Talk:Barack Obama

He is not African American

My God this is a stupid title. Most African Americans have some White ancestry and 1 out of 6 White Americans have some non-White ancestry. You know what-- he is 100% American, Can we get over this idiocy and focus on what the man has to offer as a potential President?

67.42.243.184 19:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

67.42.243.184 19:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

He is a mulatto, or mixed race, which ever you prefer.Ernham 01:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Race is self-identified here in the U.S., and he identifies himself as African-American. That he is biracial is discussed in the article, though. Italiavivi 01:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity is self-identified, not race, sorry, not even if it's "politically favorable", as in the case with this guy's phantom race. Additionally, African-american is often reserved only for those that are the descendants of the orignal slaves brought here from Africa hunreds of years ago. I see two strikes against him for the supposed label of "african american"Ernham 01:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed a lot and a compromise was finally reached. He is an American, for sure. He is also "black", as that word is used in the USA. The article does not say he is African American, it only quotes the Senate Historical Office. Steve Dufour 05:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the article does state that he is African-American: "In February 1990, he gained national recognition for becoming the first African American to be elected president of the Harvard Law Review." He is also included in the Wikipedia categories Category:African American politicians and Category:African American Senators. -Silence 06:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That sentence could be tweeked a bit. As for the categories, I don't think we want to say that he is NOT an African American when he says he is one. Getting back to Ernham's post: A "mulatto" or a "person of mixed race" can be a member of the group of people called "African Americans".Steve Dufour 06:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Then it would be superfluous to have the words "mulatto" and "mixed-race" if the aren't really definitive. I know one thing for sure, if/when the exploratory committee decides he should run, the article should read, "If elected, he would be the first African-American (I know I'm not going to win this on here so I guess I'll let you all have your little fun), as well as the first biracial president." Shakam 06:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The ironic thing is that if he had tried to distance himself from being labeled an African American he would have been strongly criticized for that. So he just can't win with certain people. Steve Dufour 20:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

His father was born in Alego, Kenya, Africa, and his mother was born in Wichita, Kansas, America. Sounds African-American to me. Ground Zero | t 21:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

GZ, exactly correct. I made the same point in one of the thousands of earlier rounds on this. I can't believe this is still being "discussed" - frankly, it makes me sick. Tvoz | talk 22:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand where people are coming from on this? Are they saying he shouldn't be elected president because he isn't black enough? (anti-Obama statement) Or are they saying that someone so talented could not really be black? (anti-black statement) Steve Dufour 06:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

When one refers to something such as "african amrican", you are refering to a cultural element that is found in north america. This unique cultural element is completely different on an ethnic level than someone that is the first generation son of an African immigrant(with a phd no less) raised in upper middle-class suburbia. To correctly refer to him in a "racial way", you would have to call him half caucasoid and half negroid. We don't usually use terms like that. Someone said that because he is "black" and lives in the US he can use the term "afircan-american". That's interesting because I have an Indian(ethnically indian!) friend at college that is at least two shades darker than Barack. Here's the kicker: he also came from african immigrants(south africa). Is he really African American too? HmmmErnham 15:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Obama is what he is. The article gives all the facts needed for a person to make up his or her mind about what label to put on him. If you like you can write an op-ed type article expressing your views and if you get it published I will cite it in the article. Just leave a note on this talk page. Steve Dufour 16:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The article should not mention race, period. Give the facts and let people decide. You have already declared him african american in the first paragraph. That's absurd POV pushing nonsense. This wiki is already an "op-ed", unfortunately. Ernham 18:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It's your POV that this article should not mention race. The facts have been given and this issue has been brought up not only here but is mentioned in numerous places. Those who advocate not mentioning race in my view have an agenda and such should not be given serious consideration. Also, someone who says "period" when making a statement of opinion is the one who is pushing a POV especially when they call noting Obama's description of himself as absurd. It is acceptable in living biographies to cite the source's own statement about themselves ranging from political descriptions to religious and racial descriptions. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 02:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Race itself is often an ambiguous and "messy" concept. No need for it here, really. We have a picture and we have the facts on who his parents were. Present those and let the reader decide. I also specifically asked for a statement BY HIM. Those you provide clearly refer to him in third person and do not fit the bill. I want a statement by him. Ernham 16:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, your position isn't in line with Wikipedia policy, but I'll humor you; he uses it throughout Dreams from My Father. For example, here's a sentence from the first page from the "Preface to the 2004 edition": "As I mention in the original introduction, the opportunity to write the book came while I was in law school, the result of my election as the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review." —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Part of his importance is that he is a black (as that word is defined in the USA) American. The opening paragraph only quotes the Senate Historical Office on his African American-ness. Steve Dufour 18:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

We'll just see what happens on 2/10. Shakam 05:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

So, he can call himself African American, even if he's not? Seriously, he's half white, half black. He's no more African American, than he is white. How do you think people would react if he called himself white? It's amazing how reverse racism works. Anyone can call themselves African American, while it's a crime to be white.

That doesn't make a modicum of sense, but that's irrelevant. Can we please keep political posturing OFF THIS PAGE? This talk page is meant for discussing changes to the article, not to debate his candidacy. Thanks. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is some people think that Wikipedia is a campaign tool and not an encyclopedia. This discussion about whether he is African American or half-black/half-white is best left outside of this article. Yet, even when this issue is dropped it will be brought up in a week or two weeks as another political hack decides to come to Wikipedia and promote their POV on this subject. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 02:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If he calls himself African American Wikipedia should rely upon his statement just like Wikipedia would rely upon his statement that he is a Democrat. We don't use people's POV as to what is African-American and what isn't to decide whether someone would be labeled as such. The only legitimate source as to whether he is an African American is Obama himself. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 02:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'd have no issue with the inclusion of the term "african american" if he himself has described himself as such. in the absence of such "proof", it should only be said who his parents are (there is a picture of him, obviously) and let the reader make their own "logical" conclusions. Ernham 02:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The Meet Barack section of BarackObama.com states, "He went on to earn his law degree from Harvard in 1991, where he became the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review." It goes on to say, "In 2004, he became the third African American since Reconstruction to be elected to the U.S. Senate." I think that we violate neutrality when we decide that we will not mention that Barack Obama is African American when he himself has stated that he is. We walk a fine line when we decide that those who define African-American one way are correct and therefore ignore the obvious fact that he claims to be African-American. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 05:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"The only legitimate source as to whether he is an African American is Obama himself." - This is not in line with WP policy. This has been discussed to death in the archives. Please look back through them before throwing more verbiage out her. Basically what it breaks down to is that you use the racial designation used in the source you are quoting/paraphrasing/summarizing. For example you will notice in the first paragraph he is referred to indirectly as the first African American senator. That designation was used because the source being cited used it. It is notable, verifiable, etc. There is no need to gratuitously add racial designators. But if you cite a newspaper article calling him "black" then use black. If you refer to a quote from Obama himself that uses "African American" use that. There is no need to use one "true" designation. His racial/ethnic/national history is well discussed in the article. Adding your own arbitrarily decided designators is not acceptable no matter what standard "you" (this means any one editor) believes is the "standard." Use your cites and don't add extraneous racial designators. It is that simple. --Rtrev 02:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that this has been discussed before and am sure that it is now being discussed because someone else brought it up but past discussions on this does not prevent current or future discussions from taking place. Also, I do not intend to spend time reading the archives when it is sufficient to discuss what has been brought up. If there are points made in the archives before other editors have arrived that you feel are important than you should mention them but don't assume that new editors or editors who have chosen to have input on this article are going to rely heavily upon past discussions. That you and others may have discussed this before does not give you immunity from having to discuss it with those of us who were not a part of those discussions. I also do not think that your interpretation of Wikipedia policy regarding racial desgination is correct. There are sources which state that he is African American and therefore it makes sense to state as a part of this article that he is based on those sources with citation. If there is a conflicting reliable source than that can be provided for but sources which conflict with statements that have been made by a living person are required to be removed. There are certain criteria for including information provided by the person and these are:

Information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if:

• Information meets verifiability, NPOV, and no original research policies.
• It is relevant to the person's notability;
• It is not contentious;
• It is not unduly self-serving;
• There is no reasonable doubt that it was provided by the subject.

This information is verifiable, is neutral, and is not original research. It is relevent to Obama's notability (i.e., he is an African-American candidate for President), and it is not contentious. This information does not unduly benefit Obama and it is clear that the information was provided by Obama as it is available on his website. To impose a requirement that racial designators that are used by Obama himself to describe himself not be included in this article is a POV and violates Wikipedia policy. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 05:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that you can't use Obama's racial designation for himself. I merely stated that wasn't the only one you can use. It clearly lays it all out in the policy you just copied and pasted there. Its a matter of usage. It is fine to say he is an African-American presidential candidate if you have a nice cite talking about it (which there are many). What is not appropriate is tossing out racial designators wherever an editor thinks it sounds nice (I am not saying that you have or want to do this... it has just happened in the past). --Rtrev 06:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If you are able to show based on policy that using racial designations that the subject of the biography uses to describe themselves as editors think appropriate than you would have a point yet there is nothing in policy which prohibits or otherwise requires that such descriptions not be used. If this is not the case than you should reference the policy in question. The Manual of Style refers to this as, "Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves" and "this can mean using the term an individual uses for himself or herself." I don't intend to edit this article so you need not worry about whether I will ever use the word African-American anywhere in the article. I am here simply to add to the discussions on the talk page. I don't agree that it's inappropriate to refer to Obama as African-American wherever an editor feels it appropriate to mention and I believe that only one citation (with multiple sources as necessary) at the first mention of his being African-American is sufficent and that each reference to his being African-American need not be cited. The statements included in the article about Obama being African American stand alone on the few citations. Another example is religious designators which need to be cited once and then the person can be referred throughout the article as Catholic if they are consistent with other policies such as neutrality. It may have happened in the past that people included "racial designators wherever they thought that it sounds nice" and on the face there is nothing inappropriate about this except where it violates other policies. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 19:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You can't compare what a person chooses to be, to how a person is born. Bad analogy. Shakam

PLEASE READ RE: RACE DISCUSSION

To be more specific for those who don't want to go back through the archives themselves or muck through the WP manual of style. Look at WP:STYLE#Identity as well as WP:NOR. The somewhat definitive discussion can be seen in the archives please look through them! --Rtrev 03:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

People are too lazy to read the archives, they think they are special and that their input is better than what has already been discussed. This topic has been beaten over and over again (with me a contributing factor.) He is not African-American. How about we move forward in time and not backwards??? shakam 06:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

He is not african-american in the way the term is used in the united states, which is in fact unique, just like the sun does not revolve around the earth. Any "debate" that came to a contrary conclusion is not worth my time to read through.Ernham 17:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

So in other words, it's your way or the highway, hmm? Nice to see your attitude (not to mention your POV) so clearly spelled out for us; thanks. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The Earth does in fact go around the sun. Sorry if reality upsets you.Ernham 18:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on IP edits

Note: Discussion restored from Archive 5; editorial consensus has not yet been reached. --HailFire 09:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Two weeks have passed since the most recent semi-protection was added blocking IP edits. Here in a nutshell is my personal view as an active contributor to this article since September 2006:

Presidential candidates ought to take sustained and preemptive measures to protect their security, but their Wikipedia articles should not.

How about we try to reach a consensus approach on contributions from editors who choose not to set up user accounts or log in? I think it warrants a full discussion here. --HailFire 03:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I buy that, HailFire. If vandalism persists after protection is removed, I can always re-semi now that I have the tools (I watch the page, of course). · j e r s y k o talk · 03:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hail in that openness is the hallmark of wikis everywhere. The catch 22 is that because Obama is now a presidential candidate there should be more openness in editing and there will be a larger desire for anonymous editing (whether purposefully anonymous or "drive by" anonymous). However, at the same time, there will most certainly be a significant rise in vandalism because of the interest generated by the move. The truth is that there may be very valid reasons for anonymous editing and even if there is no reason other than sheer laziness that does not make the contribution of an earnest, anonymous editor any less valid than an earnest, registered editor.

