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)

I agree. He leads the delegate count, so on the books, he is what is defined as "the leading candidate." 70.137.160.103 (talk) 07:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

But the wording is not 'the leading candidate' - it's 'a leading candidate'. And to be 'a leading candidate' you don't have to have a majority or plurality of anything. There are some that would argue that with Ohio and the big swing states Hillary is actually 'the' leading candidate but I see no reason to intersperse that distinction - unless of course one wants to be as undemocratic as the Obamabots are. But that's not generally a good idea, is it? [unsigned]

Obama is leading in votes cast, in states won and in delegates. He's also leading in money raised and number of donors. As far as I can see he's the leading candidate by any and every measure. Is there some measure by which he's not? Remember, this is a national race, so to say, 'Hillary's leading in Arkansas and Ohio' is not relevant. (note: I did not write the unsigned paragraph above, although there is no signature following it.)86.145.1.63 (talk) 00:58, 10 March 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)

I do. He's not liberal. As you put it. He's mainstream. Right in the middle. So it's not factual at all.[unsigned]

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)

The magazine? Then in such case the Wiki manifest is to report that the magazine gave this opinion - NOT Wiki. Unless of course it's your objective to slant public opinion. But you're not trying to do that, are you?

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)

It seems rather some would like to distance Wikipedia from partisan politics.

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)

Yes this is outright hype. Some 'fan' got carried away. Strike all these 'fan' statements. They denigrate Wikipedia enormously.

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)

Yes but 'liberal' says nothing. All 'liberal' means is you're - 'liberal'! Look up the etymology. It's a very weak description of a weak position.

Yes, the "most liberal" label is a joke. But he is liberal, and it is strange that it's nowhere to be found. (again-- is it fear that liberal is a bad thing?) -Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishal (talk • contribs) 21:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholly with the assertions regarding content, and the appearance of selective editing in this article, made by davidp, Francium12, Shikamoo, Blarvink, Cogswobble, Fishal, and Kaolorka. The tone of the discussion appears to this newbie to be weighted heavily with bias in favor of a double standard regarding inclusion of material which might give a reader cause to pause when considering the personal integrity and personal character of Barack Obama.

Ya think? LOL

These points are especially relevant in an article about the personal life, and therefore the personal integrity and personal character, of any person who seeks the highest office in the land.

But these things stand out to all but the most hopelessly naive. Which is why it's important to get them the F out of this article. As it makes Wikipedia look STUPID.

Asserting that links to anything critical of Obama are solely political, and should be inserted only in the Obama campaign page, and that such action is sufficient to fill the need/desire for information on the part of a reader of this article on the personal life and personal character/integrity of Obama would seem to be in accord with the assertion of the appearance of selective editing in this discussion.

I'm sorry - is this the 'official' position of Wikipedia? In such case Jimbeau needs to conduct a new purge.

Unless all Obama pages are rolled into that covering his Presidential Campaign, it does seem useful to convey in this article information about just who the man 'is' and what he is 'about'. Facts and references about investigations of the nature of his dealings and relations with Tony Rezko in the purchase of his home, as well as his decades-long membership in the Afro-centric and somewhat radical-left Trinity UCC, are obviously relevant to any reader seeking to know more about the personal integrity and character, as well as the overall personal religious beliefs, of any person seeking the Presidency. Therefore, such facts, along with such as those made by the above referenced contributors, should be included in any article about the 'personal life' of any major public figure. --Whraglyn (talk) 04:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Added the reference with citation. --Davidp (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Reason: Note that there are only 2 signed comments in opposition to adding this, both of which fail to understand that this is simply citing a widely reported ranking by a non-partisan reputable national magazine. Rather, these wikipedians are arguing whether he is, in fact, "liberal" - which is not the question. --Davidp (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to question your assertion that the National Journal is a non-partisan publication, and thus indirectly question the addition to the article. The publication is notable for launching scathing attacks on Democrats, particularly from Michael Kelly (now deceased). I also object to the whole "most liberal" terminology in general, which I see as nothing more than part of a Republican smear campaign. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

National Journal is non-partisan and has a spectrum of opinions as part of its team. Why do we object to the use of "liberal" and support the use of "conservative" in these articles? There is no smear campaign but there seems to be a partisan protection campaign against information being disseminated in this article. --Davidp (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• This has to stop. Those (Davidp) trying to force inclusion of the subjective National Journal "rating" know full well that the term "liberal" has become pejorative. There's no consensus here (or certainly in the edits of the actual article) for inclusion of this subjective factoid. Stop reinserting it without consensus. Bellwether ^B_C 15:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Bellwether (and others) - How do you square the inclusion of Assessments by political interest groups on the John McCain page with the inclusion of this one assessment by a non-partisan political journal? Or, perhaps you're only interested in keeping the Obama page in pristine pro-Obama condition? This protectionist stance constitutes a POV slant to this article. I have a suggestion: Let's add a similar section to the Obama article. Agreed? If not, can Wikipedia enlist your help in removing that section from McCain's page? Much appreciated. --Davidp (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Also please note that Hillary Clinton's page makes note of ratings such as National Journal's. Is Barack Obama a special candidate that demands special treatment in his Wiki article? Can anyone provide a rational argument for not including this information that will also apply to Clinton's and McCain's articles? --Davidp (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Just because the editors at the McCain article included such information does not mean it's a good idea here. You'd have to ask them why they included it. I don't edit that article. Bellwether ^B_C 00:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia:Other stuff exists doesn't support your argument, Bellwether_BC, because you're disregarding a legitimate comparison with your red herring reference. It's reasonable to support a consistent set of principles applying to all Presidential candidate biography articles to avoid POV and avoid the myopic and defensive posture here on the Obama page that is unfairly establishing editorial rule by fans. I think it's time for a new, orderly discussion about the inclusion of this and other noteworthy information. --Davidp (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I have a solution for our problem: Why not simply state that Obama has an "[adjective] liberal voting record" and simply link the article as a source. This delivers the information without using loaded terms such as "most liberal" which are largely subjective and relatively meaningless. I don't think anyone wants to "hide" Obama's voting record, but if it's going to be a central point of discussion it should be NPOV. There is no need to cite the article; we can still deliver the relevant information in other ways. 70.108.21.116 (talk) 02:55, 11 March 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 unsignedcomment 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)

Oh this is so childish. Personally I doubt he has any religion at all. But the facts are these.

1. He got ten hours per week tutelage for over four years in islam. 2. His mother was a muslim. 3. His father was a muslim. 4. His stepfather was a muslim. 5. Who knows what his grandparents were but someone can look that up. 6. Saudi Arabia regards him as a muslim. 7. His Somali origins indicate he's not only a muslim but an ARAB.

It's clear however that this is a promotional article written by and for more Obamabots so it's really futile to discuss the matter. One can only hope you learn the proper meaning of two words eventually.

1. Democracy. 2. Encyclopaedia. [unsigned, by 90.5.136.204]

1. I went to school. 2. My mother was a teacher. 3. My father was a teacher. 4. My aunt was a teacher. 5. Several other people that I had something to do with when I was growing up were teachers. 6. That doesn't make me a teacher. 7. Saudi Arabia doesn't really care one way or another. Klippa (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The unsigned editor above (at 90.5.136.204) claimed as facts at least 4 significant mistakes: Obama's mother was not Muslim but Christian, Obama's father was not from Somalia but from Kenya, having Somali origins would indicate that one was Somali (one-third of 1% of the population of Somalia are Arab), Obama would've spent "a couple of hours per week studying Islam of some sort" [1]. Klippa (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

At least the writer was candid enough to preface his rant by noting that it would be childish. Klippa (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Not agreeing with 90.5.136.204 about anything except the promotional nature of the current article, but one point of your response was in error. Obama's deceased mother didn't become a "Christian from Kansas" until Obama was campaigning in the Bible belt (South Carolina)[2]. Obama had previously described his mother's religion rather differently. "I was not raised in a religious household... My mother's own experiences... only reinforced this inherited skepticism. Her memories of the Christians who populated her youth were not fond ones... And yet for all her professed secularism, my mother was in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I've ever known."[3] And his half-sister said, when asked if their mother was an atheist, "I wouldn't have called her an atheist," she said. "She was an agnostic. She basically gave us all the good books - the Bible, the Hindu Upanishads and the Buddhist scripture, the Tao Te Ching – and wanted us to recognise that everyone has something beautiful to contribute."[4] And, from another source, "She touted herself as an atheist, and it was something she'd read about and could argue," said Maxine Box, who was [Obama's mother's] best friend."[5] (Didn't write this just for you -- cut-and-paste from where I'd written it before). Andyvphil (talk) 05:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. Sounds like the way I'd describe myself: Christian by heritage and upbringing, agnostic and atheist by choice. Obviously the earlier writer was just trying to stir up trouble. He's not going to do that here though with such obviously wrong statements. Klippa (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheney [and Barack's cousin Harry Truman, etc.]

