Talk:Lolo Soetoro

Claims of being a "nominal" Muslim

I'm going to remove claims of "nominal" Islam, and a non-religious household. After scouring all the sources, there is no proof that Soetoro did not practice Islam whole-heartedly past Barack's own word - undeniably politically motivated. If we are supposed to implicitly trust the word of politicians-elect on matters concerning their race to political power, then why not edit Barack Obama's page to call him the president already! Perhaps the original author neglected to notice the fact that in the articles sourced, there is a case of bad journalism. The journalist makes the assumption from the quote: "My mother, whose parents were nonpracticing Baptists and Methodists, was one of the most spiritual souls I ever knew, but she had a healthy skepticism of religion as an institution. And as a consequence, so did I," that it may be assumed that Obama's household was not religious. When additional information states that Obama's mother and Soetoro were not actually very close, a schism in religious belief is very plausible. What you're basing the claim of nominal Islam and an irreligious household on are the idle speculations of a reporter taking a quote from a book too far. If you insist on keeping the sources, at least amend the statement because, quite simply, the information in the article is insufficient to be making such claims.

Also, Soetoro was indeed known to eat bacon on occasion, but this is hardly refutal of his practice of Islam in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.244.205 (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact, without the following sentence attacking the household's religious status, the bacon comment seems rather silly and out-of-place. I'm removing it as well. If someone really has a hardon for that little piece of information, perhaps you should find a place in the article where it flows better. And whoever's undoing the changes I made, I invite you to discuss this here instead of resorting to childish games. 76.171.244.205 (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've made my case, if you want to continue the edit wars, so be it. 76.171.244.205 (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, Lolo's daughter also said that her father was not religious - and Barack's book was written long before this election campaign - so your assumption that what it contains is politically motivated is your opinion, nothing more. As for whether the journalist made a bad assumption, your argument seems also to be your original research, not particularly backed up by anything. By reverting to your preferred text you're the one who is edit warring - I've only returned the text to the original one time - so rather than being sarcastic, why don't you wait and see what the regular editors here have to say and if they have better sources. And rather than removing the text, you could have added a request for citations with the {{fact}} tag. In fact I was not a supporter of keeping this article, but if it's going to be here, it needs to be correct and not a vehicle for specious implications about Obama's religious background. Tvoz/talk 00:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have to say I appreciate a reply at last, but as I recall (heh), "as you recall" is not a standard for Wikipedia entries. And on the Original Research nonsense... It's obvious with a smidgeon of critical thinking (read: not research) that the journalist has made a mistake. Where we as Wikipedians are expected to provide sources for our outlandish claims, the same burden is shunted unto journalists. Now, we can assume a bit of journalistic integrity, but nowhere in Amanda Ripley's article is there a smidgeon of directly supporting evidence that Lolo Soetoro himself is irreligious.

I contend that the articles cited are insufficient, as the pieces of work themselves indicate unreliability. There has to be at least a little bit of evaluation in what sources are considered reliable. Let me give you a quick summation if that was a tl;dr.

Within the article:

source: ""My mother, whose parents were nonpracticing Baptists and Methodists, was one of the most spiritual souls I ever knew, but she had a healthy skepticism of religion as an institution. And as a consequence, so did I."

claim: Indonesia has the world's largest Muslim population, but Obama's household was not religious.

Now, if you can find a separate source (perhaps the one quoting Lolo's daughter) I would have no problem with this claim. As is, however, shoddy journalism used as citation renders me unable to stand behind this entry's claims of nominal practice.76.171.244.205 (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This article, as it stands, seems properly and reputably sourced. If someone wishes to claim that the statement is not true, then he/she should find a reputable counterclaim. BTW, USA is a Christian country, but filled with non-practicing Christians. Bellagio99 (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I just made some additional edits. All available sources I've seen on Lolo indicate he was a Muslim in only the most general way. Calling him a "nominal Muslim" seems quite fiting given the sources.

