Jump to content

Talk:Barack Obama

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.166.207.192 (talk) at 01:35, 27 September 2008 (→Controversy re: Rezko/Ayers). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Community article probation

Featured articleBarack Obama is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 18, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 5, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
January 23, 2007Featured article reviewKept
July 26, 2007Featured article reviewKept
April 15, 2008Featured article reviewKept
September 19, 2008Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article

Website?

I think this should be in the section where it shows his website. The Obama for Illinois senator is old and outdated. http://www.barackobama.com/splash/first_to_know.html user:chasesboys

BarackObama.com is already included, I move to delete this section. natezomby (talk)

obma is a gayfer. where was he two years ago? with a nother boy being gay. and i cant understand who would vote for obama. obama does crack and thanks he is a boy who likes girls.

GoodDamon, I'm putting up my Rezko sources

Following are sources that mention Obama and Rezko, but do not mention Republicans, McCain, conservatives or any other source of a political smear campaign.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/rezko/1175377,CST-NWS-rezko21.article

I'll be adding more and more and more and more and more of these links to this Talk page as the discussion goes on. This one was from the Chicago Sun Times. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another source that mentions Obama and Rezko, but doesn't mention Republicans, McCain, conservatives, or any other source of a political smear campaign.
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/208/09/blagojevich-s-1.html
This one is the Chicago Tribune. I'll be posting more. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Sun-Times is an unreliable tabloid and the Chicago Tribune has a profuse right-wing bias. Besides, the Tribune source is from their blog. Try again with reliable sources. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is insane. Are you telling me that the city of Chicago has no reliable sources on politics? Cool Hand Luke 00:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I think the Chicago Tribune qualifies as a reliable source for most things. In this case, I'm unable to see the blog WorkerBee74 posted (I get a 404), so I'm unable to make a judgment on it, but based on the quality of the links s/he's been using to push a negative POV, I'd assume it was not the non-partisan newsblog of a journalist; rather, I would assume it was an opinion blog written by a right-wing commentator. --GoodDamon 00:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with that. Most of these citations seem to be opinion pieces, and personal blogs (even of a reporter) are a different matter than articles the paper stands behind. I just noticed the remark about the Chicago Tribune. It's certainly a reliable source. Cool Hand Luke 00:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sourcing is a side issue. There are certainly reliable sources to say who Ayers is and how he interacted with Obama. The issue is POV and undue weight. There is a lot to Obama, and only so much space to describe in this biography of his life. Deciding what to include in this article is more than a game of "find a reliable source for your POV claims." The article already has a sentence describing in straightforward fashion what happened, and a link from there to the Rezko article, which includes five full paragraphs about Rezko's legal troubles and seven paragraphs about his connection to Obama. It's already in the encyclopedia. There is no encyclopedic reason to duplicate that here. We went through a lot of effort to decide exactly how to reference that here, and we made the decision. There is nothing new to this proposal that has not already been discussed at legnth. "Consensus can change" but it obviously has not changed on this point. Wikidemon (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'd find that there are a lot of long term, reliable, non-SPA editors here at WP who disagree. Try the WP:RS noticeboard. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Wikipedia editor in their right mind that would consider a blog a reliable source. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 19:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A blog by a Chicago Tribune reporter on the Tribune website is a reliable source. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another source. This one is the Canada Free Press:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5076