Shouldn't the fact that Dick Cheney is his cousin be mentioned? Contralya (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

They aren't first cousins, are they? 4th cousins or beyond are, for practical purposes, unrelated. Obama was unaware of this relationship until they did genetic testing on him. -Rosywounds (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Genetic testing? Sure you don't mean genealogical research?86.145.1.63 (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Breaking news from the Satirical Political Report:

An archaeological dig in Cairo, conducted at the behest of Jesus Tomb producer James Cameron, turned up ancient manuscripts confirming that Obama's Egyptian ancestors enslaved the family of Elijah Lieberman, Joe Lieberman's "great-to-the-300th-degree" grandfather.

--Justmeherenow (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That is very funny. Fishal (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What's even funnier is that Obama and George W. Bush are 10th cousins. Could indicate either that genetics mean nothing or everything. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

<winking>Yes, genetics mean everything! lol. Obviously the minute fraction of genetic material that Barack and Vice President Dick Cheney have in common is the "would-make-a-very-powerful-Vice-President" gene.</winking> That is, modifying only for correction from the NYT, Obama inherited ~1⁄2¹⁰ of the genome of his ancestor Maureen Duvall, a French colonist of Maryland in about 1655; and ditto---except to the ninth power---for Cheney. While Harry Truman, Barack's fourth cousin four times removed, shares with Barack the "underestimated-at-first" gene; Barack's cous Wallis Spencer, the Dutchess of Windsor, the "fairy-tale-come-true" gene; and Barack's cous Robert Duvall and possible cous Mark Twain, the "wittily-compelling-oratory-and-stage-presence" gene; etc. --Justmeherenow (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

So many jokes can be made for this (please don't yell at Obama supporters, I'm one of you *waves an Obama flag*) Anyways, to answer the yet-to-be-answered question, NO the fact that they're extremely distant cousins cannot be included, because that's like saying I'm distantly related to Beethoven, it's true, but who cares, the link is older than he is. C. Pineda (クリス) (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Barack HUSSEIN Obama

Yet more partisanship. Hillary's page is - and says - 'Hillary RODHAM Clinton'. This page CONVENIENTLY hides 'Hussein'. If Obama was ashamed of this name he would have changed his name long ago. STOP RUNNING HIS CAMPAIGN FOR HIM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.5.136.204 (talk) 08:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama is consistent with either Hillary Clinton or Hillary Rodham Clinton. Hillary uses both Clinton and Rodham Clinton as her surnames, Rodham being her unmarried name and Clinton being her husband's name. Rodham is not her middle name.

You can't claim the Clinton page as support for renaming this page unless it is Hillary Diane Clinton or Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton. Klippa (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Somebody here doesn't know the difference between a "middle" name and a maiden surname. WNDL42 (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The first four words of the article are "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr." So I'm not sure who's "hiding" anything. Fishal (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

In bold type, no less. Paisan30 (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Come on.. We can't expect the trolls to actually read the article before complaining about it, can we?</sarcasm> --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we have some angry Hillary fans on the talk pages, huh? C. Pineda (クリス) (talk) 03:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What the <Insert your favorite rude word>! This article has plenty of Emphasis on Obamas middle name, also what does it matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.150.30 (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

All three top-tier Prez candidates' articles currently are consistent in that they state their full name in bold, and that's the way it should stay. — AMK1211^talk! 20:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Editprotected

{{editprotected}}Please remove Obama's middle name, Hussein. It is only there to defame him, since middle names are rarely present at the beginning of articles about people. SteveSims (talk) 08:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

 Not done - I believe you're wrong about what's usually wrong - see the first line of Bill Clinton, for example. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that it is defamation. First of all, there is absolutely nothing wrong about having Hussein as a middle name, and the people who think so are prejudiced and most likely unintelligent. Now it would be wrong to have Hussein in every mention of his name.

Michaelk08 (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Also check out the pages for John Sidney McCain III and Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton. Not to mention Ronald Wilson Reagan, etc. It's the man's name, not defamation. Paisan30 (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested full protection

In looking at the edit history of this page, I see a number of editors that could be submitted for blocks due to edit warring, but rather than go that route (blocks=bad), I figured I'd request temporary full protection for the article instead.[6] Seriously, how about y'all try to use the dispute resolution process rather than this unending edit war. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, why don't y'all try WP:DR: "If... you disagree completely with a point of view expressed in an article,..."[such as that Obama has a unusually liberal voting record or that it is relevant that he belongs to a politically-oriented chuch where the politics are controversal] "...think twice before simply deleting it. Rather, balance it with your side of the story." And, if you follow the blue link, "Neutral point of view advises that all significant views can and should be documented proportionally." The ideas that Obama is unusually liberal, or that it's relevant that the church he became connected to politically as a community organizer long before he chose to join it has a record of fringe positions like naming a Jew-baiter "Man of the Year", are signifificant and notable. YourThe efforts to censor those POV are against policy. Andyvphil (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ummm. Andyvphil, it's not just one side that is edit warring here and I'm pretty sure that your comment above is not very conducive consensus building. Seems to me that there is enough blame to spread around to all sides of the edit war. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

actually I would mostly blame andy. this is the third page he has done the exact same thing, with the exact same results. I am really not interested in ratting someone out but I have been looking more and more into what dispute resolution would actually entail, because I think in between the three or four pages andy is a regular on have seen enough bad diffs and what have you that some users could perform a proper rfc if they wanted to. So I have some questions about how that works. Also I have seen user:Wndl42 try a couple different tactics with very limited success, such as reporting andy to the sockpuppet watch and trying to perform a checkuser, both of which were essentially denied. So we know what doesn't work. But I am wondering, is this and rfc content issue or an rfc user issue? And which one is more likely to get the results we need, which is not blocking or restricting anyone, but simply keeping the page stable and accurate. In fact I don't even mind andy starting new edit wars because that is how the page expands. what andy needs to learn and what I hope some sort of rfc would teach him (and his brethren) is to realize when he has lost an edit war and to move on. he has as much right as anyone to add new content or rv vandalism, but he needs to understand that does not equate with using misleading edit summaries, deleting RS cites, and getting the same text rv-ed eight times by three different editors. that is called consensus and if the carrot of voluntary compliance is not working with user:andyvphil perhaps it is time to try the stick of dispute resolution. because I hear these complaints from everyone. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Th checkuser request[7] wasn't "essentially denied". It was denied, period. And the laughably bogus sockpuppet allegation [8] has simply been ignored. As I told you there, "I'd like to ask, however, that when you say something like 'always uses weasel words' you provide a diff or, better, a quote." "Misleading edit summaries", "deleting RS cites" and "bad diffs and what have you" is precisely the kind of claptrap I had in mind as being "like 'always uses weasel words'" Andyvphil (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

like I keep telling you there is no point in cutting and pasting out a bunch of diffs when my edit history will show the same thing. half of my edits are cleaning up after you, and anyways notice how you are the only person on this very long thread debating the issue. maybe you need to start providing diffs showing good-faith instead of vice versa. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This jackass accuses me of "always using weasel words", "misleading edit summaries", "deleting RS cites" and "bad diffs and what have you", then repeatedly refuses to provide a single example of any of this alleged behavior, much less defend his bogus characterization of it. Without diffs, he's just lying. Andyvphil (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

do you not understand what "check my history" means, or do you just like to pose? classic andyvphil: getting lectured in 3 different talk threads at the same time. hilarious 72.0.180.2 (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have concerns about Andyvphil's editing practices then an user conduct RFC would be an appropriate avenue to take. However, I don't think that an user conduct RFC will resolve the edit dispute here. In looking at the edit history, Andyvphil was not the only user that was reverting back to the preferred version Andyvphil was reverting to. If the editors on this talk page can not resolve the edit dispute, then I would suggest starting a content issue RFC. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

