Jump to content

Talk:Barack Obama Sr.: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 262: Line 262:
I searched the Arabic Wiki and none of the Arabic character phrases I list above are found in the article. [[User:Alatari|Alatari]] ([[User talk:Alatari|talk]]) 03:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I searched the Arabic Wiki and none of the Arabic character phrases I list above are found in the article. [[User:Alatari|Alatari]] ([[User talk:Alatari|talk]]) 03:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


:Well, there's debate whether the origin of the name in his case is even Arabic or some other Semitic variation. But seeing as how he wasn't Arabic and didn't come from an Arabic-speaking country, it doesn't seem to have much relevance to this article. --[[User:Loonymonkey|Loonymonkey]] ([[User talk:Loonymonkey|talk]]) 19:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
:Well, there's debate whether the origin of the name in his case is even Arabic or some other Semitic variation. But seeing as how he wasn't Arabic and didn't come from an Arabic-speaking country, it doesn't seem to have much relevance to this article. --[[User:Loonymonkey|Loonymonkey]] ([[User


::If people are wanting to come here and read about the English translation of his first name then it's relevant. [[Special:Contributions/71.86.156.73|71.86.156.73]] ([[User talk:71.86.156.73|talk]]) 15:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
If people are wanting to come here and read about the English translation of his first name then it's relevant. The script of Swahili was originally in Arabic... Much of Swahili is borrowed from Arabic because of the trade and proximity to Arabia. So was this name borrowed from Muslim tradition or was it just a popular name at the time? He was a professed Muslim at least for a time. [[Special:Contributions/71.86.156.73|71.86.156.73]] ([[User talk:71.86.156.73|talk]]) 15:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


:::There is no English translation. His name is spelled "Barack." --[[User:Loonymonkey|Loonymonkey]] ([[User talk:Loonymonkey|talk]]) 15:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
:::There is no English translation. His name is spelled "Barack." --[[User:Loonymonkey|Loonymonkey]] ([[User talk:Loonymonkey|talk]]) 15:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Cite your source that his name has no meaning or his parents meant none. [[Special:Contributions/71.86.156.73|71.86.156.73]] ([[User talk:71.86.156.73|talk]]) 15:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:43, 7 July 2009

WikiProject iconBiography: Politics and Government Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group.
WikiProject iconAfrica: Kenya Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Kenya (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconBarack Obama (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

Template:Pbneutral


The First Name

In the article he published in the East Africa Journal in 1965, which is mentioned in this Wikipedia article, Obama Sr. signed his named Barak H. Obama. (not Barack). See http://kwani.org/main/problems-facing-our-socialism-barak-h-obama/ and many other web links to he article. This may mean that his first name in Kenya was Barak, not Barack, and that he changed its spelling to Barack when he came to the U.S. or before he married Ann Dunham. I have tried to insert text to this effect in the article, but it was removed. I have no idea why. Can anyone please enlighten me? Thanks.

--Groucho (talk) 11:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recreated version

Please note that this page had been in the past been redirected per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Hussein Obama Sr. A new good-faith draft was created at Barack Obama Sr. and has now been moved here as history merge per a request at WP:RM, but also so that its merits as standalone article can be discussed. --Tikiwont (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