No mention of Republicans, conservatives, McCain, or any other possible source of a smear campaign. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Canada Free Press is the right-leaning, Canadian version of the Huffington Post. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not support change - My position remains as it did in the last consensus discussion, that the current wording represents a neutral and fairly weighted coverage of this matter given the sources and the relative importance of it to Obama's biographical history.  I am unlikely to participate greatly here but my standing position until I state otherwise is that the Rezko material should not be expanded or significantly changed.  There is a considerable weight of consensus to overcome before the matter can seriously be re-opened.  Wikidemon (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And yet we see HuffPo being used as a RS in other Wikipedia articles. Here's another source that mentions Rezko and Obama, but doesn't mention Republicans, conservatives or McCain:
That's not the Barack Obama article's problem. Unbias other articles instead of biasing this one. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 19:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.rrstar.com/news/x590307928/Gov-sits-out-as-Obama-makes-history
The Rockford Register Star. Any problem with that one? WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's all about Rezko and Blagojevich, with a sentence or two about how Rezko was a fundraiser for Obama, but Obama did not do anything wrong. I'm all for adding, "Obama is not guilty of any wrongdoing" to this article and then referencing this source. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 19:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point here is to prove that mainstream media find the Obama/Rezko relationship to be notable, and they're not just reporting the smear campaigns by the right-wingers. Do you agree, Erik, that the Rockford Register Star helps to prove this?
By the way, before I post the links, Erik, do you agree that the New York Times, New Yorker, and Washington Post are reliable sources? WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still support the consensus wording now in the article that has been affirmed, and reaffirmed, and reaffirmed again numerous times. This is a neutral, accurate statement. This entire non-issue could be handled as a footnote in this biography, but if it must be in the text, this is a reasonable compromise. We have been over this many times, and consensus has been reached repeatedly for this wording. I, too, am not going to go through the argument yet another time - my position hasn't changed.  Read the archives.  Tvoz/talk 19:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tvoz, I don't need to read the archives. I was participating daily in the discussions that are preserved there, and I remember them well. "Read the archives" is Wikipedian for "Shut up and go away." A different person was making the same misrepresentations: he was claiming that the reliable sources were only reporting smear campaigns by political opponents and didn't find the Obama/Rezko relationship to be noteworthy on its own merits.
I have found dozens of NYT articles that mention Rezko and Obama but don't mention Republicans, conservatives, McCain or any other source of a smear campaign. Here are just a few of them. Explain these away, Erik, particularly the first one:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/us/politics/02rezko.html?pagewanted=print
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/us/politics/29rezko.html?pagewanted=print
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/15/us/politics/15obama.html?pagewanted=print
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/us/07rezko.html?ex=1362546000&2n=5086c986c58301&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
How many more do you want? Are these reliable sources? Not a blog in sight. Not an opinion column in sight. Straight up front page news stories in the gold standard of reliable sources. WorkerBee74 (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not denying that Obama had ties to Rezko, I'm just saying that devoting space to discussing those ties on the article is inappropriate per Wikipedia policy. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 20:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDamon's analysis

Yes, if you're going to name a section after me, I'm going to reply with my own subsection. Anyway, please follow along...

Analysis: A story about Tony Rezko's ongoing legal woes. Mentions briefly his work on campaigns. Article is about Rezko, not Obama, and doesn't contain any information not already cited in the article concerning their relationship. In fact, it contains less detail about their relationship than any articles specifically about it, and only mentions Obama once, in passing.
Suitability for this article: None. It's not even about Obama.
Analysis: Page doesn't load. Bad URL maybe?
Suitability for this article: No idea.
Analysis: An opinion piece on a heavily biased website. Not a reliable source. Which you must know by now. Are you trying to waste time?
Suitability for this article: None. Not suitable for much else, either. It's an opinion piece. If you want to write an article about Judi McLeod, that's a lovely editorial with which to depict her opinions. Be my guest.
Analysis: Why, it's an honest-to-gosh reliable source! You should actually be citing the AP, not the Rockford Register Star, as this is an AP story, but it definitely qualifies as a reliable citation for... the Rod Blagojevich article. It discusses all sorts of troubling details about Rezko and Blagojevich, but its only definitive statement about Obama is that he has "...not been accused of any wrongdoing."
Suitability for this article: Perhaps a statement indicating that there is no implication of wrongdoing on Obama's part. Otherwise, this would be a lovely story to bring to the attention of editors at Blagojevich's WP:BLP article.
Analysis: A reliable source, to be sure, but it treads ground already covered in the article. Yes, Obama's deals with Rezko have attracted attention. The article already says that.
Suitability for this article: I'd say feel free to add it as another reference to the statement that's already there. I don't see anything new in this one that's worth bothering expanding the article for, and frankly it's out of date. The NYT has put out newer stories that essentially put to rest the contentions that there's anything of note to Obama's and Rezko's relationship beyond what's already in this and the campaign article. We already know about the house, and the loans that have gone to charity. What else does this article provide?
Analysis: A reliable source... about Rezko. Obama is only mentioned briefly, and only in context already covered in the article.
Suitability for this article: None. Take it to Rezko's article.
Analysis: See my response two above. An older story, largely out of date, that would be perfectly good for a citation on information already in this and other articles. Nothing new about Obama's relationship with Rezko.
Suitability for this article: None. There's nothing new to indicate biographical importance.

I am not saying there's no importance to mentioning Rezko. They knew each other, obviously, and the the purchase of a home is a major event in most households. But Obama is under neither journalistic investigation nor legal investigation over the extent of this relationship, and no one -- except some extremely conservative sources -- are accusing him, personally, of any wrongdoing in his association with Rezko. None. There's the guilt-by-association accusations that come from his political opponents, but that's it, and that's more suitable for the campaign article... which already goes into detail about it.