My personal view is that sprotect should be used temporarily and infrequently in that it is not aligned with the ideal of an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit." I say lift it and we (the editors with this article watchlisted) can deal with vandalism until it really and truly gets out of hand. In a certain sense I feel a bit shameful when and article I keep tabs on gets protected because it signifies a breakdown in the vigilance of the editorship (I know this is an unrealistic view... but still). I say we give it a go... the worst that can happen is a re-addition of protection (and hey.. Jersey is pretty vigilant right?). --Rtrev 03:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to spend your time defending the article go for it. Thanks. Steve Dufour 04:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well we can always open it up and see what happens. I have a feeling we'll be asking for semi-protection again quite soon afterwards. Gzkn 05:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully not but I say we open it up and see... --Rtrev 05:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree about this - we already tried that, Rtrev, just a few weeks ago, and as predicted the extreme vandalism returned. Nothing has happened to change that likely trajectory - if anything, I expect it will be even greater now. The fact is that no one is prevented from editing here, as long as they take the few minutes it takes to create a user ID. That user ID need be in no way identifiable to any individual person - in fact, IP addresses are more identifiable than user IDs, because they can easily be traced with WHOIS by anyone. User IDs can be traced by admins, but it requires a special request to do so, and those are not granted frivolously. So in fact the user ID editor is more anonymous, not less. We have seen recently that the level of vandalism, and the nature of the vandalism, is such that it is damaging to the article to allow IP editing. This article is certainly watched by many people, but it is a small number who diligently montior it and revert vandals. When IP editing was going on, it was an unfair burden, in my view, as it made it difficult to keep track of, and assess, legitimate edits when one is drowning in a sea of vandalism. Further, the nature of the vandalism - as I have said in the past - has not been the annoying "HI MOM" type, but instead has been a targeted, often vicious, vandalism that does damage to the hard work that numerous editors have done here and makes a mockery of the serious attempts that are made to keep the article factual and neutral. I am all in favor of an open system, but requiring usernames that do not have to bear any resemblance to one's real name, and do not have to have an email address attached, are certainly protective of the editor who wishes to remain anonymous, but also protective of the integrity of the article. This article, in my view, is a classic case where sprot is legitimately used to avoid the worst of the vandals. It won't eliminate them all, but it certainly will make it manageable to maintain the quality of the article. The fact that we've had some relative - not absolute - calm due to the latest sprot has allowed the article to be edited and improved without placing an undue burden. I haven't heard any argument that is convincing as to why IP editors should be allowed to return and, I believe, start doing their damage again. Tvoz | talk 05:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tvoz, I believe the semi-protection should be reinstated. This will continue to be one of the most high profile pages in the coming year, and with thus be most vulnerable to vandalism. I further agree that s-protect doesn't prevent people from editing (thus not violating the "anyone can edit") because it's extremely fast and easy to register for a userID. Bjewiki 12:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It should be removed temporarily to see if vandalism persists, and if so, extend the length of protection each time. It will give an opportunity to be edited by anons; however, they decide if it stays unprotected and how long. shakam

There are well-meaning anons and malicious vandals. The vicious ones will decide if it stays protected and for how long - not the well-meaning ones. That does not seem right to me. I think we've already seen it, and we should make the decision now. We had sprot for 8 days and needed it back pretty quickly. Now we've had it for 2 weeks and I don't hear anything suggesting why this time would be different - I doubt this is a case of vandals getting tired of waiting and moving on to another target - that's true when it's my example of Joe from Milwaukee. This has been targeted at Obama, a combination of POV-pushing on the one hand and malicious troublemaking on the other - and he's moving up in visibility, not down, by all indications. Why this bothers me is that I think it is difficult to monitor and edit the well-meaning entries that are added when there are so many malicious ones to sort through. Yesterday there were well-meaning additions about the exploratory committee, but they needed editing - if it had been intermingled with vandalism on top of real edits, I think it would have been difficult to sort through (I've seen this happen before), and with the changing base of facts that I expect will be needed in this article in the months to come, why not decide now for an extended term, rather than a longer term by only 5 or 6 days? Articles with sprot are not immune to vandalism but it becomes manageable. The benefits to me outweigh the cost. But if everyone feels that we should go through the motions again, I'll of course cooperate. Tvoz | talk 18:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please share your thoughts about managing incidents of vandalism on this article, which has remained open for IP edits since January 31. --HailFire 09:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It will come as no surprise that I have not changed my opinion on this. I haven't looked closely at today's edits, but yesterday there were times when garbage stood on the page for 11 minutes, for 14 minutes, for 6 minutes, possibly some longer - in the middle of the day - and there were no doubt dozens, hundreds, maybe thousands of people reading the page at those times. The prinicple of "open editing" is not the only principle we work under here. Jimbo Wales himself has stated that sometimes semi=-protect is needed. I'll get the reference again if anyone wants it. Everyone in this discussion knows that - we've been around and around and around the block on it. Yes, edits are fairly quickly reverted when a lot of editors are monitoring the page. But there are times when we're not so fast, and that's when Wikipedia looks amateuristic at best, racist at worst, juvenile in the middle - and I am disappointed that the desire for "open editing" has trumped all other concerns. Furthermore, I myself - I thnk a pretty diligent editor, who does at least her share of reverts - have had several instances in this latest round when I've missed real edits that I might want to question because of the sea of crap edits and reverts. The result? Some edits that are legitimate, but I or any editor here might want to discuss or tweak or remove, are overlooked. The end result? A weaker page. If that's what you want, that's what you'll get. I know it's not what many of the people who regularly edit here want - I and they want a great page. A page that when the thousands of people descend as we know they will, that we can be proud of. Our names are not associated with this - this is pure pride of anonymous accomplishment, but it's thwarted by the ideal of open editing. There were almost no IP edits in the last few days that were worthwhile. Again, I haven't llooked today, but I recall maybe one yesterday. All of the rest were vandals having fun, throwing crap on the page, and making us clean it up. I don't know about the rest of you, but I edit lots of pages here and I feel like my time is being grossly wasted by having to watch out for idiocy that could be reduced, if not eliminated, by sprot. All for some principle that has been blown out of proportion into a more important notion than accuracy and professionalism. I am tired of being made to jump through the hoop, when it could be reduced. Hey, guys - I'm just one editor. I've been described elsewhere as the one editor who wants permanent protection - that's not exactly true: I don't want full protection, but I do think we should have longer-term sprot. Just like many other pages have, including some involved in this Presidential campaign. That is, if we want this page to be a good reflection of what Wikipedia can be - a collaborative effort by dedicated people who work together and create up-to-date, compfrehensive articles about everything. Or, we can be seen as a bunch of kids who play here, producing unreliable material that professors shouldn't allow their students to quote from, and mostly only good to joke about regarding Anna Nicole Smith's page having 300 edits in an hour. Other than being amused at being thought of as a kid, which I am quite certainly not - I'd like more than that. No one has yet given me an argument that even began to convince me that this page should not be semi-protected. Forgive my typos - I am late and have to leave. Cheers, folks - this will likely be a big weekend for this article. I hope we're not embarrassed. Tvoz | talk 22:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of words! Let me just add, "I agree." This page is too high profile and too juicy a target not to have semi-protection on it. I only see four reverts of IP or new user edits today (after a quick glance), but the numbers above are disturbing. Unfortunately, with Obama being a major player in the upcoming election his article will be a continuous target for months to come. --StuffOfInterest 23:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz will certainly have a heart attack, but I agree as well. Italiavivi 17:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No one ever accused me of being succinct. Tvoz | talk 17:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well, from my point of view, I think semi-protection does in fact need to remain on this article. Only after a decent period of time should it ever be removed to see if it will subside. However, the fact that the vandalism was worse today than yesterday (you think it'd be worse yesterday due to the announcement), I think semi-protection should pretty much stay up unchallenged. Almost every IP that's posting on this article is posting vandalism from the looks of it, and I'd much rather finish up a paper then constantly re-sp this.--Wizardman 17:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• I tend to think that all articles on all announced candidates for the GOP and Democratic party nominations should be SP'd. Granted, some are going to draw more vandalism than others (particularly from racists and misogynists), but a unified standard like this would save a lot of people a lot of time (less reverting). Look, SP does not stop anyone from editing, and it exists for articles that are natural targets. I say SP 'em all until the conventions, then continue SPing the nominees. Unschool 17:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Obama "User Supporter" Template??

Just wondering if there's an Obama supporter template for me to add to my user page?? thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mattbray (talk • contribs) 09:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Just made one at User:Wizardman/Obama.--Wizardman 17:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Religious upbringing

Of course the "madrassa" nonsense was an ugly smear, but Obama was raised in Islam as a child, wasn't he? Doesn't this deserve some minor mention?--Pharos 14:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No, so no. Tvoz | talk 17:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, so he didn't have any kind of Muslim religious upbringing– the family never belonged to a mosque etc.? Just wanted to be clear.--Pharos 20:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe Obama's father was an agnostic or athiest by the time Obama was born, and I believe his mother did not have an Islamic background. I'm not sure if his step-father, whose religion I'm not certain of, had any influence on Obama's early exposure to religion or not. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

His stepfather was Muslim, but Obama was never raised under Islam. His father was an atheist. His grandparents were non-practicing Baptist and Methodist, and his mother disliked organized religion. He did not ascribe to any religion until he was an adult. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I recently read the Faith chapter of The Audacity of Hope and if I remember correctly his mother wasn't very religious; she was just pretty wise. His father left when he was two he couldn't have possible had any effect on his religion. And even though he went to a majority Muslim school, when he lived in Indonesia, he said it didn't really effect him. He came to beliefs he have now on his own, through the "black" church. (I think that's what he said, I can't really remember verbatim) Shakam 05:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The stepfather has been described as a non-practicing Muslim - I have a ref somewhere on that. My understanding is that he went to a public school in Indonesia that was majority Muslim because Jakarta was majority Muslim. Yes, Shakam, I think you have it essentially right, Bbatsell and Jersy too. Tvoz | talk 06:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Most of the confusion here is which man you consider his father. Obama's real father was from a Kenyan tribe, and I couldn't find a reference to his religion in the book Dreams from My Father (published 1995, long before Obama was a prominent figure). However, Obama was raised by "Lolo" from the age of two onward. Lolo was a native Hawai'ian, and he was NOT a Muslim. In response to the "Madrassa" claim, everybody who has gone to a school, ever, in their life, has attended a Madrassa. It's the Arabic word for "school", whether secular or religious. Though in modern english usage it usually carries a negative connotation, most major news organizations have stated that it was a "smear" and a lie [1][2][3] [4][5] [6]

It sickens me that two democrats would go at each other like this. Hillary is being a sleazy, evil liberal and further acting her stereotype, and Barack will definitely suffer bad publicity. --Hojimachong^talk_con 18:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobody knows for sure that Senator Clinton's people were behind the rumor. Steve Dufour 18:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it isn't likely that Clinton was the source. As per Lolo, I'll admit it's been a while since I've read Dreams, but I distinctly remember Lolo being Muslim (though not very active). I, of course, could be wrong, but that's what I had filed away in my head. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Gee, and you dare elcture on POV; how did you come up with this? Unlikely Clinton is the source? Huh? Why is that, exactly? She has the perfect motive and the means. She is more likely than ANY other person on the planet, yet you assert otherwise. hmmm Ernham 20:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence whatsoever that Hillary Clinton was the source for Insight Magazine's false article, and Insight refuses to in any way reliably verify their story; both Obama and Clinton have stood together against the resulting smear. Italiavivi 18:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It also might well be that this incident will turn out to be the thing that helps him the most to become president. :-) Steve Dufour 22:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

In Islam one does not need to practice it and would still be considered Muslim. So Barack's father was a Muslim. Zidane is not religious and may even be atheist. Yet he is considered a Muslim. Obama also went to a madrassa school for sometime. If he was not Mulsim I fail to see what he was doing there. So Obama is a convert from Islam to Christianity.