My last edits on this subject[9] weren't merely a revert. Since it had been alleged that the National Journal's result -- that Obama had been the most (reliably) liberal Senator in 2007 -- was a smear by a partisan source, I added the information that the proudly liberal Americans for Democratic Action had agreed with Obama on all but one of the (not counting the 5 he missed) fifty-five votes the ADA deemed were best for identifying liberalism in the period he's been in the Senate. Andyvphil (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Andy's not even trying to build consensus. He wants what he wants, dismisses all arguments against it, and puts it in anyways. He's the main problem. Bellwether ^B_C 02:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't dismiss your argument against reporting on attempts to characterize the ideological content of Obama's voting record until you make such an argument. What is it? Andyvphil (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that this is a user conduct issue, then I would suggest going to WP:RFC/U rather than blaming one specific user for the edit war that got this article edit protected. Placing blame here is not going to resolve a conduct issue. Having said that, if your reasoning is sound, what harm comes from opening up a WP:RFC/P and/or WP:RFC/BIO? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I won't excuse myself from fault or point fingers. However, I do think that sometimes the problem with trying to build consensus is getting everyone to take part in good faith. Where does the questioned edit belong during the time that consensus is being discussed? If someone puts it into the article, those that feel it doesn't belong revert summarizing, "no consensus for this inclusion (see talk)". If it's taken out, those who feel it does belong revert summarizing, "no consensus for this removal (see talk)". →Wordbuilder (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

From what I've seen in the policies and guidelines, the threshold has been in the absence of consensus, the default is to return the article to the condition prior to the start of the edit war and to work for consensus from there. Having said that, in practice it has either required an edit protection, or it has always fallen upon one side of the disagreement to step up and allow the version that they do not prefer to remain in existence until consensus is reached on what the wording should be. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I do agree for protection, but not a FULL protection. There's too much new information that's coming in about Obama, most importantly the democratic primary information. I believe a partial block, to get rid of the anon's who want include b.s. things, such as he did crack and gave a guy a bj, and any other b.s. stories, but it shouldn't be prvented from EVERYONE editing it. there's just too much going on. Trying to put a full protection on this page, is like putting a full protection on the calender, there's too much going on to not be able to edit it. C. Pineda (クリス) (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

c'mon, what's wrong with a little b.j. talk from the IPs every now and again? 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Many of 72's edits have been better than those of non-IP editors. The edit war which caused the current block involved mostly established users. →Wordbuilder (talk) 04:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

at this point I am considering getting a username so I can participate on this and the HRC page. sometimes it just seems too awesome to pass up. but usually I like just being an IP because everyone underestimates you. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested "Personal life" section rollback

How about we return the Barack Obama#Personal life section to this version dating from 14 January, agreeing to seek prior consensus here on any proposed additions to that section, at least until things have settled? Any support, fellow editors? --HailFire (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC) {{editprotected}}

N Not done -- there is no consensus for this. Please use this template only where there is consensus or the edit is cmopletely uncontroversial. - Revolving Bugbear 14:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• So one tendentious editor torpedoes consensus? I didn't realize that. Bellwether ^B_C 18:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Description: The 14 January version of the Barack Obama#Personal life section's concluding paragraph had a stable edit history dating back at least as far as this article's most recent featured article review in July 2007.[10] There having been no objections in the last six and a half hours to a proposal for its restoration, I would define its content as uncontroversial and I am requesting its placement into the article. I've prepared a draft of the replacement text here for easy cut and paste by any admin who can assist. The aim of this action is to help return this featured article to unprotected or semi-protected status as soon as possible. --HailFire (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• I definitely support this action. Bellwether ^B_C 01:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the protected version is the censored version, with no mention of Trinity's Afrocentrism or controversial politics, I'm not sure why HailFire wants to do this. Organize a diff, please. Anyway, demanding a "prior consensus here on any proposed additions to that section" looks to me looks to me like wanting to see a preferred POV version protected by a prior restraint veto on content addition. LOL. Andyvphil (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Because each day that this article remains fully protected or a victim of edit wars, it fails featured article criteria 1(e). Editors intent on improving Wikipedia will agree that the loss of our FA rating would be a bad thing. Editors who have been here a long time will also know that I have been consistently opposed to applying any form of protection on this article. When it became clear that I was the only editor with this view, I suspended my protests. Do you have any specific objection to the text of 14 January? If not, your support for its restoration will bring us a step closer to reopening the article to editing and preserving FA status. Please help. --HailFire (talk) 08:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• One good thing about the full protection is that it's revealing you for the POV-warrior you are. Consensus-building is what the project is about, and what keeps it from being a undiscernible muddle of various POVs. The information about Trinity Church belongs in their article, wikilinked at Obama's. Bellwether ^B_C 05:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Andyvphil believes that this article is biased and I trust that his intent is to improve it. Until he states otherwise, I also trust that he does not want to see us lose the FA rating that has been attached to this article since 2004, more than two years before I began editing here. Please stay cool, and let's hope a helpful admin will advance us on the road to dispute resolution by granting the above edit request. --HailFire (talk) 08:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's correct that I think the article is biased and that my intent is to improve it. To the point that it deserves FA status, if possible. But I don't want it to have undeserved FA status unless its POV flaws are corrected.

Here's the diff I requested:[11]. The substantial effect appears to be to delete the current last paragraph, consisting of two sentences: "He joined Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988.[138] A megachurch with 10,000 members, Trinity is the largest congregation in the United Church of Christ.[138]" Hardly seems to advance us in any helpful direction.

Look, Obama was hired to go to Chicago to serve as the black front man for some white (mostly Jewish) guys who wanted to enlist black Chicago churches in Saul Alinsky-syle community organizing, which is to say, a particular form of politics.[12] A lot of pastors recruited him,[13] but he settled on Trinity, an Afrocentric and highly politically active church dominated by Jeremiah Wright. It turns out that the politics he thereby chose to associate himself with, and which were the foundation of his own entry into politics, are controversial (see the page-1 story in the New York Times a week ago.[14]; and see [15]), and is bound to get more controversial if and when he has to start running against someone who isn't, like he, in the most reliably liberal quintile of the Senate and when he's competing for the center rather than the left wing of the electorate. You can't keep this out of his bio and deserve FA, and unless he loses to Clinton events are bound to overtake you anyway. Andyvphil (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• The article doesn't need your "improving" to be FA. It's been one for a long time, and the only thing threatening that status are POV warriors, of which you are one of the biggest. I say again, information about Trinity's politics belongs in Trinity's article. Put it there, not here. Bellwether ^B_C 12:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Obama has been involved with Trinity's politics since 1985. That connection may have some embarassing aspects for him now, but it's a significant part of his biography and must be treated in an NPOV fashion if this article is to deserve FA. Right now, it doesn't. Andyvphil (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Information about Trinity goes in the article about them, not in Obama's article. Bellwether ^B_C 18:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Andyvphil, please specify the POV flaws that you find in this paragraph that would prevent you from endorsing it as an agreed resume point for seeking consensus. --HailFire (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What is POV about Andyvphil's edit ? That's the version that is protected, right? --Rajah (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I've understood that Andyvphil considers the currently protected version to be biased or incomplete and therefore requiring revision for improved neutrality. This is why I have suggested we rollback to an earlier, more condensed text that passed FAR in July 2007 and remained unchanged until this edit on 22 January. As Bobblehead wrote, the default is to return the article to the condition prior to the start of the edit war and to work for consensus from there. Let's wait for Andyvphil's response to my question, please. --HailFire (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

First, what Rajah refers to as "Andyvphil's edit" is actually Hailfire's proposed edit, shown in reverse. My edit to this section is this one. I believe HailFire has objected that this information is in the wrong section, to which my reply was that in the article as currently written this information fits best here as it is the section where Obama's connection to Trinity and Wright is described, but that I have no prior objection to someone reorganizing the material. The current organization of the article should not be used as a Procrustean bed to force the deletion of material that ought to be in Obama's bio.