I said it's time to put up. And you haven't. You have rehashed. You have demonstrated a mastery of information that's already known, and already in Wikipedia, in the right articles. Let me put it bluntly: If you want to increase the notability of this relationship -- and it's obvious you do, and it's obviously for political reasons -- you need to cite something that hasn't happened yet, such as a legal investigation or a non-partisan journalistic expose that goes into heretofore unknown malfeasance on Obama's part in relation to Rezko. As of right now, with all these so-called "gold standard reliable sources" you've provided, there's nothing like that. Here's my promise to you: Come back with something new and notable, and factual enough for a biography, and I will be the first person to push for its inclusion in this article. Until then, stop the POV-pushing. Give it up already. It's done. --GoodDamon 23:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If no one minds, I'd like to pick up where WorkerBee74 has left off. Here are a few links from The Washington Post, an undeniably reliable source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/06/AR2008030603597.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/03/AR2008030302812.html?hpid=topnews

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/13/AR2008071301904_pf.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/03/AR2008030302769_pf.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/16/AR2006121600729.html

And here's one from The New Yorker, another undeniably reliable source and clearly sympathetic to Obama:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=11

Here are a few from The Guardian and The Independent, two British newspapers that are undeniably reliable sources and undeniably leaning to the left and sympathetic with Obama:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/03/barackobama.uselections2008?gusrc=rss&feed=fromtheguardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/07/barackobama.hillaryclinton?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/07/barackobama.hillaryclinton?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/unwelcome-publicity-for-oil-giant-in-legal-battle-with-billionaire-820750.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/clinton-stays-cool-as-icestorm-heads-in-790950.html

Here's a few from the Los Angeles Times, another undeniably reliable source:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/chi-obama-rezkomar15,0,3640595.story?page=2

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/chi-obamarezko-connect.swf,0,4208669.flash

http://www.latimes.com/news/ny-usrezk045601160mar04,1,1334601.story

http://www.latimes.com/news/chi-tony-rezko-trial-07mar07,0,4039158.story?page=1

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamaillinois8-2007sep08,0,308382.story

http://www.latimes.com/features/printedition/magazine/chi-070412obama-money,1,4625776.story

Absolutely none of these mentions McCain, Republicans or conservatives, so they aren't just reporting on right-wing smear campaigns. All these sources find the Rezko-Obama connection to be notable, whether the right-wingers use it against Obama or not. Now let's review what GoodDamon claimed regarding these sources:

Please don't take this the wrong way, but it's just not true. The non-editorial articles about Ayers and Rezko that have appeared in reliable sources have almost universally been news about how Republicans have been making allegations. The articles have distinctly refrained from lending any credence to those allegations. In fact, to a large extent, they reject the allegations outright. ... It's time to put up. No more opinion pieces, vague implications of guilt-by-association, or reliance on opinion pieces and articles from conservative rags. Give us meat, or give up already.

I find it hilarious that in the middle of this exchange, Scjessey had the gall to accuse WorkerBee74:

Ahhh. The usual misrepresentation of the facts, I see.

The fact of the matter is that it's WorkerBee74 who has been telling the truth, and GoodDamon and Scjessey who have been misrepresenting the sources. (personal attack stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC))Curious bystander (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have perused the sources and find no new arguments or facts, and nothing that suggests reconsidering the earlier consensus. The facts of Obama's dealings with Rezko are not in question, and are well treated in the Rezko article. However, this is clearly a minor issue in the campaign, much less Obama's life, as evidenced by the relatively scant coverage of the matter. Even most of the articles cited here give it only casual mention, saying that Obama did nothing wrong and describing the connection between the two as a "footnote" (we give it more credence than that already). We have previously gone through an analysis of the sources at great length to see just how serious a matter they consider it. As a proportion of Obama's life this merits approximately the one-sentence treatment we give it here. Given that mainstream and non-mainstream anti-Obama factions are playing up this issue, and the singleminded determination of the editors pushing this to insert content in the encyclopedia disparaging of Obama, any overemphasis on this cannot be a simple mistake and would have to be considered a violation of our WP:NPOV policy. Wikidemon (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are either of you, Cb and WB, reading anything you link anymore? Every one of those articles went out of their way to establish a lack of connection between Obama and Rezko's behavior. Some choice quotes from articles you have hilariously failed to read:

...There is no connection between Obama and the allegations...

— (Obama is innocent)

...He targeted a raft of up-and-comers, including a young state senator named Barack Obama...

— (Obama is a victim of Rezko's)

...and although the case did not implicate Obama, his Rezko association has caused him significant political embarrassment...