Here's a direct quote from an official press release: "To be clear, Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim..."--Pharos 08:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It's incorrect that Obama attended a "Muslim" school from ages 6-8. Obama's note in Dreams of My Father (in addition to Insight Magazine et al's exposition of that tidbit) was simply wrong, as demonstrated by this CNN report. The school is nominally secular, public, and non-religious. I'm posting this here in an attempt to stave off further additions to the article regarding his early schooling (and hopefully to serve as as a short talk page subsection that we can link to in edit summaries). · j e r s y k o talk · 00:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

*Watching page to protect against this addition* Chris M. 17:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Wikipedia has certainly failed on the Obama article. Obama himself had admitted that he was a Muslim "in his childhood years." This story has been picked up by the AP (e.g, here: http://asia.news.yahoo.com/070211/ap/d8n7n7bg0.html). But when we come to the Wikipedia article about him, there's nary a mention of this -- even to refute it. This is something that's going on out there right now and people want to know about it. I wonder why this isn't even addressed in the article. Are the people who regularly edit this article trying to suppress this fact? Gnossie 09:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The Sydney Morning Herald writes "In his books The Audacity of Hope and Dreams from My Father, Obama indicates that he was brought up a Muslim and converted to Christianity." Can someone please check in the books and proves or disproves this point? Emmanuelm 15:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is it so difficult to get a straight answer to a very simple question? Can Obama please answer yes or no to the following questions : Is he circumcised? Did he ever pronounce aloud the shahadah? Did he ever pray while kneeling towards Makkah? Emmanuelm 15:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't like to double-post but in this case I think it's necessary. The AP story was apparently a misunderstanding. Here's a direct quote from an official press release: "To be clear, Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim..."--Pharos 18:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, unless something else comes along, I'd say that trumps my sourced insertion. Under the circumstances, I agree with the revert. Bbagot 19:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Partial birth abortion

Has Obama taken any stance on this? if anyone knows. Chris M. 17:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If he is smart he will not take a stance. :-) Steve Dufour 18:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, true. Chris M. 06:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

He's pro-choice, if that's what your asking. I recall a TIME article hosted at CNN.com wherein Obama addresses other Christians about his abortion stance, but cannot find it right now. Italiavivi 18:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Edit: Found it. [7]

"So how can you support murdering babies?"

I told him I understood his position but had to disagree with it. I explained my belief that few women made the decision to terminate a pregnancy casually; that any pregnant woman felt the full force of the moral issues involved and wrestled with her conscience when making that decision; that I feared a ban on abortion would force women to seek unsafe abortions, as they had once done in this country. I suggested that perhaps we could agree on ways to reduce the number of women who felt the need to have abortions in the first place.

The man listened politely and then pointed to statistics on the pamphlet listing the number of unborn children that, according to him, were sacrificed every year. After a few minutes, I said I had to go inside to greet my supporters and asked again if the group wanted to come in. Again the man declined. As I turned to go, his wife called out to me.

"I will pray for you," she said. "I pray that you have a change of heart."

Neither my mind nor my heart changed that day, nor did they in the days to come. But I did have that family in mind as I wrote back to the doctor and thanked him for his email. The next day, I had the language on my website changed to state in clear but simple terms my pro-choice position. And that night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own--that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me.

No specific mention of the procedure you're asking about, though. Italiavivi 18:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I believe his comment about the fact that women don't make the choice casually implies that he probably wouldn't think it was reasonable for a woman to wait til that late. Although, I could be stretching his words obviously, that quote is very good, thank you. Chris M. 06:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Obama's new stylized "O" logo.

As seen at his site and online store. [8] Any idea what the copyright status on this campaign logo with regard to Wikipedia use would be? Have past articles made use of campaign yard signs/bumper stickers or logos? Italiavivi 18:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Under US law a creative work is copyrighted as soon as it is made. If other people start using it a work can lose its copyright. This happened with the "smiley face". I am not a lawyer however. Steve Dufour 18:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not public domain as works of the federal government are because a political campaign is not a federal government entity. It's almost certainly protected by copyright (possibly even trademark). We would have to claim fair use to use it here. And I am an attorney, though this is not legal advice, yada yada yada. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Put a bumper sticker on your car and photograph it. Obama will not sue you. :-) Steve Dufour 18:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It is, indeed, copyrighted, so a fair use claim would have to be made. However, if you look closely at Obama's new website, you'll see a Creative Commons licensing symbol along the bottom. It does not link to any legal pages yet, but it's entirely possible that Obama is licensing all content on the website under a CC license, which, depending on its iteration, may be compatible with Wikipedia. Someone would need to contact their legal team for clarification. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It is highly unusual for them to display the "CC" logo without clarifying the license. Reading their terms page one finds copying restricted to "personal use" only, and "bulk uses" are verboten. This is more restrictive than the strictest CC license, which only bans commercial use. It's pretty clear they don't understand what the Creative Commons is, and just thought it would look cool on the webpage. Too bad.--Pharos 19:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not very clear at all. The site launched at 12 AM this morning, and discrepancies in text (that very likely was copied from prior websites) isn't at all out of the question. I'm going to shoot them an e-mail to ask to clarify their licensing. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. And please point them to this page. And remind them that if they want their photos on Wikipedia, they'll have to be cc-by or cc-by-sa. Thanks.--Pharos 19:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll update when I have a response. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the senate campaign sign here on Obama's article, Ken Salazar's old Senate election logo is used at his article, with a Fair Use claim on the image itself. Hillary Clinton has the same, with her "Hillary" logo. I know George W. Bush used a stylized "W" logo for some campaign material, but can't find that one in use on Wikipedia anywhere. Italiavivi 19:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

We're still awaiting the board's official declaration, but based on Kat's letter summarizing policy, a fair use claim for a campaign logo would not be permissible unless there is scholastic value in including the logo (in other words, using it merely for decoration is not permitted). —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with who/what you're referring to. Kat's letter? Italiavivi 19:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[9] —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Italiavivi 20:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion at "In the news" over Obama/Rudy/Hillary announcements.

There is a debate here over whether candidate announcements for President of the United States are notable for inclusion on the Main Page's "In the news" section. I believe that the opposition in this discussion (and the previous discussion when Hillary's announcement was made) is in no way based upon the actual ITN candidate guidelines, and would appreciate further input from editors here. Obama's announcement is the main story not only within all U.S. news outlets currently, but also the BBC and France's Le Monde currently. Italiavivi 20:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The black Kennedy?

Foxnews used the Kennedy comparison today. He reminds me of JFK in some ways, he is handsome, youthful (JFK was one of our youngest Presidents) and something about his personality reminds me of JFK. A similar charisma leavened with sensitivity.

67.42.243.184 19:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've read at some Dutch news sites that Mr. Obama is being called the black Kennedy? Anyone knows if that is true, because i haven't read anything about it on American sites —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.105.35.109 (talk • contribs).

I've never heard him called that, but I can see how a parallel might be drawn. Steve Dufour 21:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Chris Matthews made that comparison this morning, though I don't think it's notable enough for inclusion in the article (at least not at the moment). —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope the expression doesn't catch on. :-) Steve Dufour 22:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

drug history

The word "drugs" does not appear on the Obama page. Can I at least find out how he stands on marijuana? I am very upset by this censorship of a supposed open encyclopedia.

Why isn't there a section in "personal life" which speaks about his struggles with drugs and tobacco like in the Bush wiki page? --69.244.153.46 22:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably because Bush was still having "problems" when he was 40. Gdo01 23:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Or because Obama doesn't appear to have "struggled" with substances, just played with them as a teen. 71.198.52.89 23:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Another reason is that Bush was actually arrested and recorded while under the influence of substances. Most people didn't even have any concrete proof of Obama's drug use until he admitted it in his books. Gdo01 23:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The "Personal life" section does make mention of his past marijuana use. While I wish editors here would make his (very notable) "I inhaled frequently that was the point" quote more easily located, it's covered. So far's his tobacco use goes, see the discussion at WP:SMOKERS. Suffice to say, consensus appears to be against including tobacco use in most articles by default. Italiavivi 23:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

I could have sworn this page used to have a section for criticism. Most politician's pages have a spot for it, as well they should. I think one should be included here, with the bit about him purchasing a house and a developer purchasing the property next to his, and with the story of his "fundamentalist madrassa" education, followed by the debunking of the madrassa story. The madrassa story should definitely be mentioned here, as the story made it to national news outlets, and people who have heard the story but not it's debunking will visit this article and assume this page is maintained by Obama fans who don't want the "dirt" on Obama revealed. The information should be there. 71.198.52.89 23:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

With regard to Insight Magazine's false "madrassa" smear, Obama's Wikipedia article is still bound by Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons, and the section would have to be very carefully written. As for the non-story concerning his house, it was determined to be non-notable, and placing it under a "controversy" section (when no wrongdoing was alleged) could be seen as a POV maneuver. I can see a good argument for the "madrassa" bit included as a controversy (not a criticism), but agree with past editors that the non-story on his house is not notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Italiavivi 23:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There is an article about the madrassa claim and debunking here: Insight magazine "madrassa" media controversy. Gdo01 23:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

And that article will soon be merged with Insight's main article. Italiavivi 23:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "controversy" would be a better title, but I still think both stories should be mentioned. This is the first Google hit I got for "Obama house." That story quotes the original Chicago Tribune article saying "...the hows and whys of a real estate deal, and a train of subsequent transactions, are raising questions about the relationship between the two men, as Obama struggles to distance himself from Rezko, and Rezko strives to stay out of prison." The story doesn't have to outright allege illegal doings to be critical or controversial. Same with the madrassa story. I guess this seems important to me because these are the two criticisms I have heard people make about Obama in real life. If somebody wants information about Obama, they may come here, and I think they should be given, or at least directed to, the correct information. The madrassa story, especially, should be included, because it wasn't just Insight that published it. The story was all over FOX news, and how many people do you suppose saw the story there, but never saw the follow up on CNN or in the New York Times? The whole story should be covered. 71.198.52.89 07:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the house non-story, you knew specifically what you were Googling for, and I stand by my assertion that it is not notable enough for inclusion. If the words "drugs" and "cocaine" are not present at George W. Bush's article (with the link to "substance abuse controversy" being in a single paragraph), this house non-story doesn't belong on Obama's in two paragraphs. I also wonder if there's a degree of recentism here -- of what notable consequence will this house non-story be a year from now? In five years? Ten?

I do not necessarily disagree with your evaluation of the madrassa controversy, though, but will wait for input from other editors. Italiavivi 16:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The madrassa hoax undoubtedly deserves a reference here, but we must make it clear that it was indeed a hoax and a smear. --Hojimachong^talk_con 07:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism sections, in my opinion, tend to give undue weight to criticisms because they tend to be turn into dumping grounds for everything that is unleashed on the article's subject. They are equivalent to Trivia sections, IMHO. If the criticism is worthy of inclusion in the article, then they can be worked into the existing prose. As for the madrassa hoax and Howard's criticism, perhaps the presidential article is a better place for them. Howard's comments are too new to judge the impact, but the madrassa hoax has gotten several weeks of play in the media and will probably make re-appearances throughout the campaign. --Bobblehead 19:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Obama criticized by Australia's Prime Minister

(Cross-posted to Talk:John Howard.)

Today, Australian Prime Minister John Howard unleashed a pretty scathing criticism of Senator Obama, including saying that "If I was running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats" and "I think that would just encourage those who wanted to completely destabilise and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and victory for those terrorists, to hang on and hope for an Obama victory." Australian Labor Party opposition leader Kevin Rudd's response can be found here.