As I've pointed out, since the protected version is the one without my addition the only significant effect on the text of the rollback is to delete the two sentences stating that Obama joined Trinity in 1988 and that Trinity is a megachurch with 10,000 members. This has two tactical advantages: it obviates my observation that the fact that Wright's teachings and politics are Afrocentric and controversial is at least as relevant to Obama's bio as its size, and introduces to the defense of the current version of the paragraph the fact that it passed FA.

So, to answer Hailfire's question, my objection to the rollback is not that it introduces POV flaws not found in the current version, but that it disimproves the current version by deleting two facts that ought to be in the article without any advance in fixing the POV flaw of the section, seen in the context of the article as a whole, which is one of omission.

Perhaps, like Rosywounds, the FA reviewer thought "the word 'controversy' is not mentioned in this article because there are few controversies surrounding Barack Obama." If so, he was wrong. Obama walks on water in this article because it's la-la land, kept that way by a determined cadre of Obama admirers, determined to stamp out any introduction of the Neutral Point of View. Explaining why Obama's 23-year connection to Wright should be mentioned and characterized takes background that you won't find by reading this article's text, but explaining why a politician's bio should make some effort to place him on the political spectrum should not. Yet even the ADA's admiring account of his record is kept out, lest such potentially inconvenient facts come a potential voter's attention. Wikipedia shouldn't be hosting an Obama campaign document. He's got his own website for that. But it is hosting such a document. And it's scandalous. Andyvphil (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Your Procrustean bed analogy does not fit, because the specifications for improving this article since its creation in 2004 are not secrets. They are described in fine detail here and here, among other places, and they are the product of years of collaborative effort among our fellow editors, all of it conducted in plain view. Please consider initiating a Featured Article Review to seek consensus for the view that this article no longer merits a featured article rating and to specify any necessary improvements. --HailFire (talk) 06:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Unlike the glove, it does indeed fit, since I referred to the "current organization", not the general specifications. Your complaint was that "Afrocentric" and "distanced from Wright" didn't fit in "Personal Life" and apparently your solution was to chop them off and leave them lying on the floor, exactly Procrustes procedure. This is, of course, antithetical to the WP:FACR specification that a "'featured article ... In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles [is]...(b) 'Comprehensive' means that the article does not neglect major facts and details." Major facts and details like the fact that Obama has always been in the most reliably liberal quintile in the Senate, or that his most important early political patron, who came within an eyelash of hosting his declaration of candidacy, has a record of praising Farrakhan's "depth of analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation." (Maybe Wright didn't mean Farrakhan's "analysis" pointing to Jews' dominant role in the slave trade? Or, maybe he did. Wikipedia takes the NPOV and lets its readers decide -- in theory.) Andyvphil (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Just wanting to make sure you realize this is Obama's article, not Wright's or Farrakhan's. Those morsels of fact belong in their articles, not his. The only point in including them here is a "guilt-by-association" smear. Bellwether ^B_C 14:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not "Obama's article". It's Wikipedia's biography of a politician. What he is as a politician (incl. left, right, or center as characterized by numerous RS) and information about what his his political alliances have been very much belongs here. Andyvphil (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] Facts can be hard to pin down sometimes. The web site GovTrack.us categorizes Senator Obama as a "Rank and File Democrat" using a statistical analysis that offers a compelling case for being NPOV.[16] As for the notion that there was ever any plan for Trinity UCC to host Obama's presidential campaign announcement, you may want to double check that. --HailFire (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked at your cite, but I very much suppose that I would support including it. I happen to think that the National Jornal mischaracterized its results, btw. They conflated a measure of orthodoxy with a measure of extremeness and I hope that a RS can be found to make that point. My position all along has been that we need to follow the instruction in WP:DR - balance it, don't just delete it.

Oh, and you may be right that I have to check my memory of Kantor. I remember something about the steps of UCCT being the "natural place" to announce a candidacy, but someplace else (City Hall?) being used instead. But I may be conflating campaigns. I do not claim to be an expert on Obama. The omissions from this article are glaring. The ability of a non-expert to substantially improve an article is a characteristic of a stub, not an FA. Or should be. Andyvphil (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

m:The Wrong Version

I have protected the page due to edit warring. The protection will naturally expire in one week. Should the issues be resolved, any administrator can unprotect it earlier than that. Please work your issues out on the talk page, here, keeping the WP:BLP policy front and center in mind. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not in any way questioning your action. It seems that featured articles often go downhill quickly. I think it's very sad that an article that was once featured and was also praised by a writer with the Washington Post should come to this. Wakedream (talk) 05:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Talk to Andyvphil. Bellwether ^B_C 14:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk to Bellweather. He's the one who decided to request edit protection in order to keep NPOV material out of the article. Andyvphil (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• You do realize that lying about other editors is unbecoming. Perhaps you should check RFPP before making false assertions about how this page became protected. Bellwether ^B_C 15:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, bullet-pointy one. Got my B's confused. There'a a difference between an honest mistake and lying. You're only responsible for edit warring to keep NPOV material out of the article, not for the RfPP. Andyvphil (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Get used to the bullet points. They're a pretty typical way of formatting, and I use them a lot. Additionally, try not to get so angry. It raises the blood pressure, which is never healthy. Bellwether ^B_C 05:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you're the only one I've encountered whose self-importance requires that his every utterance be distinguished from all others by starting with a little blue turd. Andyvphil (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• You'd better watch what you type, Andyvphil. You're crossing the line into personal attacks on a regular basis, which is blockable. And if you've never seen bulleted discussion before, you've not been around long. Which isn't my problem. Bellwether ^B_C 18:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

§ - Kin beat that! --Justmeherenow (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well, that's pretty cool! Wish it were actually bullet-formatted, though. I'd begin using it straightaway! Bellwether ^B_C 19:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"Present" Votes

There is only one mention of Obama voting "present" in the Illinois State legislature(in reference to late term abortion votes). The truth is that Obama voted "present" 130 times in the State legislature, on a wide range of issues (not just abortion) and this is something that has to be included in that section of the article. The text, as it stands right now, gives the impression that Obama was criticized only for his present votes with regard to the abortion issue. It does not convey the extent to which he employed this option; an option that is often viewed as a resort for those wishing to "take politcal cover" and to avoid controversial votes which might be held against candidates in their political future. This is an important issue and an essential aspect of his tenure in the State legislature. It is also an essential piece of the Obama political picture as he tries to distinguish himself as the next potential leader of the free world. Can somebody please explain why so much of this information is omitted? This article from the MSNBC/NY Times site can be referenced: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22335739/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.114.140 (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Because it's not relevant? A present vote isn't a commitment either way, so maybe we should have a section about just how neutral that dastardly Obama is? 76.25.115.99 (talk) 06:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Well, here is more specific information:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nobody has a good answer, huh?

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

I copied my response from below:

K. Kellogg-Smith,

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

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

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

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

Well, maybe. Certainly I would agree that it would be significant in this case. --HailFire (talk) 07:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

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

NAFTA Double Speak Controversy

Somebody needs to add about Barack Obama campaign's controversy over the double speak on NAFTA, which Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Canadian and America media outlets have confirmed.

Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources. The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.