— (The association has no legal or ethical implications, but has been used by his political opponents)

Then you've got the opinion blogs and commentary...AGAIN...which means, I guess, that you both suffer some kind of congenital ailment preventing you from seeing the words "these are not reliable sources." (Kidding, kidding...) Yes, they're hosted at places like the Washington Post. No, they're not reliable for any statements of fact. They're reliable for the opinions of their authors only. And on, and on, and on. I ask for meat, I get tofu. Come on, guys... --GoodDamon 22:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just left warnings on the User Talk pages of Scjessey and Wikidemon for violations of WP:OWN. GoodDamon, if we disqualify a few of these as opinion columns, what about the rest? the reliable, neutral (or left-leaning) mainstream media sources find the Obama/Rezko relationship to be notable standing on its own, without being propped up by the right-wing spin machine. Curious bystander (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stop templating my talk page with game-playing warnings. You are being disruptive here.Wikidemon (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we should add the following, impeccably sourced quotation:

Nearly three years later, fallout from Mr. Obama’s relationship with Mr. Rezko, who raised more than $150,000 for Mr. Obama’s campaigns, continue to dog Mr. Obama on the presidential campaign trail. That distraction promises to linger ... Mr. Obama has conceded that it was a mistake to bring Mr. Rezko into his personal real estate dealings, although he has insisted that there was nothing unusual about the developer’s decision to buy a sought-after lot in an upscale neighborhood. But a review of court records, including new details of Mr. Rezko’s finances that emerged recently, show that the lot purchase occurred as he was being pursued by creditors seeking more than $10 million, deepening the mystery of why he would plunge into a real estate investment whose biggest beneficiary appears to have been Mr. Obama.

[4]

What's wrong with it? Curious bystander (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed as before on POV, COATRACK, SYNTH, and RS grounds -- and in this case poorly and unenclylopedically written. We should dismiss this proposal as being against clear consensus, and close as unlikely to lead to a viable suggestion to improve the article as well as disruptive due to the incivilities of the SPA proposing it Wikidemon (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong

Well, for starters, there are WP:WEIGHT and WP:SYNTH issues. I would also like to note that your choice of phrasing -- "insisted" instead of "said" -- is classic POV-pushing, and even dealt with in the NPOV tutorial. This paragraph as proposed is a gross distortion of the weight the media has granted this -- they all unequivocally make clear that Obama is innocent and the connection is basically coincidental -- and a blatant violation of WP:BLP. You can't possibly think it would fly. And finally, the citation you use is out of date and covers details already laid out in the campaign sub-article. Why not use a current New York Times story, by the way? Is it possible the newer ones would note that Obama has not been accused of any legal or ethical wrongdoing?
Now then... Because you absolutely, positively insist on dragging this out until each and every avenue of attack is exhausted, despite zero chance of any productive article edits coming from it, I will now shoot down every remaining article cited in this section.

There have been no allegations that Obama, whose political fortunes are soaring as he mulls a run for president, broke the law or committed any ethics violations.

— (Obama is innocent... again)

...blah blah blah details about Obama's home blah blah... whose southern portion was beginning to be transformed by developers like Tony Rezko, and stretched far up Michigan Avenue ...blah blah more details blah blah

— (Obama bought a house)

Secret negotiations to settle a multimillion-pound dispute between the Total oil company and London-based businessman Nadhmi Auchi have broken down, The Independent on Sunday has learnt.

— (Article isn't even about Rezko or Obama, and mentions both in passing)
GIVE. IT. UP. It's over. The fat lady has sung. The sun has gone down and the moon has come up, and long ago somebody left with the cup. Let it die, already. This is an encyclopedia, and you have been using it as your soapbox long enough. --GoodDamon 23:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FAR closed; useful leftovers