This is an unusually partisan criticism from a foreign head of state, is it notable for inclusion? Italiavivi 17:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I imagine it probably should be included somewhere. Perhaps in Howard's article as well as Obama's. As a side note, wow, that's an absolutely . . . idiotic statement by Howard. I wonder which Bush staffer wrote it for him? · j e r s y k o talk · 18:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Since this is in direct response to Obama's Iraq War bill, it should be noted directly after that in the article. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

And Obama's response can be found here --203.214.52.179 12:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

i think howards comments should be included. its been a major point on both sides. also to Jersyko. keep personal comments out of it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eevo (talk • contribs) 15:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Agreed, though it's hardly a "personal comment" if I'm talking about a public figure. Regardless, Wiki is not a soapbox, so I struck the relevant portion of my comment. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Howard is not a Head of State; he is Australia's Head of Government. (Most countries' political systems differentiate between those two roles.) I do find Mr. Howard's comment noteworthy and suprising, and unless Mr. Obama had directly criticized Australia or Mr. Howard, I think his comment is totally inappropriate. Now, if Australia's actual Head of State had made a comment like this, it would be jaw-droppingly shocking. --thirty-seven 05:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Except The Queen's role as head of state in Australia is equivalent to her role in that of the UK. She does appoint the Governor-General, but since the '30's the selection is made by the PM and the Queen gives her blessing. So essentially, Howard is the most powerful person in Australia and his criticizing Obama is equivalent to Blair doing likewise, correct? --Bobblehead 22:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct: the position and power of the prime minister in Australian government and society is almost exactly equivalent to the prime minister in British government and society. --thirty-seven 22:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Rezko real estate deal

Just a quick follow-up on some of the controversy points. I don't think the madrassa story has any real purpose appearing here. The real estate deal seems significant enough, however. The story about the Rezkos, whether or not Obama did anything improper, did consume significant media attention for a lengthy period of time, and Obama apologized for it. As one article has summarized,

The first crisis of Obama’s Senate tenure unfolded right before last November’s election. A Chicago newspaper reported Obama closed on his $1.65 million Hyde Park home the same day in June 2005 that campaign fundraiser Antoin “Tony” Rezko closed on an adjoining vacant parcel from the same owner. Obama got a discount of about $300,000 from the list price, while Rezko, a developer, paid the full price of $625,000. Obama acknowledged he tipped off his acquaintance Rezko to the land’s availability.

Rezko, who was under federal investigation at the time the two closed on their purchases, was indicted last October on charges he tried to use his influence with Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich to shake down companies who wanted state business for campaign contributions and kickbacks.

In between the home closing and Rezko’s indictment, Obama bought a strip of land from Rezko to augment his side yard. When the deal became public, Obama apologized and called it a boneheaded move.

I don't see anything on the Talk page that fits what's been claimed earlier: "As for the non-story concerning his house, it was determined to be non-notable." By whom? In November 2006, consensus was reached on an archived section of the Talk page, and the rewrite to neutralize the POV looked like this:

On November 1, 2006 the Chicago Tribune reported that Obama's home in the South Side neighborhood of Chicago was purchased the same day as an adjoining vacant lot owned by the wife of Antoin Rezko, an Illinois businessman charged with political influence peddling, and a past contributor to Obama's election campaigns. Two days after the report, the same newspaper ran an editorial calling on Obama to explain why he would "allow himself any connection" to a developer who "notoriously attaches himself to political figures, often parlaying friendships into business dealings that have attracted official suspicions for several years." The following day the Chicago Tribune reported Obama's statement that it was a mistake to have engaged "in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow [Rezko], or anyone else, to believe that he had done me a favor. For that reason, I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it."

I recommend that's placed back in the main section, as agreed upon on the Talk page in November 2006 as cited above, and with neutral POV language. --Zz414 19:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

See discussion titled "comments from visiting editor." In that discussion, even User:Tvoz and myself agree on the suggestion to remove. Italiavivi 22:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

Appears to be some vandalism on the first line. Could someone please fix this?

Thank You —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.108.253.233 (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Signature

I don't think it is wise to put the Signature of him (or anyone else for that matter) on Wikipedia. It's too much of a risk. Someone can use that in forgery/identity theft attempts. It's a liability, unless given permission by the person (who acknowledges the risks involved in such an action) I think the signatures should be taken down.

-theropisssed@yahoo.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.78.228.43 (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

It's common practice for politicians, and because they sign so many autographs anyway, there's little to no reason to believe that a picture of a signature in a Wikipedia article will increase the risk of identity theft. But mainly, it's hosted on his own senate website here, so clearly there's no reason to believe Obama is worried about ID theft. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I see. Well that's a very good point. You can see where i'm coming from though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.78.228.43 (talk • contribs).

Of course. The situation would be different if Obama weren't a public figure, and I know I wouldn't want my signature posted here, for example. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Muslim ???

Hello, Some people say that he was Muslim but left Islam. I wish to know that how much truth this thing has? I am not able to find anything of this kind in the article. I will be thankful with some answers. regards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.230.150.178 (talk) 11:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

He isn't muslim and hasn't been at all, at least not in his adult life. His father was, but turned atheist either when obama was very young, or before he was born. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mason11987 (talk • contribs).

It's not in the article because he was not raised as a Muslim - was never a Muslim - not as a child or as an adult. Tvoz | talk 18:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I just added it in *with a source*. Why are you removing sourced information?

The best you could say is that the two sources conflict. Ken Arromdee 20:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Your source in no way said he "studied Islam", which is what you changed the text to say. It said he attended a Muslim school; there is a very significant difference between the two. (The source is actually incorrect, he spent two years at a public, secular school in a country that is 90% Muslim, and two years at a private, Catholic school.) —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Bbatsell is correct: the CNN investigation of the school found that it was, in fact, non-religious. See other parts of this talk page for relevant links and discussion. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Fellow editors, please be aware that the specific (and outdated) Yahoo! Singapore link to this Associated Press article was recently discovered and linked to by Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs under the post title "AP Admits Obama is an Islamic Apostate." In addition to inaccurately describing Obama as having been "in the Muslim faith" as a child, it also mistakenly repeated the debunked Insight/Fox News smear that Obama's public elementary in Jakarta, Indonesia was a "Muslim school." The Associated Press corrected the report today; both CBS and New York Times display the updated AP report, but the Yahoo! Singapore syndication has not updated yet. Please be on the lookout for anyone attempting to use this specific Yahoo! Singapore AP syndication. Care to guess where the anonymous editor "*with a source*" here just came from? Italiavivi 00:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sworn in on a Quran?

NO

Worth a mention? For those of us that live outside the US, that was the 1st time he graced our TV sets. And what exactly was the occasion. (Looked for it on google and youtube, can't find it now).--nocturnal omnivorous canine 13:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This was a mini-controversy about someone else. Nothing to do with Obama at all. Steve Dufour 13:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A very long article about it here. Rather shocking it was such a big issue IMHO Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress. I would think in most other modern demoracies, people would say the commentators who complained were idiots, ignore them from now on and move on right from the beginning. Nil Einne 17:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but it WASN'T OBAMA. Tvoz | talk 18:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Biracial

I cut out: "If elected, he would become the first biracial president of the United States of America." I don't think he is especially noted for this. Besides the word "biracial" is so vague. I'm sure that some past presidents have ancestors of more than one race. Steve Dufour 14:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"Biracial" is a very vague, agreed. Chris M. 14:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I would have less objection if it said the first "black" or "non-white" president, or even "the first president of color". :-) Steve Dufour 14:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think sayign non-white would work best, since at least we can all agree that that's true.--Wizardman 18:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think having the sentence removed completely as it is now (last I looked) is the best solution. I'm sorry I didn't do that last night, but there were so many edits and reversions that I couldn't quickly see when that line had even gotten into the graf (one of my prime reasons for supporting sprot as everyone here has read me say too often) - so I removed the ridiculous redundancy of "biracial" and "non-white", and intended to come back today and see how it got there. So again, I think taking the line out completely, leaving the text as we have had it, is the correct way to go right now. Tvoz | talk 18:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was the one that added the line at first. It initially read, "If elected, he would become the first African-American, as well as the first biracial president of the United States. But I agree, it should be left out. And, I'll be damned if it solely states African-American/black/or whatever. shakam

Is "non-white" acurate? Considering he's half-white.--220.238.176.232 11:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It would not be acurate except in American racial jargon. Steve Dufour 18:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Another thought I had today on this subject: The time to make this kind of statement will be after he leaves office. Then we can say something like, "He is also considered important for having been the first ("black", "biracial", or whatever) president in American history." If we say this will be noted if he is elected we will be predicting the future, which is against WP rules. Steve Dufour 00:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Drug Use

Should we include in this article that Obama is the first mainstream Presidential candidate who has admitted drug use, marijuana and cocaine? I think this is an important piece of information, considering the federal regulations refusing special security clearances, such as those needed by a President, to specific types of drug use. This may be a major issue during the race. This is the very reason that Clinton "did not inhale" and Bush "did not use cocaine".

Any Thoughts? - Eisenmond 18:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the idea that a serving President of the United States (the man with his finger on the red button, let's remember) would be denied security clearances is bizarre and totally a non-issue. The denials of previous presidents (presuming they actually were users) would have been for purely political reasons, and nothing to do with security clearances.--Pharos 19:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The article already discusses Obama's admission of marijuana and cocaine use as a teen. I don't see a need to give that fact any more weight by labeling him the first presidential candidate to admit as much (and wasn't Clinton's statement essentially an admission? What about Bush's declining to discuss whether he used any illegal drugs before 1974? my point is that the lines are probably a bit fuzzy here to label one of them a "first"). Are reliable sources discussing Obama's alleged "first" in respect to it being a "first"? I haven't seen any. And I completely agree with Pharos in re the security clearances non-issue. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Folks, Al Gore acknowledged marijuana use. So did John Kerry, Howard Dean, and John Edwards - I think those three did so in a "Rock the Vote" debate. They all are as mainstream as you can get, so can we please give up on this and move on? Tvoz | talk 19:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have heard that Washington and Jefferson also used marijuana. :-) Steve Dufour 01:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Cocaine use is pretty heavy stuff still and propably should be included no? Ecostaz 16:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

He never used cocaine. His book states that he almost did but he never touched the stuff. So much distortion is concentrated on this one man, we really need to double check everything before we start making accusations. Gdo01 16:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, i wasn't aware of that. Ecostaz 16:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I'm wrong he did do cocaine but he rejected heroin. Anyway read through the article, the marijuana and cocaine use is already in there. Gdo01 16:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

criticism stuff

Stepping back in. I haven't seen anything (yet!) that I think rises to notability for an Obama criticism section. The issues so far have been some strange real estate thing that the original source (the Trib) said was not a criticism themselves, and the "madrassa" controversy which I believe was withdrawn. Obviously people will find something that sticks, but for now I just haven't seen anything that merits a separate section. Sdedeo (tips) 00:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What about that recent verbal gaff he made about referring to the soldiers who died in Iraq as a "waste," or has that not been blown out of proportion yet by the media like the Kerry botched joke thing? I'm not saying I think it should be mentioned, I'm just wondering if when the contorversy section ever is developed this little point will be considered.

Quixoto 18:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think it's fair game, given the abundancy of Bushisms that can be found on Wiki.

Links to Obama's Parents, Etc.