— Canadian News

Source of Obama's NAFTA Controversy

24.174.46.149 (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't belong here. If anything, it belongs at Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, and that is iffy. Yahel Guhan 03:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

and its already there, discussing the HRC nafta thing as well. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is the NAFTA controversy on Barack Obama's campaign article so heavily sugarcoated? It is obvious that Obama is responsible for the double-talk and the deceit that he was trying to place onto the American people purely for political advantages.

24.174.46.149 (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What is obvious is that you don't like Obama. The only thing that isn't clear is whether you're a Republican or a Hillary supporter. JonErber (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the issue of whether it belongs here, the latest is that Hillary's team may have been the one to reassure the Canadians.And the Obama campaign has denied the previous Canadian version of events which now has been made inoperative. I will now go to where it's "already there". JonErber (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki

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

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

Mother's ethnicity

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

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

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

FAR nomination

I am preparing to nominate this article for a third featured article review on the grounds that it now fails featured article criteria 1(e) which states in part: the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day, except for edits made in response to the featured article process. If Andyvphil or any other editor who may hold additional concerns about the article wishes to make the nomination before I do, that is OK by me. --HailFire (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC) -- Strikeouts added, per guidance from SandyGeorgia. --HailFire (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)] -- OUT. --HailFire (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• This is extremely unfortunate. That we as a community allow a couple of POV-warriors to de-feature a great article, simply by the force of their warring is a great disappointment. Bellwether ^B_C 14:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't the edit protection prevent edit wars? I think the article the way it is now is fine, and perhaps the protection should be extended. Of course it will need to be updated at some point. JonErber (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree. This article, and the process editors have used to protect it from facts, definitely exhibits POV. --Davidp (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Your statement is a classic example of a POV-warriors justification: "You're trying to prevent me from revealing/exposing/illuminating/whatever the truth. Bellwether ^B_C 19:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. User:Davidp's assertion that the article exhibits POV is nonsense. With the exception of an overabundance of information about his church the article is in excellent condition. I can see no POV at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• That's funny. I believe you you see no POV because your vantage point is skewed by favoritism. My main point of contention is that the article's fan-editors (Bellwether and maybe others) have blocked the widely-reported ranking by National Journal of Obama as the most liberal. This may sound problematic to a fan who is also afraid of the pejorative connotation of "liberal" to about 50% of the public. However, in the face of similar noteworthy ranking information debated and then presented on the other presidential candidate articles, this obstructionism constitutes POV in favor of Obama. Please try to consider this objectively. --Davidp (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know what "most liberal" is supposed to mean. I'm not a US citizen so the term "liberal" has no negative connotations to me; however, it is clear by the qualifier "most" that it is intended as a derogatory term. If this is the case, it has no business in a Wikipedia article any more than "most conservative" would. As far as I can tell, your motivation for having it included is purely based on your personal feelings on Barack Obama, rather than any attempt to be encyclopedic. Furthermore, your "fan-editor" characterization is clearly a personal attack that attempts to belittle the voluntary efforts of some of the article's most prolific editors. Please try to make positive contributions and confine your negativity to yourself. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Asserting that adding a qualifier of "most" to some adjective has derogatory connotations is just utter nonsense. Also, I find Obama a likable and intelligent candidate. Some folks here are being extremely defensive. --Davidp (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to wait until the protection is removed and then see what happens with the article before nominating it for a featured article review? I know it's wishful thinking, but there's a slim chance that we can learn to get along. If we can't, then proceed. But, not before. →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's my understanding that this is a proposal to rescind or review featured article status. I was confused too at first. JonErber (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The rescind would come as a result of a failed review. A review is what is being proposed here. →Wordbuilder (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how one "gets along" with an editor who's made it abundantly clear that they're going to see irrelevant information about a friend of a friend of Obama's (Farakkhan) and slanted details about Obama's church that instead belong at the church itself's article. When it's clear they won't listen to reason, how do you "get along" with them? Bellwether ^B_C 19:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We need to seek something outside of edit warring. There's WP:RFC and enforcement of WP:3RR, if applicable. I just don't want to see the article lose FA status because of this nonsense. →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Please see Davidp's personal attacks above ("fan-editors"), and his determination to continue to try to push through his POV against talkpage consensus. Bellwether ^B_C 20:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFC. I really don't know what to say. There has to be a better way than edit warring. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's please try to correct a misunderstanding. Wikipedia:Featured article review is NOT where articles go to be de-featured, it's where they go to be improved. We've been through it twice now and always this article has come out of the process better than before. I hesitate before taking that step because the skilled editors who invest their time in addressing FAR issues are already an overworked bunch, and it doesn't seem right to distract them from work on articles that need urgent attention just because minor segments of this article are gyrating back and forth and failing WP:FACR 1(e).

But it is Andyvphil who has claimed more substantive faults with this article by stating plainly: I don't want it to have undeserved FA status unless its POV flaws are corrected. Because of this, he really is the editor best placed to lead us into a more meaningful FAR. And in case anyone may have missed this nuance, articles undergoing FAR must be made available for editing. --HailFire (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

so it can't keep featured status if its totally locked? because its only a few editors who we have a problem with. Can't we do a subject or article block on them instead? I feel like a locked consensus version is not such a terrible thing, but I don't know about these things. Some would argue that its good to have a slow addition process on bio pages, because we should have an eye for what will be notable in a decade, not anything more recent. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Let's just block those bad editors who don't recognize that Obama is deserving of a fansite here.

HailFire, the claque here is numerous and active and won't be reasoned with. I welcome wider attention, including RfC, FAR, or anything else that will dilute their POV. So please go ahead with your nom. Andyvphil (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Just one thing you should all be aware of: anyone who thinks FAR may be a quick fix will be sadly disappointed. Articles are at FAR for at least a month, more like two. I strongly recommend that you all try to work this out without a FAR. Most of the people who regularly review articles there are experienced enough to understand that it is expected that this article will see some tough times this year and will be slow to defeature it simply because of election year differences. If the article has to be protected because of the circumstances, that's not a good reason for defeaturing, and more importantly, won't solve your underlying differences. I suggest you try other options in dispute resolution first, like request for comment, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Delegate count estimate by AP

{{editprotected}} Description: This update contains the post-Wyoming delegate count as estimated by the Associated Press. Inclusion of current AP delegate estimates in the last line of the Barack Obama#Presidential campaign summary section has not been disputed. --HailFire (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 21:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Similar description as above, new update. Still no dispute on talk about making these updates. --HailFire (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• And this one still waiting after 24 hours. Full protection is a failed experiment, not to be repeated. --HailFire (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Glaring omissions

Andyvphil, please summarize them here for us. Kindly keep your descriptions of each POV-flaw-by-omission short and to the point, and number them (by beginning each new line with #) for easy reference. It will be a kind of mini-FAR with less fanfare, and we can deal with each of the problems one-by-one. Thanks. --HailFire (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

error

{{editprotected}} Says Washingon instead of Washington

 Done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Political positions

{{editprotected}} Both the McCain page and the Hillary Clinton page have "Political Positions" subheadings which briefly outline their political positions with links to the full articles "Political positions of..." as do the pages for most other politicians that I've seen. However, the equivalent subheading on the Obama page is labeled "Political Advocacy." At the very least, this is inconsistent, and should be changed to be consistent with the accepted form for other politicians. At the worst, this may even introduce some bias into the article, insofar as a "political advocate" has a more esteemed connotation than someone who merely holds a "political position."

Even if those with more experience here judge that there is no bias, it seems clear that it should be changed to be consistent with other politician articles. 142.58.225.52 (talk) 09:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

No. The proposed edit is not without controversy and will require discussion on this page. See for example, this edit summary from July 2007. Revert now please. --HailFire (talk) 06:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have asked the responsible admin to revert this controversial edit. Admins are regular people, and I think this incident demonstrates the hazards of allowing this heavily visited page to remain in fully protected status. --HailFire (talk) 07:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I undid this. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} My main concern is the disparity between the article for Obama and those for the other candidates. I was attempting to find the political positions articles for all three remaining major candidates, and quite frankly, this disparity made me question at first whether Obama had such a page. I say this simply as someone who is largely unfamiliar with Wikipedia protocol, but consistency between the candidates' articles seems to me to be the most important consideration.