Reporters have sent dispatches back with interviews from former teachers, school mates, etc. Obama has written on the subject. His sister has commented on it too. We have to use the available sources which point to a non-religious family--at least regarding practicing a certain faith. Barack didn't seem to find religion that resonated with him until Chicago. His brief time in Indonesia, to date, offers no indication that he was a practicing Muslim, let alone exposed to Muslim extremism, a widely circulated rumor. He was exposed to muslims practices it seems as a visiting foreigner. Extrapolating from that goes beyond the scope of the sources.--Utahredrock (talk) 06:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

URR - didn't you or Justme have a source for Maya's stating her father was not a practicing Muslim? I don't have time to check back - but that might help here. (To 76.171: that's why I said "as I recall", not because a recollection is enough on its own - I think a source had been discussed here or on a related article or AfD not long ago.) Tvoz/talk 07:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

In my recent edits I referred again to http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0703250340mar25,0,4122936.story which covers this well. Obama also writes about it in his book, but some of the reporting from Indonesia adds crebilitiy. CNN did some reports I know. Utahredrock (talk) 08:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Should Lolo be in the Indonesian Muslim category?

Preamble: User:Lid added "Indonesian Muslim" as a category for Lolo. I reverted, on the grounds that he was not an active Muslim, and this seemed to unduly emphasis his religion, in ways that are rarely done for many others. For example, I have checked the many people on my watchlist, and no American is categorized as "American Christian" or "American Jew"'. (This may/may not tell you about who I watch).

Lid reverted me, and sent me the following comment on my Talk page which I copy to here:

Your statement of "99%" not falling under the category intrigued me into needing to explain something about wikipedia categories - they are inclusive, not exclusive. To be in the American Christian category you need to only be American and identify your religious beliefs as Christian, that is all, and then the category applies to that biographical page. It is not for Category:American priests or other people who belong to the structure of the Christian denomination, just people who state they are Christian.

The same applies to Lolo, he is Indonesian and self-identified as Muslim. It is irrelevant that he did not strictly adhere to all Muslim fundamental beliefs, just as it is irrelevant that some Jewish people eat pork or some Christians murder other people. Just because they do not strictly follow every tenet of their religion does not mean they are not part of it and really is a classic example of the no true Scotsman fallacy. –– Lid^(Talk) 14:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Back to Bellagio 99:

First, it's nice to meet a fellow appreciator of Anthony Flew. Nevertheless, I keep wondering why Lolo's religion is being singled out, when so few others are. What purpose does it serve? I try mightily to WP:AGF, and Lid (as I) is an experienced editor, and not single-purpose.

Nevertheless, the categorization is misleading in emphasizing a nominal religious affiliation. And its existence plays into the hands of repeated attempts to portray Barack Obama as a Muslim. I don't think this is the purpose of the editor who inserted the misleading categorization, but it most likely would contribute to the misleading characterization of Obama that is prevalent in the U.S., despite his frequent Christian church attendance. Bellagio99 (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Citing "the articles you watch" as lacking the categories means that the categories need to be added, not that wikipedia articles omit these categories depending on emphasis. Categories are simple and with wide ranges to be added to articles that fall under their very wide nets, hence why some categories (such as Christians) have thousands of seemingly related articles all categorised underneathe them. This category is not misleading, he was an Indonesian Muslim and identified as such. Omitting a category because of a perceived possibility that it may be used maliciously is not grounds for removal. Barack Obama has him categorised as American Christian, Barack Obama, Sr. has Kenyan Atheist, Maya Soetoro-Ng has American Buddhist, all because they fall under these categories, as should Lolo Soetoro be categorised by his religion.