I've inserted article links to Obama's parents, his step father, and his father's village, even though these articles don't yet exist on Wikipedia. These subjects are all notable insofar as they influenced Obama, and are frequent subjects of discussion in the media. Those looking for information, for example, about whether Obama's step-father was a dedicated Wahabbist (as conservative talk radio has claimed) should be able to turn to wikipedia to find information about Lolo Soetero. Same goes for Obama's mother and father and his father's villiage (which I've seen on the television news here in the US). Quality articles on these subjects will be of great use in the discussions of Ombama's background which will inevitably be a feature of American political life for the next year or two. ThaddeusFrye 22:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Our Manual of Style encourages against overlinking, and I don't know that any of Obama's family is notable enough with regard to Wikipedia's policies on notability. Obviously his family is going to be mentioned peripherally sometimes when Obama is mentioned, but I'm not certain how likely it is that they will ever receive attention as primary subjects (rather than as Obama's family). Redlinking to articles that don't exist and possibly won't ever exist doesn't help the article, in my humble opinion. If those articles are created, and their notability established, then I have not one problem with linking to them, but at present, that is not the case. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted before noticing that you had posted here, sorry. They aren't notable just because they "influenced Obama". In fact, if their notability is entirely tied to being related to Obama, they certainly shouldn't have articles here, in my opinion. I'm just not sure if there are multiple, non-trivial sources that discuss these people in detail. One caveat: I'm not saying that his economist father shouldn't have an article, though, but I know nothing about his work as an economist and whether it is encyclopedic. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the amount of discussion of these subjects in the media, as well as the number of google hits on them would in most cases be sufficient to establish notability. Additionally, all are discussed in Obama's published works. Most importantly however, all of these subjects are difficult to find reliable information about and subject to media rumors. Wikipedia can perform a valuable role in collecting and making available accurate information about these subject of wide public interest. While I agree that the article is now somewhat overlinked, I also think that links to non-existent articles are useful pointers towards where more work need to be done, and that including them is therefore quite important. (Alego, for example seems to be quite a very obscure village; however perhaps after seeing a red link, someone with access to good information on Kenya will be able to supply its location and a description.) Obama's candidacy has placed particular importance on his family background, and interest in these figures is sure to be significant. Whether or not we feel that the public *should* take an interest in these figures, Wikipedia will imo

best serve its purpose as a useful reference tool by providing information about them (including the information that articles on these subjects still need to be written). ThaddeusFrye 00:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

His family is probably all non-notable, but I think it would be great to have an article on Alego, his father's hometown. We have comparable articles on many very small towns in the US.--Pharos 00:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we are overlinked already, and unless someone has enough information to warrant writing separate articles, any stubs that just say Ann Dunham was Obama's mother, for example , will be merged back to here anyway. If, however, as Jersyko suggests, there is something notable to write an article about, then I hope someone will write it and we would link to it. As it stands now, I think adding red links is implying that there is notability without any evidence. Tvoz | talk 00:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% that his family members should not have articles. However I am almost sure that they will. Al Gore's non-notable son and George Bush's daughters have 'em. Steve Dufour 01:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but what about W's mom and dad? Oh wait . . . · j e r s y k o talk · 01:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

GW's daughters at least make the news every once and a while with their illegal antics, whereas Gore's son and Obama's parents aren't really that notable. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 04:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually Gore's son was in the news a fair amount, so if the daughters have articles it kind of makes sense for the son too. I would guess that Bill Clinton's mother has an article, becsause she was a personality that was known to the country, like Miss Lillian (let's see how many old folks know who I mean)... Obama's mother, however, is unknown to the world, as far as I know, so I await with bated breath what her article would be. Tvoz | talk 04:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• I find it very likely that Obama's family will eventually become clearly noteworthy enough to merit articles, as more news sites focus in on them over the coming months. (I expect that Fox will have a field day running with the idea of a liberal presidential candidate having two atheist parents, for example.) In particular, if Obama ends up making it through the primaries (though possibly even if he doesn't), it will be a certainty that his parents will need their own articles, as the topic of a major current presidential candidate's parents is automatically noteworthy, and his (and their) history is too complex to all cover within the Barack Obama article. However, it may be wise to wait and see whether that happens before rushing to make such articles in anticipation. If any of the editors here are antsy to start work on such pages (which I think could be quite fascinating, honestly; Obama's parents seems like remarkable people, and I find his mother especially interesting), then I recommend working on such articles in Userspace until they unambiguously meet our criteria for inclusion. -Silence 11:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Tvoz | talk 19:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm really somewhat mystified that several people have asserted that Obama's partents and step-parents are non-notable, without proving any rationale for their claim. It would seem that according to the standards of Wikipedia:Notability (people), these persons (like his father's village) quite clearly fall within the usual guidelines for notability. A notable person is one who, for example: "has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." Hundreds or thousands of discussions (already) of these persons in radio and on television seem quite clearly to establish notability based on this criterion. On a more abstract level, this information seems clearly to pass the "100 years test," given that those interested in the biographies of famous persons always find information such as this of use. Frankly, I find the refusal to admit notablity in these cases irresponsible, given the enormous amount of speculative public discussion now taking place about these people. Also, I find it ironic that those Obama himself acknowledges to have had a a crucially formative influence on him seem to have been judged less notable than the creators of obscure CD's, web comics, etc. who are routinely included in Wikipedia. Surely raising Barack Obama is as notable as putting together a college band, especially since Obama himself emphasizes the importance of his parents in the formation of his character and beliefs. Finally, I have a disturbing sense that some may be averse to including links to articles that don't yet exist for purely aesthetic reasons, or that they might make the article "look bad" as an encyclopedia article. I hope I'm wrong about that, as of course the omission of links in order to make a good impression on readers would be a very bad and irresponsible practice. ThaddeusFrye 03:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's not go overboard here. Do we have an article on Alexander Hamilton's absentee father? Oh, and talk radio doesn't count as "non-trivial published works", as it's (1) trivial and (2) non-published. I say we reconsider the family articles if he's elected. I still support the article on his father's village in Kenya, which would be notable by our standards whether or not any American politician's father came from there.--Pharos 17:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Pharos, although I sympathize with Thaddeus. There are way too many non-notable people with articles here. I have nominated a couple for deletion. What happens is the fans of the person vote to keep, and make me feel guilty for hurting their feelings. :-) Steve Dufour 17:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Opinion survey: Obama's kicking the (smoking) habit.

It came up during his recent 60 Minutes piece, there are multiple mainstream media references [10], and even a "Quit Smoking with Obama" group [11] on his campaign website. He and his wife are both open about his kicking the habit. I am now of the opinion that Sen. Obama's quitting is notable enough for mention, and would like to survey this page's editors concerning a mention of Sen. Obama's current no-smoking effort.

I propose a mention which highlights his public effort to quit smoking, not one which impugns him simply for being/having been a smoker. I propose adding this mention into his currently sparse "Personal life" section. Italiavivi 23:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Please add *Support following the statement you most support, with explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~.

Barack Obama's current effort to quit smoking is notable enough for inclusion within the article.

• Support. My rationale for inclusion is outlined above. Italiavivi 23:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. A quick Google News search shows over 200 articles in the last month that mention "Obama" and "smoking." This is a pretty big issue, either because people care or because people are telling other people they shouldn't care. --Zz414 03:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. However a whole *section* on this issue would be *way* more than is called for. Smoking can be mentioned quite briefly, for example: "Obama writes about using marijuana and cocaine during his teenage years to "push questions of who I was out of my mind." Obama also took up smoking during his high school years, a habit he has recently resolved to quit." (The second sentence would be new to the article.) No whole section is needed for this, and there do not need to be updates every time there's a rumor that someone saw him smoking. But a very brief mention is fine, as this is a widely discussed subject.ThaddeusFrye 05:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

True, I did not mean to use the word "section," and have changed the wording above. Italiavivi 12:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support. It may warrant a sentence in the personal section. The Obama's have brought up her agreeing to let him run for Prez if he quits smoking several times in interviews, but anything more than a sentence is undue. --Bobblehead 01:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Barack Obama's current effort to quit smoking is NOT notable enough for inclusion within the article.

• Support. This information does not need to be included in the article. It is of a trivial nature and while some may find it important or interesting Wikipedia should not seek to be a comprehensive source of information about a living person. Other sources such as the "60 Minutes" interview are available for people to obtain the information from if in their POV it is important. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 02:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support -- How many synonyms are there for superfluity? Ernham 02:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support -- The problem is not in available reliable sources. It is with WP:Notability. With this I think a reading of the WP:DUST essay is not a bad idea. --Rtrev 03:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think it is as much a matter of reliable sources as it a question of whether the fact is of a trivial nature and I agree that it does not meet notability. We should give serious consideration to whether this fact would have been part of the article had it not made the news as newsworthiness is not the same thing as notability. Edward Lalone | (Talk)

• Support it really doesn't add much to the article to add it. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 03:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Arguments against non-notability

WP:NOTABILITY says the following: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other." It also states that "If there are multiple independent reliable published sources that have a topic as their subject, this is not changed by the frequency of coverage decreasing. Thus, if a topic once satisfied the primary notability criterion, it continues to satisfy it over time."

Question: How much more must Barack and Michelle Obama discuss his decision to quit smoking publicly with the media before it is considered notable enough for inclusion within Wikipedia? Does the fact that he has campaign supporters on his campaign site running a "quit smoking with Barack" drive not factor into this in any way? My fellow editors invoke WP:NOTABILITY, but I do not understand their interpretation of the policy. Italiavivi 03:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This section is inappropriately titled. Why isn't it titled: "Arguments against non-notability?" Why must someone argue against notability as if notability is already assumed. I deliberately changed the title of this section to emphasize that you are not the one controls how a discussion is handled. If you can feel free to move my comments than you shouldn't have a problem with the new title of this section. Or do you just like to put those who disagree with you on the defensive with your passive-aggressive attitude? And to word this survey and section in such a way that your POV has a more prominent position in the discussion (i.e., instead of you having to give your arguments for non-notability others have to give their arguments against notability and to do so in a special section that you create for those of us who disagree with you). I want you to know that I do not intend to keep my arguments against notability contained to this section. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 04:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate you not disrupting a discussion just to make a point. If you are more comfortable with that title, and the title will help you get back to the subject at hand, it does not bother me though. Italiavivi 05:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I am not disrupting the discussion by making a point that I want to discuss. You don't decide what course this discussion will take or what I am allowed to make a point about. Also, I was discussing the subject at hand which is notability. It may not be what you want me to say but it is what I did say and it was a point that goes directly to the issue of notability or non-notability. You did not have to respond to my comment if you considered it something that had no bearing on what you wanted to discuss as you are free to discuss or not discuss whatever you choose. I on the other hand do not consider my comments a disruption to a discussion I am having. If you don't want to discuss what I had just said than don't respond to it. You don't have to be so uncivil to accuse me of disrupting a discussion that I am a part of. In fact, I could just as easily consider you comments to be taking away from my main point and therefore be a disruption but I don't. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 05:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Answer I know that I personally do not understand your interpretation of policy and I am sure other editors feel the same way. What campaigns are being conducted on the Obama website of which I am a member has no bearing on whether this fact is notable. This isn't Obama's campaign website. We aren't here to promote Obama or to draw attention to his personal goals, or his personal decision to quit smoking even if he and his supporters choose to draw attention to it. So to your question about his supporters conducting a quit smoking campaign factoring into this I have to say that it does not as this isn't Obama's campaign website. Also, the amount of media coverage of a fact does not equate to it being a topic (i.e, Obama is a topic as opposed to his quitting smoking not being a topic). Being an active member of Obama's website I ask you where exactly is this so-called "campaign." I am not saying that it isn't on the website but that I who have been actively involved on his website have not yet come across it. As far as I can see it is not a part of his static content. If it is something that we are doing on the blogs and in the groups than it has no right to be included based on that. Obama doesn't even mention smoking on his health care page. Doing a search of BarackObama.com gets no search return for the word smoking and when you use the word "smoke" returns three mentions of it on his website which have no bearing on his quitting smoking. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 05:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Other Discussion