I should note that most candidates for the Democratic and Republican nominations have a "Political positions" subheading as I write this. The exceptions, with their subheadings, are:

• "Positions"
  • Dennis Kucinich
  • Sam Brownback
  • Tom Tancredo

• "Views" under "2008 presidential campaign"
  • Tom Vilsack

• "Positions" under "Almanac"
  • Joe Biden

• "Political views"
  • Bill Richardson

• No equivalent subheading
  • John H. Cox
  • Tommy Thompson
  • Ron Paul
  • Jim Gilmore

(I was also the originator of this topic. I apologize for putting the four tildes in the wrong place before.) 142.58.225.52 (talk) 09:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thankfully, we don't have any kind of mandatory template for organizing these articles. Politicians do not lead identical lives, so it seems normal that the structure of their biography articles will be different too. In Obama's case, there is a flow between his work experiences in the years before he assumed public office and how he does politics. The section header "Political advocacy" relects that link and helps promote differentiation between political positions that other people say are important and the specific issues in which Obama chooses to invest the majority of his time and effort, for example, through public speeches, position papers, or opinion columns in major newspapers. There is a daughter article dedicated to an exhaustive listing of political positions, some of which Obama mentions rarely. This article's political advocacy section tells the reader something about which (among the many possible political issues that could be discussed) are most notable to Obama's life. --HailFire (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Protected edit request

{{editprotected}}

Please add this uncontroversial info to the end of his Presidential campaign section:

Barack Obama's secret service codename is Renegade.

Thanks! Lawrence § t/e 18:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Notable? --HailFire (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem particularly notable to me. Tvoz |talk 21:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting one-off trivia, and a harmless enough fact, I figured. The Secret Services names for those under their protection usually end up as historical notes, and usually tend to be fairly accurate of their personalities and general perception of them. Bill Clinton was Eagle, Frank Sinatra was Napoleon, Ronald Reagon was Reliant, John F. Kennedy was Lancer. Lawrence § t/e 21:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

More info at Secret Service codename. Lawrence § t/e 21:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Done, somewhat modified. Sandstein (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Based on what evidence of consensus, please? Perhaps you have a different interpretation of the rules? If so, please explain. --HailFire (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• On the basis that nobody explicitly opposed the inclusion of this datum for three days. Two people questioned its notability, which at any rate is an "inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article", and so would not seem to apply to the matter of the inclusion of a fact in an existing article. If many people here say that they do not want this sentence in the article, then another request to remove it will certainly be successful. Sandstein (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• I didn't say anything, but I don't see any real need to include simple trivia in the article. It just clutters up an article that was FA quality not long ago, and still may be if the POV pushers can be resisted. Bellwether ^B_C 00:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Had another look, and though the addition does read as trivia, the cited source that was added with it is current and informative, making the edit more useful overall. So I'm OK with it (but please no future editorializing on any alleged "significance" of the codename, waste of article space). I am more concerned about our use of full protection and the unnecessary strain it puts on editors, admins, and especially the readers (for example, when innocent typos or grammar errors that can be easily fixed in seconds remain because of the time it takes to "discuss" them, and when simple updates take days to perform--see request for a delegate count update that is STILL not in the article). Please, let's not go for one week next time, it's overkill, 2 days is plenty to force a pause and reflect among editors who can't contain their enthusiasms, and blocking the worst offenders is a far less intrusive and more traditional first resort to address such problems. We have SandyGeorgia's assurance that this article is unlikely to lose FA status just because passions have been raised in an election year, and I'd bet few editors understand the WP:FAR process better than she does. So anyone aiming to de-feature this article through constant pestering is unlike to get their hoped for result. --HailFire (talk) 05:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"Present" Votes.... Again

Still waiting for an answer.

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

He voted present on a wide range of issues including many which garnered bipartisan support. Why isn't this information included? How is this information not relevant? This article and the wiki administrators are incredibly biased.

Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008#South Carolina. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Lid, thanks for the reply but I don't understand why that information did not make it into this article under the State Leg. section. Also, it's not just a campaign issue or something that was brought up by Obama's opponent in the context of a South Carolina debate. This (the fact that he voted present 129 times) is a demonstrable fact and as it notes above, a present vote accounted for 1 out of every 31 votes he cast over his 8 year tenure. This was a consistent pattern that emerges from his voting record as a State Legislator. Of course, the fact that Obama gives reasons justifying these votes is no reason not to include this information and there is no reason why his own justifications cannot be included as well (though in certain cases he was the only state senator not to vote yes). Candidates give reasons for all sorts of things it doesn't make past actions just go away. These are all relevant facts (not opinions) regarding his voting record and he has been criticized widely by Democrats and Republicans alike. There is absolutely no good reason why this crucial aspect of his voting record should be ignored or obscured by the administrators of this page. It seems as though editors of this page are getting their direction from the Obama campaign. If the reason is simply that most of you support Obama or that the Obama campaign is contributing to this article than please just say so. At least that would be a reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.0.182 (talk) 12:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the reason that the present votes are not any further detailed in that section of this WP:BLP is more nuanced than that. Of course, conspiracy theory is much easier and often more convenient to grasp. The abortion and parental notification votes are what has drawn most of the attention, and those are the ones that are detailed in the text. If you think there should be more, please propose something. Thanks for contributing. --HailFire (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hailfire, thanks for the response. I only made the conspiracy theory comment because nobody was giving any reasons and I simply wanted an explanation. That's all. I did propose that more information be added (in the discussion above) and I cited specific sources. Here are some relevant articles:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/20/528491.aspx

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=obama+present+votes&st=nyt&oref=slogin

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/24/fact_check_obamas_present_votes/

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Vote2008/Story?id=4339659&page=2

At the very least the fact that he voted "present" 129 times out of 4,00 votes in the state senate should be included. There should also be some elaboration as to some of the other issues/bills he voted present on as well as a statement to this effect from the Times article above.

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

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

There should be some mention of the fact that he has been widely criticized by both Democrats and Republicans alike (including Clinton) for excercisng this neutral political option which is often viewed as a way to "take political cover". There is no reason why Obama's defense cannot also be included as well as a larger picture of why this option is fairly common in Illinois state politics in order to give some fair perspective. There are plenty of direct quotations and facts from the articles above but if you'd rather I draw up the exact language I'm willing to do so. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.114.140 (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Go read my reply under the original topic heading. My reply there applies here as well. K. Kellogg-Smith (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

K. Kellogg-Smith,

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

Why not include all of these facts in the State Leg. section? Its 1 out of 31 votes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.114.140 (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Minor detials about his campaign don't belong here. See the campaign article. That is the only place it might belong. Yahel Guhan 21:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Amen.

In the Illinois General Assembly (Illinois Senate and Illinois House), and some other legislative bodies, bills require an absolute majority of 'yes' votes to pass, therefore 'no' and 'present' votes are both equivalently votes against passage. 'Present' votes are used to signal your legislative colleagues that you have a concern about a bill that you are effectively voting against.

In the U.S. Congress (U.S. Senate and U.S. House), and most other legislative bodies, bills require only a simple majority of 'yes' votes of those present and voting ('yes' or 'no') of a quorum to pass, therefore only 'no' votes are votes against passage, 'present' votes are worse than neutral because they reduce by one the number of 'yes' votes needed for passage. 'Present' votes are used to signal a pair.

• Vock, Daniel C. (January 25, 2008). 'Present' votes defended by Ill. lawmakers, stateline.org
• Pearson, Rick; Long, Ray (February 3, 2008). 'Present' votes emerging from the past, Chicago Tribune, p. 13.