intro

I am not convinced that this should be a separate article, but if it is we need to be clear that his notability is strictly as Barack Obama's father. The lede has been reworked to reflect that - his position as an economist for the Kenyan government would not yield an article, so it is not the lead sentence. Also I included "absent" because he did not raise his son, and was not present for his growing up - they saw each other only once after he left the family. Tvoz |talk 05:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word "absent" seems out of place to me in the lede. It seems too soon in the article to get into the amount of time he spent with his son (which wasn't much, but wasn't nothing either). --Allen (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was pretty close to nothing; there was no ongoing relationship at all after he left when son was 2 yrs old. That's absent, and why I think his notabilty for a separate article is questionable. Tvoz |talk 05:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"biological father" might be better than "absent father". This precisely defines the relationship by distinguishing the fellow from Obama's stepfather; in American English to have an "absent father" implies that the child does not have a father in the house (which Obama did ... a stepfather) and also has an inappropriately judgmental ring to it. rewinn (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Obama himself refers to his biological father as being "absent" - it's not my word, nor am I am being judgmental about it. The problem with "biological" alone is it doesn't speak to the salient point of whether or not he was a part of his son's life, which I think should be in the lede. (Also, note that Barack only had a stepfather "in the house" for the few years he lived in Indonesia - for the majority of his growing up there was no father, biological or step, in his house or in his life.) I have no problem with using "biological", but I'd like to also get in that lede sentence the fact that Obama Sr. was not a part of the son's life after age 2. The details of Obama Sr's life beyond Barack from age 0-2 should be seen in that context - which I think "absent" expresses. So I'd be fine with "absent biological father" or anything else that gets at what I'm talking about. Tvoz |talk 16:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bioglogical father is correct. The fact that biological had to be added implies that he was absent. In the for what it's worth department he did have a male in the household from age 10 on when his white maternal grandparents Stanley Dunham and [Madelyn Dunham]] raised him in Hawaii while his mother was off globe trotting. Americasroof (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot presume he is the biological father. Hence absent father is better. You don't have to comment on the scandal of it all if you don't want to. But you are obliged not to lie and mislead people, or to claim knowledge that you do not have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.183.191 (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say there was no male in the house, I responded to your the incorrect statement that his stepfather was the "father" in the house, that's all. And adding "biological" implies that there was another father, which was only true for a short time. Tvoz |talk 23:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Biological father" doesn't seem right to me either. I usually hear that term used in the context of adoption, when the person referred to as "father" is different from the "biological father." I think the lede should refer to Obama Sr. simply as the senator's "father," which is what his son usually calls him. --Allen (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I said "absent" in the first place. Tvoz |talk 23:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's separate the two words. Tvoz, I can't tell whether you agree with me that "biological" should go... what do you think? As for "absent," I am okay with the new sentence you inserted... I wouldn't have put it in the lede myself, but it is factual and neutral and gets the point across. Can we therefore remove the word "absent?" I think it is too subjective and I agree with Rewinn that it has a judgmental ring to it. --Allen (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm o.k. the way it's written. Here's another example Leslie Lynch King, Sr, the father of Gerald Ford. I am curious if the father even paid a dime of child support.Americasroof (talk) 07:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[out] Allen - I can go either way. If you and others feel strongly about it, it's ok with me to remove either or both "absent" and "biological", but only if the sentence (or a similar one) remains in the lede about his not being there to raise Barack. I think this is important to be included in the lede as his paternity is the only reason the article exists at all, but his notability is questionable to me seeing as how little he actually had to do with Barack. Hope this clarifies - it's late, so I can't tell if it's coherent enough. Tvoz |talk 07:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tvoz. I'm removing "absent" and "biological" and leaving your new sentence. Americasroof, you said you were okay with the way it is now but you didn't say if you'd be okay with the change I'm making. Let us know if you're not. I think the Gerald Ford case is different, because our article suggests he was informally adopted by Gerald Ford, Sr... meaning "biological father" is useful for distinguishing King from Ford's adoptive (sort of) father. --Allen (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lead still establishes that he was not in the picture for that long so I'm o.k. with it. Americasroof (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