• Comment. I don't think this even warrants serious discussion on this talk page and while it has been in the news there are numerous articles about people who have quit smoking which make no mention of this fact and I think that there has to be a political motivation behind including it. As a supporter I would love for people to know that he has quit smoking because of his decision to run for President but I must put my political opinion aside and I hope others will too. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 03:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not appreciate your implying that there "has to be a political motivation" on my part to seek inclusion of his public kicking of the habit. I would ask that you see Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and strike that remark from your comment. Italiavivi 03:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment. And I do not appreciate you impugning my reason, for mentioning that there might be a political motivation for including this information as it is important to consider when discussing this, or interpreting what I said in such an offensive manner and I would suggest you strike your entire comment because it is highly offensive and I suggest you assume good faith as well. I do not appreciate it when others attack my motives or my reason for doing something or imply that I should strike a remark that they disagree with. I really do not appreciate your above comments and the lack of civility in its tone is offensive. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 03:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no apologies for you. You took a properly constructed survey, a survey created before even attempting to edit the article itself, and immediately accused other editors of "having political motivation behind" their contributions. You may be able to link WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY, but you seem unwilling to abide by them. Italiavivi 03:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment This comment is offensive and rude. I did not accuse anyone of having a political motivation and it is you who has not assumed good faith but impugned my reason for the statement I made. I don't care if you have no apologies for me as I did not ask for one. All that I ask is that you remain civil. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 03:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I will let your words speak for themselves: "I think that there has to be a political motivation behind including it." You assumed bad faith from the get-go. Italiavivi 03:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment And you assumed that I had assumed bad faith from the get go. Which I did not. I simply made a valid point of my own and you assumed I was assuming bad faith and impugned my motives. It was you who said, "you are assuming bad faith." How is that not assuming bad faith? I had every right to believe and to say that I believe that there is a political motivation behind including the comment and the reason I said it was not because I was assuming bad faith but because I consider it a valid point for why the statement should not be included in the article. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 03:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Stating your "belief that there is political motivation behind including the comment" is an expression of assuming bad faith in every way possible. Italiavivi 04:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment No it isn't. I was making a point that the comment should not be included because it probably had a political motivation. That is not to assume you had that reason nor did I claim that you did. I made a statement that is valid and that is a good reason why this comment should not be included as a part of the article and you were so uncivil to assume that I was assuming bad faith. I had every right to make that point and I now state clearly that you are wrong and that I did not assume bad faith. Let me state that as clearly as I can: YOU WRONGLY ASSUMED THAT I HAD ASSUMED BAD FAITH BUT WAS MERELY MAKING A POINT ABOUT WHY THE COMMENT SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE ARTICLE. I ALSO HAD A RIGHT TO EXPLAIN MY REASONS FOR OPPOSING THE STATEMENT BEING INCLUDED. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 04:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down. Screaming in all-caps is wholly unwarranted and uncivil. Italiavivi 04:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Okay. I am uncivil. Attack me, impugn my motives and assume bad faith on my part and when I take issue with it call me uncivil and my comments unwarranted. What is unwarranted is your saying that my all-caps is unwarranted and uncivil and it is highly rude of you to say so. Why don't you calm down and stop referring to my statements as uncivil, stop impugning my motives and stop telling me what is and is not warranted as its clear that your comments are unwelcome and rude and I consider them highly uncivil and I suggest you calm down. You have successfully put me on the defensive. Was that your intent when you accused me of assuming bad faith? You are rude, inconsiderate, uncivil and your comments are unwarranted and offensive. What started out as a simple point about me thinking that the comment shouldn't be included because I thought it had a political motivation has resulted in you maligning my character, and impugning my motives. Continue this and you will win and I will leave this talk page. I have never had anyone be so rude and uncivil as to accuse me of assuming bad faith. I find it offensive, rude, inconsiderate and uncivil and then to top it off you say that my using caps it unwarranted. And deliberately try to escalate this by accusing me of not being calm. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 04:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I simply find the hostility of all-caps screaming hard to deal with, so I will back off of your discontent for tonight. Italiavivi 04:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Discontent? I now see that there is no way for me not to be the bad guy. Is this how you treat everyone? Do you go around accusing people of assuming bad faith and attempt to escalate the situation by being more and more rude without seeming to be and then accuse people of being discontented your lack of civility. No one deserves this kind of attack and I am more than happy to say I, Edward Lalone, former candidate for the Utah House, find your conduct arrogant, pompous, rude, uncivil for accusing me of assuming bad faith for simply drawing attention to a point which should be discussed. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 04:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your willingness to run for public office is admirable. I respect that, Edward Lalone, former candidate for the Utah House. Italiavivi 04:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment I drew attention to the fact that I ran for public office because it shows that not everything is at it seems and that no one needs to put up with your passive-aggressive attitude and that they have as much right to make comments here without having to deal with your inappropriate attempts to move their comments and assume that a simple statement on their part is stated in bad faith. It is always inappropriate to accuse others of assuming bad faith as it impugns their motives for their sincerely held beliefs and views. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 04:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose My oppose comment here was inappropriately removed by another editor. My reason was that "it does not warrant serious attention in this article. Simply being newsworthy or interesting does not make something notable enough for inclusion in a Wikipedia article." Edward Lalone | (Talk) 03:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If I may follow up, what exactly does this section fail according to Wikipedia standards? You admit that it's either newsworthy or interesting, but you think it's for some other reason violative of Wikipedia's standards. What particular standards? --Zz414 12:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment I do not admit that it is either newsworthy or interesting instead I stated that simply because it is considered newsworthy or interesting does not mean that it should be included as notability is not the same as newsworthiness. To start this article should not give undue weight to his decision to quit smoking. Simply, "undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements." The idea that we should give serious consideration in this article to his decision to quit smoking is concerning as "an article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject."

This fact simply does not meet the significance of being prominently included in the article. Biographical articles are not repositories of every fact, trivia, or statement made by an individual during their life. Further, "undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Ernham made the point "If his cat died tonight, it would get 500-1000 hits on google by the morning. I can't wait for the subsection in this wiki, personally. Meow." Here he makes a valid observation as to the notability of personal facts about a person's life. An example of giving undue weight to his quitting smoking is that no where in the article is it mentioned that his children want him to run for President so they can "get a dog." This statement was also made in his "60 Minutes" interview along with his decision to stop smoking. Should we include that he likes to cook pasta because that is his children's favorite food? Or that he might very well be the first "Commander in Chef." The "I" was deliberately left out and the word Chef is correct. You have yet to give an argument as to why this should be included and on Wikipedia we place the burden on those including information to prove that it should be included. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 20:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment If his cat died tonight, it would get 500-1000 hits on google by the morning. I can't wait for the subsection in this wiki, personally. Meow.Ernham 03:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The moving of my comments without my consent is inappropriate and I do not agree with the POV that my oppose comments should have been moved. I therefore moved my statement back to where I intend it to be and do not appreciate the censorship of my comments. Maybe I should start moving your comments Italiaviv. I have moved my statement back to where it should be and strongly urge those with a different POV not to move it again. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 03:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If I started arguing with people within the "Support" statements, ignoring the "Discussion" section, I would welcome someone refactoring and moving my comments for the sake of the discussion. Italiavivi 03:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Now I am arguing? Why? Because I oppose your POV or do not consider it appropriate to move my comments without my consent. I did not ignore the discussion section. In fact, I made several comments in the discussion section but those are separate from my comments which I made outside of the discussion section. I don't like it that you impose your POV that such comments should only be included in the discussion section and impugn my motives or imply that I am arguing simply by stating my opinion outside of the discussion section. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 03:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Stop. First of all, m:Polls are evil. Much more is accomplished (with fewer instances of sheep-like behavior) through discussion. I strongly encourage that the "poll" sections be removed and simple discussion take place. Thanks. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks Despite my participation in the poll... thanks for that. Discussion is much better. --Rtrev 03:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that structured surveys are useful, if not treated as binding democracies. That is also why I strongly discourage Support/Oppose voting, and prefer support statements from all sides with explanations. I do not subscribe to the essay you link, but do not feel it applies to structured discussions/surveys regardless. Italiavivi 03:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment So you take it upon yourself to impose your POV about discouraging Support/Opppose voting and make it mandatory by moving my Oppose statement. I find this attitude and approach to be unacceptable and a violation of my right to disagree with this method and to do so as a part of this survey. It is my right to do so. I still strongly oppose the first statement and you have prevented me from making known my strong opposition by moving my objection to it. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 03:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved your opposition statement to the argument/discussion section. I did not "prevent you from making known your strong opposition" in any way. Italiavivi 03:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Who do you think you are? To move my comments which I do not want included in this discussion here. My opposition to a statement has as much right to be included as a part of the survey as do the support statements made. By moving my comment you down-played my opposition and relegated it simply to a discussion point which it wasn't. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 04:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Edwardlalone's comments are becoming more and more heated, and filled with rhetoric ("Who do you think you are!") and unwarranted accusations. I intend to let him cool down, and will discuss the notability/content questions at hand below. Italiavivi 04:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment If this is not the most passive-aggressive way of attacking others without seeming to do so than I don't know what is. What is unwarranted is you saying what you just did. Your comment itself is far more heated than any that I have made. The condscending, rude, and inconsiderate why you have dealt with me is unacceptable and someone needs to point it out. I came here to discuss an issue and you attack my character and my motives and assume bad faith on my part simply because of one statement I made. Then when I ask a valid question of "Who do you think you are?" You continue to act towards me in a condescending way. I will not continue to allow you to edit my comments, move them, assume bad faith on my part, accuse me of resorting to rhetoric, and resorting to heated comments. I am more than happy to move on to other issues as that was my original intent before your uncivil comments. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 04:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I removed my comments as its clear that this will end up turning into a revert war as you are intent on being rude and uncivil and doing this. You are just forunate that I don't do the same to you as I have far more consideration than that. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 03:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my previous remark, that I would welcome you reformatting my comments were I arguing in a manner that went against the discussion's guidelines. Italiavivi 03:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment But I do not welcome it when you do it and it is offensive. Your POV that you would welcome it if I did it to you does not change the fact that this is your POV and I do not agree with it and do not welcome it as now my comment is out of context and it seems like I am not responding to a statement that was made which I was. TO allow a point to be made outside of the discussion section in the form of a rationale without allowing editors to respond directly to it is inappropriate. Also, to not be allowed to state your strong opposition to a statement that is part of a survey is not acceptable. Not only do I support the second statement but I oppose the first and for different reasons. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 03:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The two statements are direct polar opposites. One cannot support both. Supporting one is opposing the other. Italiavivi 03:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment This is your POV and you have no right to impose it upon me. I do not agree that the reasons I support the one statement are the same as the reasons I oppose the second and do not consider them polar opposite. While it is true that one cannot support both it is not true that one has to have the same reason for supporting one while opposing the other. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 03:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Supporting one is still intrinsically opposing the other. A discussion section is readily available for arguments/disagreements. Italiavivi 04:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment But I wasn't discussing anything, I was stating my opposition to the statement made instead of my support. Your decision to only allow support statements is unfair and arbitrary. Those who support the statement get to explain their rationale in a prominent location while I who oppose the statement have to have my opposition included as a part of a discussion section which may or may not be read. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 04:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't intend to further nitpick the semantics of your unhappiness with this survey's attempt at structure. I simply ask that you calm down and get back to the article's content. I have created a further discussion on notability arguments below. Would you object to my moving the "Arguments against notability" section below to above this current (rather lengthy) dispute? Italiavivi 04:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment You feel free to move anything you want as its clear that you intend to do so. Also, I wasn't unhappy with the survey's structure. What I am unhappy with is your uncivil conduct. That you can't see how rude your above comment is and how offensive it is than there is no reason to continue this discussion. Also, referring to this as a dispute seems arrogant as it assumes that there is something to dispute as if the decision is yours to make and mine to dispute. It further implies that I did not have the right to object to your moving MY COMMENTS without my consent. Moving sections is one thing but moving comments made by individual editors is another. I have never not been calm but if it makes you feel all fuzzy inside to think, "look at how good I am for being the better person and asking the unhappy "user Edward" to calm down." The passive aggressive way in which you treat others need to be condemned. New editors leave when people accuse them of assuming bad faith and behaving as you have. Being less secure about myself and my opinions I may have done the same but I now that other editors aren't as rude as you have been here. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 04:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I will move the discussion above the dispute here, then. I'm sorry you feel that way, but thank you. Italiavivi 04:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Part Arab

He said on MSNBC that he was part Arab also his father and step-father were muslum.