I have closed the FAR. I'll leave some minor clean-up issues here, from SandyG and DrK. Marskell (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Misc cleanup needs:
    • The section heading, "U.S. Senator, 2005–present" breaches WP:MOSDATE#Precise language: something like "U.S. Senator, from 2005" might work.
    • The image in "Early life and career" is causing text squeeze, see WP:MOS#Images. If not deleted, it should be moved down.
    • There are WP:ACCESSIBILITY issues in several sections: Images within sections should be below the templates at the top of sections, and maintenance template are in the wrong place. See the structure sections of ASSESSIBILITY.
    • WP:MOSNUM, ... its staff grew from 1 to 13 ... is awkward, might better be ... its staff grew from one to thirteen.
    • Ack. External jump in the text, sample: which authorized the establishment of www.USAspending.gov, a web search engine.[60] External jumps belong in External links or as citations.
    • I am uncertain this italicization is correct, see WP:ITALICS ... introduced follow-up legislation: Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending Act of 2008 ... I know law cases are in italics, but legislation, unsure?
    • Logical punctuation needs to be addressed per WP:PUNC, sample: ... "to avoid the impression that he endorsed the entire range of opinions expressed at that church."
    • Citations still look very clean, but I saw some unformatted citations, so a review might be in order (there are too many for me to look at all of them :-) All need publisher, author and date when available, and last accessdate on websites.
    • Inconsistency in date linking in citations should be addressed (slowly, over time, since this is a recent WP:MOS change). Some dates are delinked, others linked, example: Fornek, Scott (October 3, 2007). I don't suggest trying to do this kind of work during an election cycle :-)
  • All in all, still a very clean article, none of this is significant (except the external jump in the text, I hope there aren't others). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on this version. Suggested prose changes:
    • "Obama directed Illinois's Project Vote from April to October 1992...powers to be." This sentence is too long and complicated. I had to read it over twice.
    • "Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, being first classified as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and then as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004." Why not?: "Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and then as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004." I know he had another job at the same time, but it is unnecessary to complicate the sentence to point this out, when the other job is mentioned in the next paragraph.
    • Why aren't Senators Carper, Coburn, McCain, Feingold and Lugar, President Bush or St. Paul, Minnesota or Boston, Massachusetts linked?
    • "In March 2007, 'Obama' was officially accepted...obamacam." Seems trivial.
    • "Further reading" is unnecessary given the plethora of references. Can "External links" be trimmed?
    • Images I would have said a signature was an original work of art, and hence copyrightable by the creator, but I could be wrong.
    • I did not find any obvious partisan statements or missing information. DrKiernan (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mentioned about the signature for Palin as well: every candidate in the last 3 election cycles (or the last 5, save four candidates) have signatures here on Wikipedia, so there is a prescedent. Duuude007 (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would-be FAR content comments, no Rezko/Ayers/Wright involved

I hadn't looked at the article in a while, so gave it a fresh-eyed read-through last night (didn't note which version it was). Deliberately looked at content other than Rezko/Ayers/Wright. I was going to give these content comments to the FAR, will give them here instead:

  • The lead needs to say something more about the 2008 presidential campaign. Gaining the nomination is one of the great accomplishments of Obama's career, especially in terms of defeating a front-runner with a famous name, setting fundraising records, and prevailing in an unusually long nomination contest.
  • A cite would be good on "Juris Doctor (J.D.) magna cum laude from Harvard".
  • How did he end up running for the Illinois senate in 1996? Why did he enter politics? Who supported him in the run? Was it an open seat? Did he have to contest a primary? Was it an insurgency campaign or was he the choice of the local Democratic party? What was his margin of victory? What were the issues in the election, briefly? A politician's first race is very significant, due to all these factors. The Hillary and McCain articles, for example, go into more detail about their first races than this article does.
  • Some of the same questions about the 2000 U.S. House primary race against Rush. Why did he try to oppose an incumbent of his own party? What we the main issues, briefly? Why did he fail? Yes, I know there are subarticles underneath the main one, but a little more attention to Obama's political history here and on the previous point is warranted.
  • Why did Ryan withdraw in 2004? An odd one-sentence paragraph that just leaves the reader hanging there. (No need to shy away from a good sex scandal! These articles can always use a little spicing up :-)
  • The middle paragraphs of the 2008 campaign section, that detail the 2008 caucuses/primaries, are not very good at all. They ignore the chronology of Iowa and New Hampshire coming first. They are too delegate-focussed for those early states as well (to the rest of the world, Hillary won New Hampshire!) There is no mention of the racial divide leading into South Carolina, and how Obama won a huge share of the African American vote (not a given, back in 2007). There is too much rote listing of states, without enough analysis of demographics, of how Obama did well in primaries where African Americans or younger, college-educated, or more affluent voters were heavily represented and Clinton did well in primaries where Hispanics or older, non-college-educated, or working-class white voters predominated. There's no mention of how Obama completely out-organized and dominated Hillary in caucuses, which was a key factor in building up the delegate margin. There's no mention of how well-managed the Obama campaign was, and how it avoid the internal dramas that the Hillary (and McCain) campaigns suffered from. There's no mention of how Obama struggled a bit during the last three months (when Hillary won more votes and delegates than he did). There's no mention of how they both broke the record for the most popular votes ever in a primary campaign. In short, the treatment of the campaign is both boring and superficial, when it should be engaging and analytical. (I'll volunteer to do some work on this section, since I'm going to be revising the same section in the Hillary article, which currently suffers from a different set of flaws.)