This is something reporters for out-of-state newspapers apparently have difficulty understanding:

• Hernandez, Raymond; Drew, Christopher (December 20, 2007). It’s Not Just ‘Ayes’ and ‘Nays’: Obama’s Votes in Illinois Echo, The New York Times, p. A1
• Hernandez, Raymond; Drew, Christopher (December 20, 2007). Obama’s vote in Illinois was often just ‘present’, msnbc.com
  • (December 20, 2007). Fact Check: Present votes are an accepted legislative strategy in the Illinois Senate, barackobama.com
  • A "just 'present'" vote in the Illinois Senate is equivalent to a "just 'no'" vote.
  • A 'present' vote in the Illinois Senate is not a vote "effectively sidestepping the issue", it is a vote against a bill.

The Clinton campaign organized a conference call for reporters with Clinton campaign co-chair Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH) and two Clinton supporters from New York, Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and Joe Crowley (D-NY), to regurgitate that day's inaccurate and misleading New York Times story and add their own willfully uninformed anti-Obama spin.

• Murray, Mark (December 20, 2007). Fellow Dems slam Obama 'present' votes, msnbc.com
• Bombardieri; Marcella (December 21, 2007). Clinton surrogates throw the jabs, The Boston Globe, p. 35A.

Attacking 'present' votes of Illinois legislators (both Democrats and Republicans) is a perennial political gimmick used in campaigns by political opponents willfully uninformed about the Illinois General Assembly voting system mandated by the Illinois Constitution.

• Constitution of the State of Illinois. Article IV. The Legislature. Section 8. Passage of Bills

  (c) No bill shall become a law without the concurrence of a majority of the members elected to each house. Final passage of a bill shall be by record vote. In the Senate at the request of two members, and in the House at the request of five members, a record vote may be taken on any other occasion. A record vote is a vote by yeas and nays entered on the journal.

This political gimmick was was used in 2004 and 2008 by desperate former front-runners when they found themselves losing to Obama:

• multimillionaire Cook County Treasurer Maria Pappas (2004)
• multimillionaire securities trader Blair Hull (2004)
  • Schoenburg, Bernard (February 24, 2004). Senate candidates spar in Springfield, The State Journal-Register, p. 9.
  • Zorn, Eric (March 9, 2004). Disparagement of Obama votes doesn't hold up, Chicago Tribune, p. 1 (Metro).
  • Patterson, John (March 10, 2004). Pro-choice advocates defend Obama votes, Daily Herald, p. 15.
  • Krol, Eric (March 14, 2004) No negative TV ads, but race got nasty anyway, Daily Herald, p. 1.
• multimillionaire U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton (2008)
  • (January 21, 2008). Transcript: The Democratic Debate in South Carolina, The New York Times
  • (January 21, 2008). Fact Check: Present votes are an accepted legislative strategy in the Illinois Senate, barackobama.com

Regarding the Washington, D.C.-based Nightline story:

• Moran, Terry; Arons, Melinda; Hoppock (February 25, 2008). Obama as a State Senator: Does He 'Deserve a Promotion?', Nightline

Obama's campaign has argued that he voted "present" either to protest bills that he believed had been drafted unconstitutionally or as part of a broader legislative strategy, often characterizing the practice as an Illinois Senate tradition. Senators in the minority often vote present as a way to force the majority party to negotiate. Obama was in the minority party for six of his eight years in the state Senate.

Illinois state Sen. Daniel Cronin calls that characterization a "big overstatement," and believes that voting "present" is a practice that is only "employed on rare occasions."

"You just have to vote 'yes' or 'no,'" Cronin said. "You got to stand up and be counted."

Cronin believes that Obama's votes demonstrate an indecisiveness that is at odds with being an effective commander in chief.

"I don't know whether he was planning for the future, whether he was calculating what his next move was," Cronin said. "Whatever it was, he didn't want to stick his neck out, he didn't want to risk alienating some group. And that sort of ambivalence is sort of scary when you think about a guy who wants to become commander in chief."

Cronin has also voted "present" approximately 100 times.

• Former DuPage County assistant state's attorney, conservative Republican Illinois state senator Daniel Cronin (a John McCain delegate) is criticizing:
• Barack Obama, past president of the Harvard Law Review, civil rights lawyer, senior lecturer for 12 years in constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, three-term Illinois state senator, who served for 8 years on its Judiciary committee,
• for voting 'present' 130 times in the six years Obama was in the minority party in the Illinois Senate,
• when Cronin has also voted 'present' approximately 100 times in the five years (starting in 2003) that Cronin has been in the minority party in the Illinois Senate.

Note of willfully uninformed political sniping by Hillary Clinton and her surrogates in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election campaign about Barack Obama's 'present' votes in the Illinois Senate belongs, if anywhere at all, where it is now, in the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 and Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 articles, not in this biographical article about Obama.

Newross (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of attacking his campaign, nor is this just a "campaign issue" brought up solely in a South Carolina debate (as that article would have you believe). Its simply a matter of reporting an element of his voting record in the state leg; a factual, public record. You have a section in the article on his tenure in the state leg and he voted present 129 times over an 8 year span. As the article is written now, the present vote is articulated in a misleading and an incomplete fashion. This is not the whole story. Just give the facts, give some of the criticism, give Obama's defense and give a little persepctive. The Cronin issue is irrelevant as he's not the one running for the highest leadership office in the world. Does Obama's voting record distinguish himself as a leader? That should not be for you guys (the administrators) to decide. It's utterly inappropriate for wikipedia to do the work of Obama's campaign for him. Whether you personally feel that its a small issue, the fact remains that there are many who disagree with you and you should simply let his record speak for itself without editing or ignoring details of which you (and Obama) may be a little uncomfortable. Is Obama's campaign manager in the house? Has money exchanged hands here? I've never seen such a biased, one dimensionally positive article of a public figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.0.182 (talk) 05:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms Section?

Came to this article looking to finally get myself educated about the candidates for the upcoming election and primaries. The article definitely has some good information about Senator Obama and his positions, many of which I am fond of given what I have read so far. But where are the criticisms? Anyone who is a significant player in the primary race of a major political party is bound to have lots of criticisms floating around about him, justified or not. Why aren't they represented here in an easy to find way? --Floorsheim (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

<irony>Welcome to Wikipedia.</irony>--Justmeherenow (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but its discouraged by wikipedia policy. You should probably try merging the info from other candidates into their respective pages, if it is the disparity between different candidate pages which bothers you. that would be the best way to deal with the issue you raise, while still conforming to WP guidelines.72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• <cough><sneeze>disingenous<cough><sneeze> Bellwether ^B_C 14:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms sections are generally seen as completely unencyclopedic, that's why they have been eliminated even from the most controversial articles such as atheism and global warming. Aaron Bowen (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Basketball picture

There is no way on Earth that the picture in the article is of Obama. He is making a shot, yet he is not looking towards the hoop. The skin tone on the arms is not Obama's. His facial expression also doesn't lend itself to the picture. THe picture is most definitely photoshopped. wjs23 -19:52 EST 12 March 2008

Apparently, the DoD is behind this vast conspiracy. [17]. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

He's not making a shot; he's pulling down a rebound. I think the feds have better things to do with their time than doctor pictures of Obama playing basketball. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as the skin tone on the arms goes.. I believe it is called a farmer's tan. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9GqdzQeCz0 --HailFire (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Voting Record

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

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

How much longer can this article ignore Jeremiah Wright?

This is hugely relevant. The church that Obama has attended for 20 years, got married in, had his children baptised by, and is quoted as being a mentor to Obama....mysteriously nothing about Wright is in Obama's article. Is wikipedia deliberately leaving out Jeremiah Wright? This man is the subject of huge controversey, far and away noteworthy of inclusion being that he is Obama's pastor of 20 years and now officially part of his campaign. What is the justification for Wright's censorship in this article? I'm certain that as time goes on, the widespread press will compel wiki by force to mention him just to save face, but if we can be honest right now (before that happens), I think it would be prudent to make mention of this in the Obama article (not the campaign article) as his Pastor and his massive controversey is relevant to his personal life, hence, relevant to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.46.9.46 (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• That information belongs in either Jeremiah Wright or the Trinity article. Bellwether ^B_C 23:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is indeed the antithesis of censorship. For information regarding Jeremiah Wright, see http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Wright . You would suggest a section on Jeremiah Wright? Consisting of...what exactly? That Obama has attended Wright's church for 20 years? That would open the doorway for a section on Obama's physician, dentist, membership at a particular gym, etc. My best advice to you is to contribute any information you may have to the Jeremiah Wright article. If Wright were as relevant as you allege, he would most certainly be a part of this article.