While this fellow is not the most notable person in the world, he *is* the main subject of a bestselling book by a leading political figure. Whether reasonable or not, the interest in him seems far to exceed that in the parents of other celebrities, e.g. Bill Clinton's father. Thus I would suggest he is sufficiently notable for his own article. rewinn (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Obama Jr. is never elected President, his father is notable on two accounts (1) he's the subject of the # 1 bestseller on college campus bookstores (according to the Chronicle of Higher Education) and (2) he was the senior economist of a national government (Kenya). Bearian (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many books written by notable people about people who aren't very notable. And although Barack is notable, nobody talks about the book that mentions his father. His best known work is his other book "The Audacity of Hope". Simply being talked about in a book or being mentioned by the media is something many people have gone through, many of which aren't considered notable enough to be given an article. He should be mentioned in the artcles Barack Obama and other minor articles relaed to him, but not given his own. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I actually think that there's no real need to have this separate article, but it is simply not true that "no one talks about the book that mentions his father" - it more than mentions his father, it is about his father and what he thinks about his father and his childhood, and it is talked about a great deal. Tvoz/talk 03:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of that, I think the title and article imply that he's a major part of this book, and I wasn't trying to make light of that. What I'm saying is that this guy is already talked about in other articles where it's right for him to be included, but that there is no need for him to have his own article. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 05:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's quite notable in the sense that people want to know who Barack Obama, Jr's father is. Everyone out there in the right wing conspiracy circles was throwing claims about how Barack Obama Jr's a Muslim. Where does this come from? His Father! I personally side with Colin Powel's comments that religion should not matter, but its a focal point for many people in the USA and the world. A persons belief system in many cases has roots in his or her parents and upbringing. By knowing more about Obama Sr, we learn more about Obama, Jr. Its where Jr. gets his middle name, "Hussein". Moreover, President-Elect Obama wrote a book about Sr. Obama Sr. was an official in the Kenyan government. Yes, Obama Sr. is more notable than alot of other people that have pages here in Wikipedia. So the article should stay and be expanded so we can see what the relationship was between this man and the current President-Elect of the USA, Barack Obama, II. 98.119.212.174 (talk) 07:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nyangoma-Kogelo

This article claims that Nyangoma-Kogelo is in Siaya District, while Barack Obama claims that is in Bondo District. Which one is it? Bash Kash (talk) 04:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you believe both are correct? At the time of Senior's birth Kyongoma-Kogelo was in Siaya District, but since then it has changed to Bondo District. --Bobblehead (rants) 03:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I figured that. :-) Which one should we use on Wikipedia? (for consistency) Bash Kash (talk) 05:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can do both, using "(now in....)" rewinn (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete article

I propose this article be deleted. He is not notable. ObamaGirlMachine (talk) 01:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support deleting. Not notable and there is no reason to think the person this article is about will be notable in the future WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Being mentioned a few times by the media doesn't make you notable. I'm using this same argument for all biography articles being nominated for deletion that are related to Barack Obama, it's clear that Michelle Obama is the only notable person given an article, the others all seem to be fluff. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - ObamaGirlmachine (above) is a problematic and potentially disruptive new WP:SPA account that has been canvassing others to come to this and other pages in an attempt to delete articles for Obama family members. Suggest speedy closure if these articles are nominated. - Wikidemo (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose. My reasoning is this: Some in the public forum categorize him, Barack Hussein Obama II, (connoted or substituted as "accuse him") as Muslim. Barack Hussein Obama II is at the forefront of the public media (as of this writing October 29, 2008 @ 05:03h EST) through mostly western accessed medium. Although this categorization should be of no affect, there still exist many in the public who perpetuate the sentiment that being a Muslim harbours some potential for malfeasance. Regardless of this fact, as long as this sentiment is carried, it is in the public interest that his lineage and association be open to the public, whether for clarification or debate.

In addition Barack Hussein Obama II has made evident or notes in many public appearances, his sentiment and relationship (or lack thereof) with his father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. This inclusion into the public forum requires a reference to the validity of Barack Hussein Obama II's statements.

This topic and it's demand has been validated by Barack Hussein Obama II's inclusion of his father into the category of notable figures. It should be noted that the significance is not strong, however is sufficient in in maintaining this topic unless it is merged with that of Barack Hussein Obama II as a distinct sub-category, however such a result would be sub-optimal and contrary to who a notable figure is or how they shape first order relatives.