Anyway, those are my comments. I also noted, as did Sandy and DrKiernan above, that some of the MoS conformance aspects of the article have slipped. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • 100% Endorsed Everything on this list should be addressed. It would indeed improve the article further. If the article has size issues, then we can decide to summarize and split at that time, but we had better make sure that the cross referencing and cross-linking on both sides is very thorough. Duuude007 (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? - most of this stuff is covered in child articles, and was deliberately cut out of the main bio per summary style. Too much specificity can cause weight problems. The Ryan thing was dismissed as a violation of WP:BLP because it was basically personal details about another subject entirely. Hillary-related records are a matter for her group or articles, I would think. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign financing

I understand the concept of covering campaign financing in the sub-article, rather than here, but if that's the decision, then the first part of that sentence should go too. To merely state that he didn't take public financing without mentioning the fact that he reversed his earlier intention is unbalanced. The Palinites would love to fill this article with smear, and I think that can be averted by keeping it FA and as NPOV as possible. In my view, that requires coupling campaign financing with his earlier statement.--Appraiser (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If his decision not to use public financing is notable and used, that this is a reversal should also be noted. Of course, this is best discussed in the main campaign article, but having one and not the other violates NPOV.LedRush (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well. It's a significant enough decision on his part to be biographically notable. How about this wording or something similar: "On June 19, Obama became the first major-party presidential candidate to turn down public financing in the general election since the system was created in 1976, reversing his earlier decision to accept it." It wouldn't even need a new citation, as it's supported by the existing one. --GoodDamon 19:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's good, except I'd replace "decision" with "intention" since he did not need to make the decision until June 2008.--Appraiser (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which means that he didn't "reverse" anything - that is a bit of a loaded word arising from a rather weak political jab. I'm somewhat dubious that we want to give time of day to mild criticisms made by political opponents. Does the fact that he changed his game plan on this really matter to his bio? It's marginal but plausible. Let's wait a bit to see who else sounds in. If we do, I think the sentence works better if done chronologically: "After earlier planning to accept public financing, Obama became the first major-party presidential candidate to turn down public financing in the general election since the system was created in 1976." (I personally don't like using exact dates where the date is not important but others may disagree) Wikidemon (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal does sound a bit awkward I see. You could say "Reversing earlier plans, Obama became..." but you lose a bit of fidelity because "reversing" is somewhat judgmental and not precise. Wikidemon (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta disagree, here. That he received some mild criticism for it isn't the point. It was a major decision on his part, and a reversal, even if it was a reversal of intent, rather than a firm decision. I don't see any harm in noting in a single sentence that it was a reversal. If that's not notable enough for the biography, then I would say strike the whole sentence. If the reversal aspect isn't notable, then neither is the decision itself. --GoodDamon 19:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can't disagree with me! I was a good politician and expressed support for both positions :) But sure, if people think it's relevant and reversal is a good word, fine. Wikidemon (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict]Isn't an unequivocal statement that someone "will" do something more like a decision than an intention? Can't you reverse intentions (first you intend to do something, then you reverse course and intend to do something else)? I'm not getting the problem. I am fine with either GoodDamon's suggestion or Appraiser's edit. But I still feel that the article shouldn't mention the decision to opt out of public funds without mentioning the decision (or statement, or promise, or intention) not to.LedRush (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, strictly as a matter of logic and English, one can reverse a promise or statement. I don't think you can reverse an intention. An intention is an ephemeral thing, so one it happens it's done and you can't change the past. A plan is in between. People talk about reversing plans sometimes - when they do they mean plan in the sense of the ongoing status of one's intended future actions, rather than the internal mental state at a particular time of intending to do something. I hope that makes sense. Wikidemon (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's all true, but it seems like splitting hairs to me. Well anyway, if you come up with some better phrasing, I'm all ears. Oh, and I'm glad dealing with POV warriors hasn't killed your sense of humor. :) --GoodDamon 20:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did he not agree with McCain or Hillary early on that he would only accept public financing? As in "lets pledge to only accept public financing" I seem to recall that that is why he got criticized, if we can find the material to back it up would saying something along the lines of : At first Senator Obama had agreed to use public financing but after wards decided not to Rjh00 (talk) 08:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has always been my "intention" to become extraordinarily wealthy and powerful. The fact that I am both poor and powerless is not a "reversal" on my part. Circumstances have evolved that have sent me down a different path, much as the threat of massive RNC coffers and right wing 527 evilness sent Obama on a different path from the one he perhaps intended. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of misunderstanding of Obama's religion

How do editors feel about this edit? We had some material for a while in the "cultural and political image" section that said, basically "Obama is a Christian, but a lot of folks incorrectly believe him to be Muslim." There was always a difference of opinion on whether that "cultural perception" was noteworthy (clearly not directly a fact of his biography in any "what he did" sense; but arguably so in a "how he is perceived" sense). Obama's actual religion is well discussed earlier in the article, in any case.