To compare the influence of Wright to a dentist or doctor is absurd. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe the title of his autobiography was inspired by his proctologist. Jeremiah Wright has been Obama's spiritual mentor for some 20 years now and Obama himself has indentified Wright as one of the people that has most shaped and determined his spiritual and moral outlook. Wright, of course, married Barack and Michelle and was the inspiration for tehn title of Obama's autobiography. In other words, in order to really know Barack Obama one has to know a little something about Jeremiah Wright and that's why a biographical sketch that barely mentions Jeremiah Wright is incomplete and even a little silly. Wright is essential in Obama's formation and that should be the primary criterion for inclusion. Given the close spiritual relationship the two have shared for some 20 years now, the fact that Wright has, over the years, engaged in Black Panther type, anti-American rhetoric is something that every biographical sketch should include. This is all part of the essential formation of Obama's character and worldview. The facts should be presented and readers should be left to judge for themselves how they feel about the whole thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.0.182 (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Put the disparaging information you're looking to include in the project in the Jeremiah Wright article. His therapist, his high school basketball coach, and presumably many others have had as much or more influence on his life and thinking as Wright. Just as we don't need to include treatises on whether his basketball coach was a wife-beater, and his therapist turned out to be a quack (neither is true, to my knowledge, but even if they were, it wouldn't matter to this article) neither does the Obama article need treatises on Jeremiah Wright included. Bellwether ^B_C 13:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Bellwether, the difference is that in the case of his basketball coach, therapist etc., you are "presuming." There is no presumption required in the case of Wright. Obama himself has explicitly stated his admiration for Wright and he has emphasized the importance of their relationship and Wright's spiritual mentoring over the years. The title of his autobiography was inspired by one of Wright's sermons for God's sake! Whether its "disparaging" or not is not for you to decide and the fact that it may be perceived as disparaging is not a sufficient reason not to include these objective facts. Again, one cannot know Barack Obama without knowing a little something about Wright but this does not at all imply that Obama necessarily identifies with this Black Panther type rhetoric. In fact, the article should also include Obama's comments to the effect that he often disagrees with Wright's political views. Why don't you guys do a little less worrying about how things might, possibly be perceived and a little more straightforward reporting. Instead of avoiding controversies why don't you give an accurate and fair representation? You guys are way behind the curve on this one and you will have to, at some point, address this issue. Mark my words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.114.140 (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Bellwether writes "His therapist, his high school basketball coach, and presumably many others have had as much or more influence on [Obama's] life and thinking as Wright." But the Wikipedia article on Obama's "personal manifesto for his 2008 campaign for the Presidency" notes "The title of 'The Audacity of Hope' was taken from a sermon written by Obama's religious and spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright." And, I would add, not merely his religious mentor. Despite being himself a skeptic Obama came to Chicago because he got a job fronting for some white guys, disciples of Saul Alinsky, who wanted to organize the local politics of Chicago's black churches. An obvious asset, Obama was recruited by a number of ministers, but chose about three years later to align himself with Jeremiah Wright's Trinity UCC. Jodi Kantor writes in the NY Times", "Still, Mr. Obama was entranced by Mr. Wright, whose sermons fused analysis of the Bible with outrage at what he saw as the racism of everything from daily life in Chicago to American foreign policy. Mr. Obama had never met a minister who made pilgrimages to Africa, welcomed women leaders and gay members and crooned Teddy Pendergrass rhythm and blues from the pulpit. Mr. Wright was making Trinity a social force, initiating day care, drug counseling, legal aid and tutoring. He was also interested in the world beyond his own; in 1984, he traveled to Cuba to teach Christians about the value of nonviolent protest and to Libya to visit Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, along with the Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan..."[18] In other words, what attracted Obama to Trinity UCC was as much or more Wright's politics as any trancendental appeal. To pretend that Wright's politics are now irrelevant to Obama's biography is the determined blindness of someone who will not see what he doesn't want to see. Andyvphil (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• No one's "pretending" anything. Most of us just understand that information belonging in the Jeremiah Wright article belongs there and not here. No amount of pontificating will change this fact. Bellwether ^B_C 18:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Then you are simply ignoring what Obama himself has stated repeatedly. If you want to know Obama you have to know a little bit about Pastor Wright and no amount of sophistry will change this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.114.140 (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• No, I'm not. If people want to know "a little bit about Pastor Wright" the article Jeremiah Wright is clearly wikilinked in the article. Also, I'll thank you to stop with the insults ("sophistry"). It's not appreciated, and not acceptable. Bellwether ^B_C 18:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

msnbc led off at noon with this today, so it may be gaining long-term notability. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Bellweather, you accused a couple of us of "pontificating," (to speak in a pompous or dogmatic manner) which is at least as much of an insult as "sophistry". It's probably worse. The only difference is that my description was accurate. Do you really think "sophistry" is an insult? My God you are a Democrat aren't you? Also, as I said before, there will come the day, sooner or later, when you will be forced to include a better explanation of Obama's link with Wright IN THIS ARTICLE. I do appreciate the fact that you at least offer a response.

William Ayers association

Why is there no mention of association with Bill Ayers of the Weathermen terrorist group? This has been a significant source of controversy duing his campaign and deserves to be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.178.70.195 (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There has been established no association of note with William Ayers, and this has not "been a significant source of controversy during his campaign," as evidenced by the fact that no one campaigning against him has bothered with it. The Ayers "story" is found in a limited number of places, none of them particularly reputable or journalistic in nature. Pseudo-smears or (particularly weak) attempted guilt-by-association attacks aren't taken seriously or even put forth in the first place by anyone besides those with an anti-Obama or anti-Hillary agenda

Improvement suggestion/research

Please research details (access legal records in Hawaii,etc...) as to date and venue/auspices of parent's marriage & circumstances of separation & divorce.

Adding these kind of details would be considered original research unless another source, like a newspaper etc., considered them important enough to mention. Redddogg (talk) 10:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit protected

{{editprotected}} Today is the 14th. Can I edit yet?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I just want to add a non-controversial template.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What template do you want to add? If you are asking for an admin to make an edit, you need to specify what that edit is. I have removed the template - feel free to reinstate it if you make a specific request ... although in about 10 hours, you will be able to do it yourself. --B (talk) 06:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I like to make my own edits. When is the ten hours up exactly?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It has expired now - I have removed the template. FYI, for future reference, only administrators have the ability to edit a fully protected page so if you use the {{editprotected}} template, you have to say what it is you want done. If you are asking that protection be removed (so that all users can edit the page), the place to make that request is WP:RFP, although if a page is protected because of a dispute, an admin is unlikely to shorten the protection unless it is demonstrated that the dispute is resolved. --B (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

WOW

If He Hadn't Been In The Presidential Race This Article Wouldnt Be Featured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.151.71 (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama has been a featured article since August 2004, before Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate. Since then it has been improved steadily, seen a favorable mention in the Washington Post, been through two WP:FAR reviews, and not once been listed as a featured article removal candidate. Wow indeed. --HailFire (talk) 06:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hailfire, you are a wonderful person. However, WP featured article status means nothing in the real world. This article is not an example of good writing. In good writing the interests of the reader are put first. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 10:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, I've appreciated you and your contributions too. As for our readers, if you trust these statistics, there were approximately 2.6 million of them at last count. Hmmm... what percentage is that? Significant in any case, I'd guess? --HailFire (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be willing to bet that this is the number one article viewed on WP recently. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It's possible. We were ranked number 3 in January according to this source. --HailFire (talk) 13:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] I've just located this. Hope you put a lot of money on that bet! :) --HailFire (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)