Uh-oh. If he's part arab, that makes him more white than black. Hmmmm. Guess that's 397093734702 strikes against labeling him "african american".Ernham 16:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If he said he was "part Arab", he probably only meant it in the sense that all East Africans probably have some Arab ancestry. His father was a Luo (Kenya and Tanzania).--Pharos 17:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Plus he was making a play for the Arab-American vote. :-) Steve Dufour 18:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Can someone please give the source for this information? I question whether he made such a statement on MSNBC and the context it was made in if he did do so. Often statements can be taken out of context or outright fabricated. I found one reference on ABC that said that Obama admitted to using cocaine and marijuanna as a teenager. This statement was not correct as he has explicitly denied using cocaine and has clearly stated that he "only" considered using cocaine and I do not recall if they did a retraction. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 20:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not correct at all. He admits to smoking marijuana and "doing some blow when I could afford it" (paraphrased, as I don't have the book in front of me) in Dreams from My Father. The interview in 60 Minutes on Sunday quoted him directly from his book, when the interviewer asked whether he thought it would be an issue in his campaign. He has never denied using cocaine. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: Although I do doubt the veracity of this claim :) —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism?

where is the section on criticism and controversy. not everyone loves him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by I'mDown (talk • contribs) 07:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

There isn't a controversy section because he hasn't been in any notable contraversies. I'm not sure why there isn't a criticism section but I would guess that he doesn't have one because his opinions/statements are rarely polarized, such that what little criticism he does get, is for petty stuff that has little to do with things he's actually done. --Ubiq 11:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Time magazine had an article this week about his lack of support in the black community, who (Time says) prefer Senator Clinton. This might be worth mentioning. Steve Dufour 17:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

People simply not liking or loving Obama does not warrant a controversy or criticism section or sub-article. There must be sufficent credible, verifiable and neutral sources that cover such controversies or criticisms before they can be included. This is an encyclopedia and not a "political website." Edward Lalone | (Talk) 21:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:Edwardlalone on this matter. Italiavivi 23:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What about the Tony Rezko real estate deal. What about the racist remarks towerds whites in his first book. There are many other things. This guy is a politician so for sure he is a crook. The media loves him so its hard to get the dirt on him but it is there. Some of his views like social security, abortion, and affirmative action are very controversial. Manic Hispanic 00:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The real estate deal may be notable enough to be worked into the text; I'd rather defer to those who know more about it than I do, and apparently it has been discussed and excluded. The rest of your comments are absolute bunk. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

adding a controversy section, removing racial epithet from lead

A controversy section should be added that deals with: the madrassa "scandal"/"slander" however you want to look at that issue. It should also include the controversy of his statement regarding "wasted lives" in referring to US casualties in Iraq. Further, it should talk about the various issues regarding some people asserting he is african american and others the assert he is not. Another possibility is any opinions he might have that might be contraindicated by his religion, as I think he has a few. Ernham 19:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, criticism/controversy sections are unnecessary as most criticisms/controversies can be worked into the other sections of the article and criticism/controversy sections tend to turn into a dropping place for every complaint about the subject of the article. The madrassa "scandal"/"slander", "He's not black enough" complaints from the African-American community, and Howard comments can be worked into the 2008 Presidential election section/article as that seems to be the cause of those issues. As for the "first African American" comment in the lead, take a stroll through the archives. It's been brought up over and over again. --Bobblehead 20:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting that you insist I check the archive because it has been "brough up over and over again, yet you don't see any sense in a controversy section that talks about that very issue. Interesting, did i say? Maybe ironic is betterErnham 01:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should re-read my comment. I said it could be worked into the existing article and that a Controversy section was unnecessary. Suggest you strike your comment and try to respond in a constructive manner. --Bobblehead 01:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Your comments tend to be just a colossal waste of my time. You instruct me to check out O'Reilly's wiki, for instance, yet a full 25% of that wiki is a "controversy section" that is not at all "worked into the rest of the wiki".Ernham 18:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I pointed you towards the controversy section on Bill O'Reilly's page to show you what happens when a controversy section is included in an article and all the trivial crap that ends up in that section. I thought I was being clear about that, but apparently I was not. The only thing in that section that is even remotely encyclopedic is the Al Franken lawsuit and that can easily be worked into either the broadcasting career section, the O'Reilly Factor section of the article, or change the title of the Sexual Harassment lawsuits section to Lawsuits and work it in there. None of the controversies that you've brought up so far can't be worked into the existing prose of this article. I haven't looked into if reliable sources have been found regarding the controversies, but if there are reliable sources, then I can't think of a reason why they shouldn't be worked into this article, just not under a "Controversy" section. The fact that they are controversies should be self-evident without the need to label them as such. --Bobblehead 19:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment As this article is a biography of a living person we need to use caution when adding controversial statements to the article so my suggestion would be for you to write up a user page for a Barack Obama controversies article similar to Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies that meets verifiability, no original research and neutrality and tag it with the userpage tag until it is completed before we add a controversy section to this article. I agree with Bobblehead that criticism and controversy sections are generally unnecessary and can be worked into the article and when dealing with a living person it can cause unnecessary trouble for Wikipedia yet I recognize that there is a desire in respect to public figures to focus on controversies as this allows people to get on their soapboxes. I have the same problem with this as I do with those who seek to get on soapboxes in favor of living people as well.

There is absolutely no place in a biographical article for listing opinions that contradict OTHERS religions as there is no opinion held by Obama that contradicts HIS religion as religion is a personal belief set. This would be like saying that his opinions contradict his opinions. If there is an article about the beliefs of his official Church or denomination than it should be linked to and not directly brought into this article. Edward Lalone | (Talk)

Bobblehead wrote: "Another possibility is any opinions he might have that might be contraindicated by his religion, as I think he has a few." I'm not sure what you're getting at here, would you please explain in detail? Italiavivi 22:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible material I'm aware of fitting of a controvery section:

• Real estate dealings.
• African American "status".
• Calling troop deaths "wasted lives".
• "Madrassa" fiasco.

I believe a controversy section is warranted, as few of these lend themselves to being randomly injected here and there.Ernham 23:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not what you think fits in a controversy section that matters or whether a section is warranted because you think that this information cannot fit elsewhere because it can. It seems to me that you simply want to give undue weight (i.e., by prominence) to controversies by creating a section that gives greater weight to the differences of opinions surounding Obama. Also, the ACTUAL controversy must be mentioned in a reliable, verifiable, and neutral source. For example, the article "Obama's race dilemma" in the Boston Globe refers to his race as being a dilemma but does not refer to it as being controversial but does refer to Biden's comments as a controversy.

This source among others can be fitted into the article text fairly easily. The problem I see with what you suggest is that it requires a "POV" determination of what is and is not controversial and the section then becomes a dumping ground for editors who troll the internet and find a news article about Obama that they then add to the controversy section. Creating a new section simply because editors do not want to write a holistic article concerns me. If you can cite a source that actually labels any of these things as a controversy than you should as a part of the article cite those sources but it is original research to decide that a news article that reports person A believes Obama is not African-American while person B believes that he is and it gives the information undue weight in the article. Also, unless the article refers to it as a controversy it is original research to label it a controversy. This also goes to your point about Obama's opinions being contradicted by his religion. That is original research unless an actual source says "Barack Obama holds opinion A, and his religion teaches B and Paster C says that opinion A conflicts with B while Paster D disagrees. This has resulted in a controversy over whether Barack Obama's opinion on A conflicts with teaching B of his denomination." Edward Lalone | (Talk) 00:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

For reference on what happens with a "Controversy" section, I point you towards Bill O'Reilly's article. OMG!! He reports on controversial topics like the "War on Christmas", says Inside Edition won two Peabody Awards when it didn't, and calls Rush Limbaugh and entertainer and refers to himself as a journalist... Whooptie freaking do. :P If the controversy is really notable enough, it can be worked into the rest of the article (see Bill's article again). --Bobblehead 00:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I formatted your list, Ernham. A serious consideration is that for both the "wasted" incident and the real estate deal, Obama publicly acknowledged the "controversy" and apologized. [12][13] These are just two citations, one for each, but they're reliable sources (the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times), verifiable, and neutral (both are reports, not columns or opinions). I'm sure we can find other articles on these two issues, but I'm willing to back you up on these two at least. And while we may not need to create a "controversy" section, they could easily be incorporated in the main article during the relevant portions of his career. --Zz414 02:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ZZ414, the "wasted" and real estate incidents should be included. I also think the madrassa "story" should be included. There should definitely be a criticism section. Any subject that has been criticized should have one. 71.198.52.89 06:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently he also has had a long voting record of voting "present" instead of yea/nea to numerous bills in his state legislature, which is apparently in stark contrast to what he claims in his book should be the responsibility of a legislator. This is similar to what I earlier meant about contradicting one's stated beliefs on a subject. These are some major "hot-button" issues, too, including things like abortion rights, gun control/enforcement, etc. bhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20070213/cm_rcp/the_everpresent_obama

"Osama" errors

I seriously question the relevance of this, unless it can be proved that CNN etc. did it intentionally.--Pharos 22:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Intent may never be found, and, in-fact may not have been intentional, but the relevancy lies in the reality of a political race, how media on one or both sides of a perceived political aisle can subtly paint a picture one way or another to bias or promote a candidate. The NY Post is not known for it lack of political bias, just as the NY Times has been accused of being left, and the Washington Times to the right. Voters will decide on a candidate for a variety of reasons from actual abilities and experiences to the low and dirty aspects of race, religion, color, etc. While the latter is an unfortunate truth, they are factors; and the factors that are used are always relevant to a balanced story. Juda S. Engelmayer 23:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I know the Post is a right-wing paper. The problem is, there are no reliable sources proving either intentional or unconscious bias as the cause of the "Osama" errors. As such, I don't think this type of thing belongs in an encyclopedia article.--Pharos 23:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said, it does not have to be intentional. The fact that it was printed in a public forum now makes it relevant, as people within the general population will incorporate these messages into their minds, and find truths where they deem it convenient. Obama's race for the White House will, at some point, be reflective of what the media presented - truth, lies, intent, accidental, etc. I believe that popular media coverage that can and will impact some aspect of his future is totally relevant to an encyclopedic piece that defines the person, his life and his challenges.

