Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 37

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 30 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40


Whats in a name?

Hello everyone! I am curious to know how appropriate would it be to place the meaning of Obama's name here. Any comments? I know I was curious enough to search for it and found it on his website. Other's may be interested to know the meanings too. I would add it but am unsure exactly where to place it at on the page. Below is what his website says of the possible meanings of his name. If this is already present on the page and I am simply missing it please point that out to me. hehe. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 10:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC) By Adoyo - Aug 13th, 2007 at 1:19 pm EDT Also listed in: 9 groups

Tags: barack, hussein, meaning, Name, Obama For those who wonder about the real significance of Senator Barack Obama's name:


baraka: blessing (Kiswahili) baraka: also berakhah , in Judaism, a blessing usually recited during a ceremony baruch: Also related to "berakhah" or bracha (Hebrew: berakhot), which is a blessing. baraka: also barakah, in Islam and Arab-influenced languages, meaning spiritual wisdom and blessing transmitted from God "Baraka", a rarely used French slang term for luck, derived from the Arabic word Baraka, aka Nigella sativa , a spice with purported health benefits

Hussein: an Arabic name which is the diminutive of Hasan, meaning "beautiful" or "handsome".

Obama: a Luo name (male) from Western Kenya (Nyanza Provice) which may derive from "obam," which conotes "bending" or "leaning". also a surname in Japan and Equatorial Guinea

All told, Senator Obama seems to be a living embodiment of the name his parents gave him: he has lived a blessed life and seeks to share his blessing; he is beautiful to behold and to listen to - people are drawn to him and inspired when they hear him speak and consider his ideas; and in public life he is flexible and dedicated to leaning where necessary to help uplift others.

I examined my own name and found that it accurately indicates some of my innate tendancies. Curiously enough, both my Luo name and my English name mean the same thing: thoroughness, purification and wonder/curiosity (among other things...) - who'd have thunk? How about you? Do you embody your name's meaning?

Sources: Wikipedia (baraka, baruch, hussein, obama)

Other sources: My mother; multicultural childhood & education including Luo and Kiswahili.

While interesting, I doubt the biographical importance of the various meanings of Obama's name. Besides, it would be original research. --GoodDamon 12:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Template problem

The vandalism template is ugly, and not used on the McCain article. Vandals and attackers in essence win out when an article puts up a vandal template, because it is itself a defacement of the article. I suggest keeping an equanimity between the two articles and using the minimal form here - using just the icon in the upper right. Thanks -Zahd (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama Mixed Not African Amercian

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

Obama is not African American but Mixed. He is 1/2 African and 1/2 white making him The First Mixed not the First African American. Calling him African American, (a term I have problem with anyway I call myself Black and take the African American term at offence (I have not been to African, and am fully American, Black American or Black does it for me), only insinuates that Blacks are a mongrol race whose purpose is to purify other races by taking out "half-breads" and putting them into any Non-White area. Tiger Woods is of similar upbringing and lists himself as such (and the debate should not have to be repeated). Obama should be listed as he is, because citing him as African American is incorrect and leaves out his White upbring (he only saw his African Father once, and he did not like him). (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Bradleat

Please read the FAQ. Thanks Brothejr (talk) 01:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of the FAQ...

I made some strictly non-controversial edits to it, if anyone cares to check out the differences. --GoodDamon 03:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Berg v Obama and Wikipedia

Just to let you guys know, I had a look at Berg's Sep 29 filing and the filing uses Wikipedia as a source for his dispute, and uses two sources from Wiki as a reason for Obama's birthplace to be questionable *chuckles*.

I hope the sources were good!user:Ticklemygrits (Sorry the bloody tilde key isn't working) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC).

re: first african-american president candidate

Maybe Warren G. Harding should also be mentioned.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, he was like 1/16 black or something.J'onn J'onzz (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama is actually half-African American, half-Cacutian. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
While I am no expert on what defines a person's race, Obama promotes his AA heritage which makes it an easy call. I don't believe Harding brought up his mixed race background during his campaign. Aside from these differences in approach, "race" can have broad or narrow definitions depending on who's talking and why. (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

POV in article

I was curious why there is no mention about the following individuals in Obama's life? Their articles all mention Obama, and...ummm...McCain has the "Keating Five" in his article...

1) Bill Ayers -- Helped start Obama's political career 2) Tony Rezko -- Donated Major funds to his election for senate. 3) Jeremiah Wright -- His pastor for 20+ years, who preformed their marriage, etc.