I think I personally lean towards supporting the removal of that material (but only lean), but it seems odd for it to have been removed without any comment on this talk page. So I guess that means, I hereby comment :-). LotLE×talk 23:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, hadn't noticed that. I think I lean towards its removal as well, as it's already covered in detail elsewhere and it's of questionable biographical value, but I'm definitely open to being convinced otherwise. --GoodDamon 23:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, indeed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Didn't realize i'd be odd if I didn't comment on the talk page . I removed it because I felt that a poll conducted 3 months ago by a few publications was of little encyclopedic importance, and it's already stressed in the article. Have a nice day. --Smuckers It has to be good 11:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic form of his name

I'll probably be posting this same question on the talk-page for the Arabic translation of this article, but: What is the correct form of Mr. Obama's name in Arabic? The Arabic wikipedia uses "باراك أوباما" (bārāk 'ūbāmā), but I think it should be "براك عباماء" (barāk `abāmā'), in which case his first and last names would be Arabic lexical words just like his middle name. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My hunch is that this is the wrong page on which to ask about Arabic orthography. It seems more likely that someone can give you a good answer on the Arabic Wikipedia. LotLE×talk 16:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Discussion is closed as it is a repeat of the same argument as in the FAQ. Brothejr (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2nd paragraph, 1st sentence

I've followed this issue for months and all the past conversation about it has been pointless due to too much absolutism.

This sentence:

"Obama is the first African American to be nominated by a major political party for president"

is not false, but it is inaccurate because it's specific to the point of falsity due to fact exclusion. It should read like this:

"Obama is the first candidate of African American heritage to be nominated by a major political party for president"

The problem with the current version stems from what the meaning of "is" is. When Bill Clinton turned that phrase, he was mocked in some corners as trying to parse things in a self-serving manner. But he did have a point: How you parse a sentence definately changes its meaning. Change the meaning of "is" and the meaning of the sentence changes. Obama is not "is" African American exclusively but our current sentence falsely suggests he is. The way to reconcile that is to point out that he's "of" African American "heritage". That leaves enough room to make clear that there's African American in his background, without doing what we are doing now which is aligning ourselves with the non-factual POV that Obama "is" African American. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Read WP:V. The statement is based on what he calls himself, and the fact that it can be verified. If he chose to call himself biracial or multiracial, I suppose that could also be verified, but he adopted the role of AA. It is his decision to make, not your's. Again, this topic is a waste of time. Duuude007 (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, the question is actually moot, and this is the 200th time this same question has been raised by editors who don't want to read the FAQ or talk archives. However, Duuude007's now piqued my interest slightly. The conclusion is correct that we can't just decide what we, as editors, would most accurately describe Obama as. However, it isn't quite right that the decision belongs to the bio subject. In truth, it belongs to the consensus of reliable sources. If for some reason a bio subject wanted to be referred to in one way (in terms of ethnic/racial background), but the media who reported on her/him wouldn't go along, it would be our job to defer to the published sources not the subject herself. I can think of a few cases where that distinction matters; it obviously doesn't create any contrast here though. LotLE×talk 20:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, we did. But your option, as we pointed out, is an unnecessary waste of time technicality, one which even he does not consider. Therefore, I have strong prediction value that the consensus will remain unchanged, and that you are still wasting your time. Duuude007 (talk) 05:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Info Box

Why are we including Obama's Subcommittee Chairmanship in the info box. If we are going to include that, then we should include it for all members of Congress. Rick Evans (talk) 05:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you are volunteering to go thru the other articles. Well done. We could use Wikipedians with a sense of initiative like your's. Duuude007 (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Job. --Smuckers It has to be good 00:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous elections

I think this article could use some more information on his previous election wins - state senate and U.S. senate for instance. I came here for information on Barack's prior wins and while the U.S. senate part talks about how Obama already had it in the bag when Ryan had to quit, there is nothing about how he won his state senate seat. I'm sure he won in a landslide like he did for U.S. senate though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.0.187 (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that would be what Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama is for. This article is in summary style, which means everything is given the bird's-eye treatment, while the sub-articles go into detail. --GoodDamon 22:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, I just read that article and now I see why there's no mention of it on Obama's main page as it makes it look like he won by default, and that would not be good for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.0.187 (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotected edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} This page has been vandalized, would someone please change it?