Religion

Since the religion field in the infobox was filled out yesterday with "Islam",[1] "Atheism" has been added,[2] taken off,[3] re-added,[4] and now "Islam" has been taken off.[5] Does anyone know what he was at the time of his death? I know he was raised in Islam, but was apparently an Atheist by the time Barack was born, but not sure if he shifted back to Islam when he returned to Kenya. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim

Why is there no mention of Barack Obama, Sr being a muslim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.223.51.70 (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because he was an atheist for at least a portion of his life (and it does mention his Islamic heritage).--67.176.175.133 (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is The fact that him being Muslim not mentioned, But the evidence to prove that he was Agnostic was quoted by his Daughter Auma. In which there is no mention of her through out the whole page. Worth taking a look at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.129.214 (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim, again

Just found a Daniel Pipes essay at Front Page Magazine that (if correct) cuts through this non-moslem nonsense. Both his fathers were in fact moslem. Which nevertheless is no crime. In Islam it is a crime to leave your faith for another faith, but for a moslem to become atheist is something else again. I do not imply, that Obama should see himself as a moslem--Radh (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Front Page "Magazine" is not a reliable source for anything other than the opinion of its authors. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC

Front page magazine is definitly not neutral. Is there any always reliable source in journalism? Even the NYT made mistakes. Obama Jr. sees himself as christian. When he is elected, the moslem countries will perhaps have other ideas and this might even work in his favour? -Radh (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama, Sr. will not be elected to any office. This is not a forum. Pls limit your comments to discussing how to improve the article at hand, based on Wikipedia standards. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article location

Should this be moved to "Barack Obama I" since his son is "Barack Obama II" and not "Barack Obama, Jr."?--67.176.175.133 (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No - he was not known as such and that will only confuse readers. Tvoz/talk 15:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal/old: March-April 2008

I do not think this article should be merged. Michelle Obama and Barack Obama Senior have their own wikipedia pages, even though they are solely famous by relationship to Senator Obama. I think his grandmother deserves her own page too, especially since she's being quoted more and more often in the media.

I would ask that the notability and merge tags be removed. GreekParadise (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Considering that George W. Bush's great-great grandfather has an article of his own, I believe that Barack Obama's step-grandmother, who is still alive and giving interviews to the press, is notable enough to warrant an article. --Tocino 05:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a problem, we could merge and redirect these lesser articles into a "Relatives of Barack Obama" article, and put a summary in the main Obama page with a link to the full article. That would be the most efficient, in my view. --Scharb 17:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scharb (talkcontribs)

I think that Sarah Obama plays a special role in Obama's life that the other Kenyan relatives do not play. There's a reason the media always goes to her for first comment. How about this compromise? We rename the "Sarah Obama" page to be "Sarah Obama and Barack Obama's relatives in Kenya." I think people are more likely to search for "Sarah Obama" than "Kenyan relatives of Barack Obama."GreekParadise (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's way too clumsy for a title (see WP:NAME). I'd agree with Scharb's suggestion, but unless editors of the other tiny sub articles for other relatives agree, there's no point in changing this one.Tvoz |talk 18:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal
What exactly is the July 2008 merge proposal? What are the reasons? Tvoz/talk 01:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a new discussion re keeping Sarah's bio separate/merging it somewhere/deleting it has emerged over here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Obama.   Justmeherenow (  ) 16:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC) Update: it's now here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Obama.   Justmeherenow (  ) 21:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama, Sr. or Barack Obama I

