Talk:Barack Obama

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

Leading Candidate

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

George Will

In the "Cultural and political image" section, George Will is mentioned. Does anyone seriously think that Senator Obama is running for president because George Will told him too? Redddogg (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The way this is stated now is kind of confusing. If Will is a notable supporter the article should say so. If someone else criticized Obama because Will likes him that seems kind of trivial to me. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are the 2 sentences:

Obama has been criticized by progressive commentator David Sirota for demonstrating too much "Senate clubbiness", and was encouraged to run for the U.S. presidency by conservative columnist George Will.[163] But in a December 2006 Wall Street Journal editorial, former Ronald Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan advised Will and other "establishment" commentators to avoid becoming too quickly excited about Obama's still early political career.[164]

I don't think most readers will understand what is being talked about. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. This restored text may help. --HailFire (talk) 06:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the first sentence trying to imply that because Sirota criticized him and Will encouraged him Obama is not really a Democrat? That's what it sounds like to me. I also don't see how the second sentence is related except that Will is mentioned in both. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Liberal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Black church"

I was making a comment on the issue of Obama's church, which was swept away by the deletion of the whole section. I mentioned that I, a white person, have attended many services in mostly black churches and have never encountered any hostility or "racialism" there. I also mentioned that Obama's neighborhood, the South Side of Chicago is 90 - 95% black so any church there is probably going to have mostly black membership. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've restored that section. Someone deleted it with a comment about "trolls". But if there's no mention of it anywhere on the discussion page, then it's hard to justify calling someone a troll for bringing it up. Better to leave a section in, and respond to it accordingly. Cogswobbletalk 16:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • That's nice. You're enabling banned User:DavidYork71, in case you're curious. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  Please don't restore that off-topic section again. Talk pages are solely for discussion with a view to improving an article, not for trolling or even for responses to trolling (which only enable the troll). Removal is justified by the relevant guidelines (even if it weren't amply covered by Ignore all rules) --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

SCHIP Support mis-leading

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

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

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

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

Pronunciation

The phonetic guide gives the same pronunciation for the second vowel in barack and the second vowel in obama, however not only is this inconsistent with his own pronunciation, it's also inconsistent with the website cited as a reference. That site in turn is problematic because it says the second syllable of barack is pronounced 'rock' which is clearly incorrect. As far as I can make out Barack rhymes with Jack and Obama rhymes (almost) with banana. However, vowels vary so dramatically with regional accents that some people may pronounce the two 'a's the same anyway. I think the phonetic guide may need to be adjusted.217.44.180.84 (talk) 21:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've generally heard it pronounced the way inogolo has it pronounced. I've heard a couple of people people pronounce it bah-rack o-ba-ma (like Alabama), but they've been in the minority.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Barack's religion

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

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

NYT article by Jodi Kantor

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

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

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

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

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

You're not serious, right? It's not a problem to find other cites than Feb 2007 for Obama replying to questions about Wright re Farrakhan etc., but I don't think for a moment that supplying them will satisfy you. However, I will be happy to supply them if you say it will cause you to drop your opposition to this very anodyne sentence.[1] Anyway, the idea that we can describe the church and pastor as important to Obama's personal life, and give details like the number of members and the pastor's influence of the name of Obama's book, without describing their more interesting characteristics in any way is obviously absurd. I've given you an extended opportunity to do it in a way completely acceptable to you. Time's up. Andyvphil (talk) 12:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tony Rezko

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama songs

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

Gun Control?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current components of the Obama biographical series are

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

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

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

1: Where should this go? It happened last August[2] and is particularly important,maybe, because he was a politician in a border state and should have known better, perhaps. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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