Could you perhaps be more specific? Which line is currently vandalized? --GoodDamon 17:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect they're talking about the penis vandalism I reverted a while ago, and which another brand new account complained about 10 minutes earlier. Since I reverted it a minute after it was added, I suspect it's a caching issue. I have further suspicions about why it's cached like that on these particular editors pages, but I'll keep those to myself. --barneca (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paternal relations

Howdy, should the wikilink for Kenyan relatives be Obama Family#Paternal relations|Kenyan relatives instead of Obama Family|Kenyan relatives

Any admin willing to make that minor editBoris3883 (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't take an admin, just an established editor. And I went ahead and did it. It's a good change and relatively minor. --GoodDamon 15:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Father Son Name Thing: Jr. vs. II

It is my understanding that the following is true. Sr. and Jr. are used for father and son. However, if a child is directly named for another older relative and has the same surname, II is used. Am I wrong? Is "II" on Obama's birth certificate? Do we know? CallidoraBlack (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His birth certificate says II. Duuude007 (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further, his birth certificate says "Barack Hussein Obama II". Joe Levi 19:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Mine says "Joseph Mortimer Finchwistle" (not really), but that doesn't mean Mortimer goes in my article's theoretical infobox. Check other people's infoboxes, and you'll see the middle name is not typically there. --GoodDamon 19:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked, and the template documentation says nothing about the middle name being required. It says of the birth_name field: "Name at birth, if different from name." It's not different. It's just that he doesn't go by his complete name, any more than I do or most people do. The name on the infobox isn't "different" from his birth name just because it's not his complete birth name. Now, if someone went by a nickname or changed their legal name or something like that, that's what the birth_name field is for. But not just to incorporate the person's middle name. --GoodDamon 20:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Overwhelming practice is as described above, and as used here. The Birth name field is for subjects like Irving Berlin, where the name by which the person is known is actually a different name than their given name at birth. It is not intended for cases where someone does not commonly use his or her middle name and/or suffix. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, which means we do not blindly follow policy for policy's sake. If the documentation differs from prevailing practice, the correct resolution is to fix the documentation. --Clubjuggle T/C 21:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) It's also worth noting that this article uses {{Infobox Officeholder}} (as redirected from {{Infobox Senator}}), not {{Infobox Person}}. The documentation for Infobox Person therefore does not apply here. --Clubjuggle T/C 03:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable claims about race

Why isn't there any mention of republicans and white nationalists claiming Obama shouldn't be considered black? They have even gone so far as to call his father an Arab. Why isn't this mentioned?YVNP (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting angle. We often get people editing the article or asking here why he is called African-American by editors who insist he is not. I always assumed that these were mostly African-Americans, multiracial people, and others who were objecting to the way Americans think about race, particularly the so-called One-drop rule. The Arab / Muslim thing, emphasizing his middle name, etc., sees to come from people who are misinformed or spreading untrue rumors... That was in this article for a while but eventually people decided that the untrue things other people say about Obama isn't really related to the story of his life, which is what this article is all about. There is some mention of all this in the Public image of Barack Obama article. Hope that helps.Wikidemon (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it matter who's claiming that Obama shouldn't be considered African-American? I'm sure there are Democrats, Independents, blacks, whites, Asians, etc. that don't believe he should be considered African-American. Regardless, I agree with Wikidemon and believe that topic is more appropriate for a public image article. Obama's own identification of his ethnicity should be all that matters for this article, unless it were something crazy like if he believed he was a Vulcan or something crazy like that. --Amwestover (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence

I've followed this issue for months and all the past conversation about it has been pointless due to too much absolutism.

This sentence:

"Obama is the first African American to be nominated by a major political party for president"

is not false, but it is inaccurate because it's specific to the point of falsity due to fact exclusion. It should read like this:

"Obama is the first candidate of African American heritage to be nominated by a major political party for president"

I haven't followed the conversation for months, and I'm not pouring through 35 pages of archives to find it, but here's my two cents: I think this is ridiculously complicated because of political correctness. I think there is merit in not wanting to broadly paint Obama's ethnicity with a brush, but I think it's understood by most level-headed people that "African American" means an American with at least some black ancestry. I don't necessarily agree with this collective consensus, but it's not something I'm going to climb the Reichstag in a Spider-Man suit over. Besides, when it comes to something like this I believe that it's the person's own identification that matters unless it's a ridiculous assertion, such as Uncle Ruckus saying he's white.

And regardless of all that, the second sentence is technically incorrect. "Of African American heritage" would entail that Obama's father is from Detroit or something. But he's Kenyan, so he's African not African American. Therefore, Obama may be considered African American, but he's not of African American heritage. If your goal is emphasize that he's not 100% black (which probably a sizable portion of the African American population isn't), then you'd need to use different wording. --Amwestover (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&oldid=241248148"