As the birth certificate of Barack Obama makes it evident that he is Barack Hussein Obama II, and not Barack Obama, Junior does this article fall under Barack Obama I or the significantly more common and used Barack Obama, Senior? –– Lid(Talk) 13:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest with you. I have absolutely no idea which is correct. As an Englishman, the whole "Junior/Senior" thing is something I am wholly unfamiliar with. In Britain, it is uncommon to be named for one's father, so the issue rarely arises. It is possible that the international nature of the Obama family means that the way they refer to themselves may be a mix of different standards. I have not read any of Obama's books, but these may provide guidance on this issue. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does not come up because he doesn't refer to himself as "Junior" nor to his father as "Senior". simply referring to his father as "father" or as Barack. –– Lid(Talk) 12:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noroton (over on Talk:Barack Obama) is right about article name. "Sr." should definitely be in this article name. What we want as an article name is whatever people are most likely to search for (and what is most widely used in sources). However, the version of name that appears in the first sentence of an article (usually the first words) is supposed to be "full official name"; I think that argues against including the "Sr." in the lead, it's a popular designation but certainly not one he was born with, and probably not one he ever used in legal documents or the like. LotLE×talk 16:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Lulu. (Note that if ledes at "Barack Obama" and "Barack Obama, Sr." were to read Barack Hussein Obama II and Barack Hussein Obama, respecively, roman numerals for "the 2nd" and sans roman numerals would supply the necessary distinction lede-to-lede – while the article titles would remain distinct through retaining Sr. for Sen. Obama's father.)   Justmeherenow (  ) 19:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for agreeing. On a complete side point: what's the thing with misspelling "lead". I've seen other people do it do, occasionally, enough that I'm pretty sure it's deliberate not a typo (but it's a weird joke/pun if so). LotLE×talk 19:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This usually doesn't work quite as well as it does in this instance, though. Eg "Theodore Roosevelt (September 22, 1831 – February 9, 1878) was the father of U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, Jr...." maybe is less compelling? (As for the antique orthogrphy of lede: before linotype let alone IBM, type was made of lead and setters would generically refer to "lead" /lɛd/ to mean spacers they'd insert to space lines of text from each other, position lines of text between margins, as typespaces and the like: "Add lead," "Change lead," "Less lead," etc., they might write in the margin of a proof to an assitant. So when they wanted to distinguish between that and a fancy heteronym meaning "textual introduction," they came up with the practice of substituting an olde spelling of the same word to render it "Change lede," etc. – pronounced /liːd/. Cf. News style#Lede or lead.
(Yet – be that as it may – where does the practice of writing hed for "head"[line]; dek for "deck" [Oxford English Dictionary: "Part of a newspaper, periodical, etc., headline containing more than one line of type, esp. the part printed beneath the main headline"]; "graf" for "paragraph," as in nut graf for an intoductory summarizing paragraph; or Tk for "unwritten text to come" come from then?)   Justmeherenow (  ) 20:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's newsroom argot. Journalists spend their lives turning everybody else's specialized language into prose that a typical nonspecialist can understand and then among themselves (and now it leaks out at places like Wikipedia) writing argot. And therefore confusing people. I think some Wikipedia style pages have picked up this nonsense. I just looked it up: You can see here how we first talk about journalists not using argot -- in a paragraph introducing journalist argot. Note "jargon" in the first sentence and "jargon" describing the first item. Hypocrites! Noroton (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible bias in certain source

