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Got a reliable source for that info? GlassCobra 09:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I think so...[5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.39.44 (talk) 09:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Quick re-read seems to indicate the numbers aren't apples to apples. Less networks for Palin speech, but not broken out in article. Maybe undeterminable.
- Wikipedia featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Biography articles of living people
- Active politicians
- FA-Class biography articles
- FA-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Mid-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- FA-Class U.S. Congress articles
- High-importance U.S. Congress articles
- WikiProject U.S. Congress persons
- FA-Class WikiProject Illinois articles
- Top-importance WikiProject Illinois articles
- FA-Class Hawaii articles
- Mid-importance Hawaii articles
- WikiProject Hawaii articles
- FA-Class Chicago articles
- Top-importance Chicago articles
- WikiProject Chicago articles
- FA-Class African diaspora articles
- Low-importance African diaspora articles
- WikiProject African diaspora articles
- FA-Class politics articles
- High-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- Unassessed United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- Unassessed United States articles of Low-importance
- Unassessed United States presidential elections articles
- Unknown-importance United States presidential elections articles
- WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press