Juda S. Engelmayer 23:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Judae1 wrote: "as people within the general population will incorporate these messages into their minds, and find truths where they deem it convenient." Juda, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Extrapolation on "Osama" typos/errors has no place in Wikipedia articles. Italiavivi 23:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This is hardly extrapolation, it is fact, and a very important fact. This is not some random sourced ad rag, it is from CNN, the AP and the New York Post. All three, and the other sources that covered it too that are not mentioned here, have contributed to making it totally part of Senator Obama's life now. Juda S. Engelmayer 23:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be OK to add this material, Juda. As long as it meets WP:RS and WP:BLP it should be fine. In fact, I'll help you with it! --sunstar net^talk 23:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It would not be okay, and I will immediately remove anything resembling the type of extrapolation which violates official Wikipedia policy. Italiavivi 23:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As long as it meets RS and is notable, then it should merit inclusion. So far the only bit in the article that meets Wikipedia's standards is CNN's screw up as it is supported by an AP article to support the criticism. The NY Post is original research supported by a blog at this point, so shouldn't be included until a reliable source can be found that is critical of the NY Post article. --Bobblehead 23:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That Blog you mentioned is the Empire Zone, operated by the NYTimes. The opening titles are not edited by the public, only the related comments are. The same standards that the Times puts into their articles are used when beginning a discussion. The headline is reliable. (About The Empire Zone - A blog from the metropolitan staff of The Times about politics in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, supplementing our news coverage. Juda S. Engelmayer 00:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realize the NY Post paragraph was actually referring two different articles. I meant the "Earlier, on January 20, 2007, the New York Post received some criticism for running a potentially misleading headline, "Osama' Mud Flies at Obama", for a story that discussed rumors that Sen. Obama had been raised as a Muslim and concealed it. The story itself never mentioned the Saudi terrorist, and the rumor is false." portion. A blog criticizing the Post for the article's title does not qualify as a reliable source for saying the post was criticized for the article's title. I'm going to delete that sentence, but you can find a reliable source criticizing the article's title. --Bobblehead 00:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A news source randomly making a typographical mistake is not notable, even if it can be documented.--Pharos 23:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree with Pharos. I challenge its notability: It was an error made by a news site, no news site was comparing the two, or anything even remotely mention-worthy. Wikipedia articles need not point out that "Obama" and "Osama" rhyme. Italiavivi 00:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This is just allowing politics and personal feelings here to get in the way. It is not that they rhyme that is at issue, it is that it is now part of his life, and something he will have to deal with. Like any other aspect of an encyclopedic bio, it has to not just mention the easy fluff, but the hurdles on the road to success. Juda S. Engelmayer 00:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The burden of justifying notability is yours. I don't care anything about "hurdles" or "roads," I care about Wikipedia policy, including WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NOT. Italiavivi 00:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

(EC)"A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other." Putting aside the question of whether WP:N even applies to a fact about an obviously notable person, this section appears to cite multiple, non-trivial published works about these errors, including the NY Times, NY Post, CNN, and the AP. So I'm confused as to why you think the information is not notable or verifiable. On your WP:Not point, I take it to mean that you think this is an indiscriminate collection of information - is that your argument there? --TheOtherBob 00:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A typo is not the subject of a work. It's a mistake in the work. I would aver that this is an indiscriminate collection of information.--Pharos 00:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A typo is not the subject of the work of which it is a part, true. But if it is then widely reported about and commented on, then it is the subject of the articles about it. The articles cited here seem to be the latter - they're articles about the typos, not articles containing the typos. --TheOtherBob 00:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I would further posit that including it in any way gives significant undue weight to simple typographical errors. This policy includes giving undue weight to verifiable and sourced statements. Italiavivi 00:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:Undue Weight is a little hard to apply because it deals with viewpoints, not facts. Nonetheless, I would concur if major news outlets had not also given it such weight. Simple typographical errors are not typically written about in the New York Times - these errors received fairly wide-spread media coverage and discussion. The news media apparently thinks the errors are significant, so it seems rather odd for us as a tertiary source to dismiss them as insignificant. --TheOtherBob 00:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight does not apply to only viewpoints. Your understanding of the policy is flawed, and I would encourage you to re-read the page. From WP:Undue weight: "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements." Italiavivi 01:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil, mate. In any event, WP:Undue Weight is a part of the neutral point of view guidelines, as your comment points out by noting that "giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements" is "not neutral." Since no one is talking about NPOV, I find that a little hard to apply that guideline. (Though I'm open to a NPOV discussion if that's part of your objection.)

But here's the thing - it doesn't really matter whether we call it undue weight or something else because (a) I think I understand what you're getting at (you see this as a trivial fact) and (b) as I did above, I'm willing to accept your view of the undue weight guidelines for the sake of this discussion. As I explained above, though, we would only be giving these facts the weight and significance more primary sources have given them. So applying your view of the undue weight guidelines, I still think these facts would not violate them. --TheOtherBob 03:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Maureen Dowd writes about a lot of things in her opinion column, in a rather sharp, witty style. She does not write straight news articles. There has been minimal coverage of this as actual news, and one of the things we are WP:NOT anyway is a newspaper.--Pharos 00:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems like even if we were to exclude the Dowd column, the AP and CNN are still reliable (and wide-spread) sources that reported this as a news story (as are CBS News, Salon.com, the CBC, etc.) (Though Dowd is a reliable source in any event regardless of her style or focus, and should not be excluded). If you run a search for this, it was apparently covered in places like Israel and Kenya - I'd say that's pretty widespread coverage. We're not a newspaper, but that doesn't mean that we cannot include facts from newspapers so long as they otherwise meet our criteria. With coverage this wide-spread and with an issue that so far seems to have a long shelf-life, this does not strike me as "news." --TheOtherBob 01:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

CNN apologizing for its own typo does not count as a news story. Many newspapers reprint short, quirky AP stories like this; that is not a sign of global importance. Now I ask you, does that AP story seriously allege that the typo was due to CNN bias?--Pharos 01:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

CNN reporting on its own mistake is a news story. (If they had apologized in a personal letter, that would not be a news story.) Worldwide reprinting is significant - this isn't a story about a painted cow that small papers picked up off the wire to fill the human interest section. It's a (I think) relatively significant, if minor, event in the career of a politician picked up by multiple reliable sources...

Which brings me to your last sentence, and helps me for the first time understand this dispute, I think. CNN bias? I don't see anything about the inclusion of these facts that seeks to, or does, demonstrate CNN bias. The reason I support the inclusion of this fact is because it happened, it was widely picked up by the press, and it's widely known about by the public (which is to say I asked three people randomly and they all knew what I was talking about...ok, not scientific). I don't think this event proves anything, nor do I think that the person wanted to include it to prove anything. I just think it happened and was deemed significant by the press, and therefore should be included. --TheOtherBob 03:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It was a trivial but embarrassing mistake, and it would have been irresponsible of CNN not to publicly apologize. That doesn't make it notable. The incident is just trivia without the idea that it reflects a media bias. Juda, who added the info, has intimated several times on this very page that the "errors" were due to political bias.--Pharos 03:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Pharos, I do not think I intimated any malice, but suggested that in may, in fact, not be intentional. I raised it because whether or not the media did it intentionally, readers will use it as they wish. Please don't put words in my mouth. Juda S. Engelmayer 05:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I realize you suggested the bias might not be intentional. I was just pointing out to TheOtherBob that your perception of a bias (intentional or unconscious) in the media is what prompted you to add that section. I certainly didn't mean to misrepresent your views.--Pharos 06:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

And he's probably wrong about that. But to my mind the fact that so many reliable sources thought it was significant makes it significant. I don't know (or want to know) what the facts mean here - whether it represents media bias, etc. To me, the fact that a more primary source than us decided the event was significant means that it's more than just trivia. But I think we're beating some sort of deceased equine here - my view is that there are a lot of sources, and widespread coverage. You're looking at the same stuff and seeing limited sources, and minimal coverage. That happens sometimes, and doesn't necessarily mean either of us is wrong - but I don't really see a way to bridge that gap and reach consensus. (Which is fine - I think adding this fact makes the article better, but I don't think the article will be significantly incomplete without it.) --TheOtherBob 05:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A typo as talking about a can rather than a cat, is benign and useless. A typo about a major political figure, referring to him as a major notorious bad guy, not once, but twice, and enough to merit national news coverage, is no longer indiscriminate. Those thinking otherwise are just not being objective. Juda S. Engelmayer 00:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please cease your personal attacks. Editors here are holding discussion based upon our understand of Wikipedia policy, not a lack of objectivity. I would ask you to strike your comment from the discussion. Someone disagreeing with your writing does not mean they lack objectivity. Italiavivi 00:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Just because you say it does not make it true. I was referred to as contentious, and was not afforded the courtesy Assume Good Faith, as per Wiki policy. I am not contentious, nor am I trying to instill an opinion, I am, as you, editing as an objective observer too, and feel that what I posted meets the criteria, and there seems to be equal concensus. I disagree with being deleted because you say so. Juda S. Engelmayer 00:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the content of your edits were referred to as contentious, and they are. Do not misrepresent my words. You do not understand WP:CONSENSUS if you feel it allows you to insert contentious material over the objections of half the Talk page's editors. Again, I call on you to strike your attack against the editors here who object to your "Osama/Obama" typo section from the discussion. Italiavivi 00:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have no opinion on this, but let's be clear — you weren't referred to as "contentious". Your edit was referred to as "contentious". They're two very different things. I would not have used that particular word, but all it means is that the edit is disputed; disputed text is usually not included until consensus is reached on the article's talk page. Also, there is no such thing as "equal consensus", there is as of yet no consensus. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank You for that understanding. Wrong word then. Juda S. Engelmayer

These errors are relevant to the notability to those that made the errors (NY times or CNN or whoever else). They are not relevant to Barack Obama's notability unless he is somehow involved in the errors (i.e. if he were to criticize the NY times or otherwise engage them). They do not belong in a BLP. --Ubiq 04:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This discussion has little connection to editing the article and is becoming is an open invitation to soapbox (or express an opinion that soapboxing should not happen on talkpages). I think it can safely be put to bed. WjBscribe 07:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• My mistake for saying it was OK to include the typos. Sorry. Let's try not to soapbox... --sunstar net^talk 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

How does he expect to win?

Is it just me, or is he in a bad situation to become POTUS? His name is possibly the worst it can get in a time like this (Barack=Iraq; Hussein=Sadam Hussein; Obama=Osama, O-"Bomb"-a), although that's just a cursory glance. He smokes, he's done drugs, he's only been in the senate for less than a full term, the only media coverage he's gotten is when he announced he may run for Pres, he's African-American (which in itself, Americans would question the nation's readiness to elect a black president, but one who is born to interracial parents may spark another question among the black population).

I do not mean to bring any offense to those who think highly of Obama, but it seems that America is taking him into consideration too easily and quickly. It doesn't make sense to me that such a man could decide to run for president out of the blue and get all the support he's getting. His polls may be high, but when it comes election day, I question the feasibility of his becoming president.

Neither this article nor the campaign article takes any of this into account. It is very viable information (maybe minus the name thing) and should be included into the text of the article. While some people may think it's "touchy," it certainly doesn't look too good beating around the bush. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  01:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please remember no original research. If you have citations of why his name is a liability then it might be worthy of inclusion. Otherwise it is just your musing. --StuffOfInterest 01:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my own personal view, and I have no sources to back anything up and don't plan on looking for any. But, again, it appears that you have ignored my other comments. It just seems like if people are going to ignore the obvious truth, then they're just cheating themselves. (And I am not referring to the naming thing, which is a fabrication of my own but I'm sure shared by many others.) _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  01:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place for your personal views in any capacity. The "obvious truth" to you is indeed not obvious to everyone, no more than someone else's "obvious truth" would be straightforward to you. Such a discussion can serve no purpose.--Pharos 01:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read his campaign website and find out why he thinks he can win. :) If the information you request is notable enough and covered in a WP:RS, then it can be added to the campaign article. Obama seems to be rather popular despite his biracial ethnicity and the rather nonsensical gyrations some make with his name, but he could be a Howard Dean for all anyone knows at this point in the campaign. --Bobblehead 02:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're not posting here in order to write something in the article, then you should read WP:TALK. Talk pages are not for general discussion, they are strictly for discussing how to improve the article. If you want to talk about how badly Obama will lose then find a forum, Wikipedia is not the place for that. Gdo01 02:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT = Soapbox 74.227.8.218 04:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The advice I like to give is to write a short essay and send it to your local newspaper to publish as an op-ed piece. Then someone can cite it here. Steve Dufour 06:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't advise people to go out of their way to get their own personal opinions published in Wikipedia. Of course, that's just my personal opinion.  :-) 71.198.52.89 07:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Barack Obama Biography

A new biography on Barack Obama is being put out by Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers. It's called Hopes and Dreams The Story of Barack Obama by journalist Steve Dougherty. I think this might be good information to add to the Pop Culture section of the main Obama page.

AlicenSophia (16:02, 16 February 2007)

Removed {{editprotected}} request—this tag is for making a specific request for a change, not a general request for content. —Doug Bell ^talk 03:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)