I realise there is great waryness when the topic of Islam and Obama come into relations, due to some people maliciously using it as an attack on Obama irrelevant of if its true, or even if it would matter, but waryness of Islamophobes and outright trying to not include a category that no one can argue is factual starts to fall closer to avoiding a NPOV of the article. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. You're giving undue emphasis to this in ways that are rarely done for others. I used my quick-and-dirty watchlist sample as an illustration of what is common Wikipedia practice, which you want to change. And I wonder, why single out a nominal Muslim who not coincidentally was for a while the step father of Barack Obama. Are you changing labeling all the Americans or Aussies as Christians. This seems very much WP:Undue Weight. Bellagio99 (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? It is not a rarely done practice, categorising based off Religion (or any other fact about that person) is common. Categories that are missing are labelled as needing categorisiation and more categories are to be added. Your disagreement, and tacked on assumption that I am secretly trying to pry in the fact that Obama's stepfather is a Muslim into the categories because I am anti-Obama, is both a. factually incorrect (although I am not an American I have been following Obama's campaign since January 2007 with enthusiasm) and b. even if it were true it would not fall under Undue Weight as I am not trying to make an entire section dedicated to that he was a Muslim. If I was doing that, which would obviously be someones attempt at partisan hackery and trying to attack Obama by proxy, then you would have support. For now, however, all you are doing is seemingly basing assumptions based off your own incomplete articles and assuming that I am doing this out of some bad faith attempt to back hand Obama. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

←This has not been settled, and there is no consensus for the addition. PLease stop edit warring and discuss further. Tvoz/talk 08:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You did not gain consensus, please revert your good faith edits. Removal of reliable sources' material is against Wikipedia policies. 84.13.172.187 (talk) 06:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

merge redirect recommendation

This article is virtually identical to the corresponding section in Family of Barack Obama, so I recommend that Lolo Soetoro be changed to a redirect to Family of Barack Obama#Lolo Soetoro. There is no independent notability, or reason to have this article separated out. We can add the photo there if desired - otherwise, the articles are identical and the redundancy adds nothing to the encyclopedia. Anyone searching on Lolo will be sent directly to the same words in that article. Tvoz/talk 22:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have, and will pretty much always, support this proposal - despite the discussions I've caused on this article they have only been based on the assumption of the continued existence of the article in a neutral prospective, outside of my own personal opinion on whether the article should exist at all. I'm just not seeing a need for its own article. –– Lid^(Talk) 22:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, for reasons provided by Tvoz and Lid. Bellagio99 (talk) 00:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose For many reasons previously discussed in this space. Soetoro was the step-father of the man who could soon become the President of the U.S. If he is buried in a longer article he will be harder to find. The false charges of Obama being a Muslim will persist and Soetoro's falsely alleged place in that mythology will remain. He deserves a stand alone article plain and simple. Tvoz, this is very disappointing, but not unexpected.--Utahredrock (talk) 02:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Utah - "harder to find" is just not true. Do you understand how redirect works? When a person types Lolo Soetoro in the "go" box at left or clicks on a wikilnk to his name, they will be brought directly to Family of Barack Obama#Lolo Soetoro, exactly the same way they are now brought to Lolo Soetoro. No stops, no extra keystrokes, no burying, not one bit harder to find. The words in that section are the same as the words here - nothing is lost, the only thing that happens is only one place has to be watched and we are assured that we don't have different info in one or the other. The exact same effect on the false allegations. No difference, just an elimination of redundancy and the potential for discrepancies. As for "deserving" a stand alone article, I don't really know what that means. Our criterion for whether an article should exist is notability - independent, verifiable, sourceable notability. Lolo's notability is as the short-time stepfather of Barack Obama, so his placement as part of Obama's family is correct. And as long as he is just as easy to find, and all information about him is retained, I can't guess what you are disappointed about. Tvoz/talk 02:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, The article is notable and well sourced.84.13.172.187 (talk) 06:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you miss the fact that all of this notable and sourced material, with sources, is in the article we propose to merge it to? Do you have an argument for why it should be duplicated here? Tvoz/talk 07:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I also Support, for reasons provided by Tvoz and Lid., especially the fact that Mr. Soetero has no independent notability. scran4d (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I too support the inclusion. The parents of presidential candidates and their family businesses should be available for review. Mr. Soetoro must have had an influence on Mr. Obama upbringing. Mr. Soetoro's military history and employment with Mobil Oil is an far more relevant than the candidates middle name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.5.69.27 (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, that is one of the reasons why it should have its own article. Wolves can talk... and edit 05:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)