Perhaps it's just me, but the current source #5 <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=431908&in_page_id=1770> referenced in talking about Obama Sr.'s conversion to Islam does not read like a reliable and neutral source - it seems much like a tabloid smear, and the Daily Mail is currently published as a tabloid. I would recommend this article be checked for neutrality. 76.247.14.237 (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article doesn't seem to be a reliable source. For example, it refers to his uncle Said Obama as as "cousin", even though the following sentence includes a quote where he says that Barack Obama Sr. was his "father's older brother". I recommend that it not be used a source, as it provides an "investigation" on Obama's father, yet it does not provide a single source to back-up its claims. Of course, I'm curious if anyone disagrees. What do people think? Khoikhoi 23:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided to be bold and remove the source. There are two things now in the article that are probably true but need to be properly sourced:
  • Before working as a cook for missionaries in Nairobi, Onyango had travelled widely, enlisting with the name Onyango Obama in the British colonial forces during World War I and visiting Europe, India, and Zanzibar, where he converted from Christianity to Islam and added Hussein to his name. The bit about him adding Hussein to his name after he converted to Islam isn't in the cited article (unless I'm missing something), so it needs to have a better ref.
  • She did not know that he already had a wife in Kenya. I believe this is mentioned in Dreams from My Father, but this needs to be verified as well. The previous source was deleted for the above reasons.
Khoikhoi 06:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "STFamilyTree" :
    • {{cite web|url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4406813.ece | title=Barack Obama’s brother pushes Chinese imports on US | work=Times Online| accessdate=2008-07-27}}
    • {{cite web|url=http://www.suntimes.com/images/cds/MP3/obamatree.pdf | title=Chicago Sun Times Barack Family Tree | work=Chicago Sun Times | accessdate=2008-03-23}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with dates

The caption under the photograph in this article reads "Obama, Sr. with son, Barack c.1977". On the other hand, the article itself says they never met after 1972. Obviously something is wrong, but I don't know what. If anybody knows, please correct this.--Gorpik (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

suffix usage

given the article is about obama, sr., it is clear who is being referenced. --emerson7 02:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, as his only notability comes from his association with Barack Obama [Jr.] whose name is mentioned throughout the article. It's important to be clear who we're actually talking about in any given paragraph. Loonymonkey (talk) 02:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
per wp:mos, subsequent usage of a person's name should be last name only. when used to differentiate from one with a shared last name, first name is to be used. when first name is also shared, the suffix should then be used. given the logic of your argument, every article with an individual with a postnomial should follow your rule, and i couldn't find one example of that in my decidedly informal search on wiki or anywhere else. --emerson7 03:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A more important consideration is to be clear and not mislead. MOS is a guideline, and it clearly says right up front:
This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article.
This is a good example of a time that this particular part of MOS should not be followed. The use of the "Sr." clarifies which Obama we're talking about, and the need for clarity trumps any need for adhering to a guideline. I'm reverting to the clearer wording. Tvoz/talk 04:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
rubbish...this article is about obama sr.. if you wish to deviate from common sense and wp:name, you must first obtain consensus. --emerson7 20:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No special consensus needed. We deal with this all the time when covering parents and children, husbands and wives, etc. In many articles editors try to find some unobtrusive way to let the reader know which one we're talking about, e.g. Mr. So-and-So told his wife..... etc..... or "Missie Vanderbilt" told her sister Minnie.... It's best to avoid awkward stuff like referring to people by first name. Clarity is the goal. It's really case by case, and a matter for editorial discretion until and unless MOS has more detailed guidelines for how to deal with this. Wikidemon (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this is an exception to WP:NAMES. Obama and Barack are both used multiple times thorough the article to describe different people. It is best to be concise in this case. regards, --guyzero | talk 22:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←I am taking the above comments by myself, Loonymonkey, Wikidemon and Guyzero to be consensus that we need to clearly differentiate Obama Sr from the Senator, and as such I am reinstating my edits which emerson7 had again reverted. Clarity is indeed the goal, and the clearest way I can see to handle this is by referring the the father as "Sr.". If there are other ideas for how to handle this, please post them here on talk, rather than ignoring the consensus that has formed. Tvoz/talk 04:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem arises is that Barack Obama, Sr. was never referred to, in his lifetime, as Barack Obama, Sr. He was just Barack Obama (or Barack Hussein Obama I). The Sr. designation is a misnomer made by modern re-constructions who simply assume the suffix existed but it did not. As for the potential confusion... I will refer to that John Quincy Adams' article refers to him as Adams, and not Q. Adams to differntiate from his father, as with George W. Bush and George H. W. Bush. Although the potential for confusion is there, we should not be inserting made up suffixes simply for the sake of clarity - they need better justification. –– Lid(Talk) 12:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are well aware of that, Lid - but the potential for misunderstanding and misleading information is high here, and the editors on this page have agreed that clarity trumps guideline. I could go along with putting the "Sr" in parentheses in the text, but I won't go along with sentences that can be misconstrued to mean the son, rather than the father. I think it's pretty obvious which ones they are - involving place of birth, religion, multiple marriages, etc. We are an encyclopedia, and our goal is to provide verifiable information in a non-biased manner and we have an obligation to not allow misleading wording to be included in an article just so that we can adhere strictly to a guideline. The use of "senior" is therefore the best way we've found to distinguish the two individuals and not confuse or mislead. Tvoz/talk 17:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And, by the way, some sources refer to him as "Sr" - see, for example, this one. Others have had to deal with the same ambiguity and confusion and apparently reached the same conclusion we did. Tvoz/talk 17:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology

Tvoz, the chronology is now messed up, I'm afraid.

If Ann Dunham took her one-month-old son to visit Mercer Island, then that would have been in 1961, right?[6] Her husband did not graduate from University of Hawaii until June of 1962, right?[7] So how could she have been travelling to see him at Harvard when she made that visit to Mercer Island?

Also, Ann Dunham was enrolled at University of Washington in spring 1962,[8] which was before her husband had graduated from University of Hawaii. How could she have enrolled at UW after visiting her husband at Harvard, as the article now says?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see this note here - this is discussed at Talk: Ann Dunham. Tvoz/talk 23:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

number of car crashes

Was there one or two? Did he first lose his legs and later his life, or was it one and the same automobile accident? CapnZapp (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, 76.169.116.9! CapnZapp (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goatherd?

Why is there no mention of this? Is it in fact fabricated  ? 14:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.112.193 (talk)

?????????????????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.34.209 (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of "Obama"

Need etymology of the name "Obama." Apparently, like "Onyango" (in the morning), "Otieno" (in the evening), or "Owino" (tangled in the umbilical cord), "Obama" (literally "crooked") is a name dictated by the circumstances of one's birth, in this case given to people born with a physical disability or with some deformity of the legs. Badagnani (talk) 03:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

I know. Old story. But, according to Obama Jr., (here) his dad was an atheist. Let's not impose our beliefs about their beliefs on people. I deleted the religion entry from the infobox. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 18:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for protection

Tabloids are not appropriate for sources. If contentious information cannot be backed by reliable sources, it should not be added. Users who add such sources should be warned and, if the edits are repeated, blocked. Thus, request for protection has been declined. Warn and request blocking as appropriate. لennavecia 02:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daily mail

Daily Mail is a reputable source and not a tabloid .Particurly as it is not the single source.Please check the .Newsweek which is a reliable sources also states he was a polygamist Please do not revert in a content dispute.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Telegraph [9] and Newsweek are certainly reliable sources. Yoda swe (talk) 15:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Khoikhoi 07:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, perhaps Daily Mail is not a reputable source but we also mentioned The Daily Telegraph and Newsweek, which you of course already knew! "The Daily Telegraph is a British broadsheet newspaper, founded in 1855. Excepting the Financial Times and The Herald (Glasgow), it is the only remaining national daily newspaper printed on traditional newsprint in the broadsheet format in the United Kingdom, as most other broadsheet publications have converted to the smaller tabloid/compact or Berliner formats." Many reliable newspapers such as The Times are now published in tabloid format. Now I will change Daily Mail to Newsweek so please stop reverting. Yoda swe (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS says, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The only one of your sources that meets this criteria is Newsweek. I'll add that one. Khoikhoi 06:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If daily newspapers, such as The Daily Telegraph, were not reliable sources, more than 50% of the references in this article and the Barack Obama article would have be deleted, so your claim is not true. The problem with Obama's quotation "I consider myself a serial polygamist," Obama Sr. once told a friend. "That is, one wife at a time." is that it can be missunderstood since he was married to more than one wife at a time. Yoda swe (talk) 09:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I ever said all daily newspapers were not reliable. I said that the Daily Telegraph is not reliable, and most of the people at the link Pharaoh of the Wizards has cited seem to basically agree. After having read pages 421 to 423 of Dreams from My Father, you are correct that he left behind Kezia in Kenya when he left for America. I was about to add this information to the article when I realized that it was already there:

At the age of 23, Obama Sr. enrolled at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, leaving behind a pregnant Kezia and their infant son. He had already turned away from Islam and become an atheist by the time he moved to the United States.[8] Barack Obama Sr.'s daughter Auma has commented that her father "was never a Muslim although he was born into a Muslim family with a Muslim name."[12]

Therefore, it is redundant to add the polygamy quote or mentioning that he was a bigamist. The information is already there. Anyone can see that he left behind his first wife and married his second wife in the U.S. Khoikhoi 08:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took the issue to Reliable sources and please check the discussion Daily Mail discussion in Reliable sources/Noticeboard and this achived older discussion Daily Mirror n Reliable sources/Noticeboard I do feel that the concensus from the discussion above is use it with other sources and not as a single source and I feel user Yoda swe edit is well sourced.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Yoda swe if the The Daily Telegraph ,Daily Mail or Daily Mirror are not reliable sources atleast 40% of the references in all articles should be removed as the sources are well below them which are over 100 year old British newspapers particularly when we are not using as the single source.Sorry to say I disagree with them not being RS sources .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama Barack, Sr.

Some ignorant or forgetful people might accidentally search "Obama Barack, Sr." or "Obama Barack Sr." and find no article. Shouldn't it be redirected to "Barack Obama, Sr."? Zheliel (talk) 10:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll edit it. Zheliel (talk) 10:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"contradictory" tag

I removed a tag on the "early life" section that said it is contradictory - please give an explanation here of what is seen as contradictory, so editors can address it. Thank you. Tvoz/talk 21:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Here's a verbatim copy-quote of section with the contradictory parts highlighted:
I hope I've answered your question. Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 21:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok - it was Barack Senior's father, Onyango Obama, who converted from Christianity to Islam. Barack Senior was raised in a Muslim home but became an atheist as a young man, before coming to Hawaii. Thanks for bringing it up, as perhaps the section needs to be clearer. Tvoz/talk 22:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography Section

The bibliography section for this article looks non-standard. I think it needs the attention of an expert.Jarhed (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it was odd - I've incorporated the monograph he wrote into the text and eliminated the other entry that was not directly relevant to him. Tvoz/talk 23:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, cheers!Jarhed (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic spelling of his first name

There's a dispute over the meaning of his name going on and I can't find the answer. I went to a Muslim baby naming site and found these four translations:

  • Baraq (برق) Electricity.
  • Buraq (براق) Horse of the Prophet (PBUH).
  • Barraq (براق) Flashing, bright, brilliant, glittering. (This one has identical script to Buraq)
  • Mubarak (مبارک) Blessed, fortunate, lucky, auspicious, august.

Can anyone find the Arabic spelling (or original if not in Arabic script) of Obama Sr. given name? I searched the Arabic Wiki and none of the Arabic character phrases I list above are found in the article. Alatari (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's debate whether the origin of the name in his case is even Arabic or some other Semitic variation. But seeing as how he wasn't Arabic and didn't come from an Arabic-speaking country, it doesn't seem to have much relevance to this article. --Loonymonkey ([[User

If people are wanting to come here and read about the English translation of his first name then it's relevant. The script of Swahili was originally in Arabic... Much of Swahili is borrowed from Arabic because of the trade and proximity to Arabia. So was this name borrowed from Muslim tradition or was it just a popular name at the time? He was a professed Muslim at least for a time. 71.86.156.73 (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no English translation. His name is spelled "Barack." --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cite your source that his name has no meaning or his parents meant none. 71.86.156.73 (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]