There is actually a quite exhaustive list I've put together of all very note worthy people who are associated with Obama. Anyone mind if I add it to the "family" section? (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Without going into details if you read the archive the answer would be a clear yes they would. -- (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, all I'm saying is at least adding Jeremiah Wright into the article. He was his pastor for over 20 years! He married him and his wife, baptized their children, etc. I will even post reliable, unbiased sources for all of it. I just want to add it into his bio because it's part of his religious life, therefore SHOULD be included into his bio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Jeremiah Wright is already in this article. --guyzero | talk 21:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::The family section? How are these people related to Obamam? GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

One can not speak to what role a pastor plays in another persons life. It could be all or none and no one knows that except Obama. Under the above logic, I will be entitled to include a section about how Sarah Palin believes in witchcraft because she was willfully prayed over by Rev Muthee to fight against witchcraft. That she seeks to rid the world of the "Israelites" because the good Reverend specifically asked Jesus to empower her to do so and she did not speak out against him. get the point? speaking of someones faith beyond mentioning their church attendance is a non-fact and has no place in an encyclopedia. Furthermore, any intonation or inference that anyone shares any or every view espoused by their Preacher (ie "it's part of his religious life") is not defensible and has no place here. BeBopnJazz (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

One can speak to the role that an individual plays in another persons life if it produces a significant and notable controversy. That is an easy entry and not a violation of WP:POV. Some conspiracy argument regarding Gov. Palin's supposed statements or religous beliefs are not objectively sourced and taken out of context in your argument. Wikiport (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow. There isn't a "See also" section in this article, and there isn't a separate controversies section. --GoodDamon 01:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Striking, as I was apparently responding to an accidental edit. --GoodDamon 01:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

My bad - I hadn't refreshed my browser. thanks. BeBopnJazz (talk) 01:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Happens to all of us. --GoodDamon 01:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Was Obama's birth certificate found?

I heard that a newspaper reported that Obama's birth certificate was found, proving that he was born in Kenya, not Hawaii. According to the rumor I heard, Obama's parents wanted him to have both American and British citizenship (at the time of Obama's birth, Kenya was still a colony of the British Empire). Is there any truth to this or is it another lie like that one about how Obama is a closet Muslim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

See FAQ or the prior 500 discussions of same questions.

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


Why is it that there is no information about the Obama/Acorn connection? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudiemae (talkcontribs) 12:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There is. Obama's work for Project Vote is described in the article. That article describes more about that organization and its relationship with ACORN. However, there is little reliable information on exactly what the relationship is. Attempts to tie Obama to the alleged fraud that took place in one or both organizations seem to be limited to partisan/blog/editorial sources, so there is nothing to go on in this article and no indication of any significance to that. There may be further information in the talk archives of the various pages. Wikidemon (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Here is the Obama campaign official position on ACORN and Obama with acredited sources Boris Badinov44 (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

See Also (2)

I know that this page is a veritable hot-bed of partisans and edit warriors, and that even well-meaning forays into the discussions can be tiresome, but I am wondering why we can't have a "See Also" section that links to a bunck of Obama related articles. Someone made the suggestion on the now-closed thread which suggested having a see also for the Ayers controversy. If this has been answered before...sorry.LedRush (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend that such addititons to this article & the articles John McCain, Joe Biden, Sarah Palin be put on hold until after the prez election. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Are you afraid of fighting over what "See also"s we'll get, or by supporting biases by putting up a See Also that doesn't belong, or something else?LedRush (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Clarification of my question: Are you worried that people will fight over what subjects get their own "See Also" links or are you afraid that the mere use of "See Also" links will support certain biases (for example: See Also: Pedophilia)? If you're still unclear, perhaps a better question is "Why is it better to wait to include "See also" links until after the election?"LedRush (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The latter, by IPs. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
"See also" sections are often a cop-out, albeit necessary for less well developed articles. They're not bad to have for a short article or a stub, but in a featured article like this one, I believe it's better to include anything worth linking to within the flow of the prose... or possibly within subject area templates. In some cases, a WP:SUMMARY style section has a {main|...} tag to link to a longer discussion of the related topic; in other cases a Wikilink is a good way to get from a mentioned concept to a dedicated article. A "See also" falls short of those things: it just says "we think this has something to do with the topic, but we are not sure what (or can't be bothered to make the connection more explicit)". In the case of this specific article, I would further fear that a See Also would become a coatrack for throwing in articles that are not of sufficient relevant to discuss in the main text, but that some (partisan) editor feels "must be known". LotLE×talk 20:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
(ec) If it werethey are worth a "see also" it would bethey are worth a description in the text, which would include a wikilink and obviate the need for a "see also" link. The reason it is not a other matters are not linked as "see also" is the same reason it is they are not mentioned in the text. It is of no significant They are not of sufficient weight or relevance to Obama's biography or there is some other reason that the material is not appropriate to the biography. With the Ayers political criticism in particular there is also a bias (POV) in selectively choosing controversies to link to people's biographies. There are dozens to hundreds of articles that mention Obama and we do not have room (and it would be unencyclopedic) to list them all. If need be you can use the software feature that does that. Choosing out of them a minor political attack that happens to be today's big talking point among Obama's opponents does introduce a non-neutral slant. Wikidemon (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
In a more general sense there are far more pages that mention Obama than reasonable links we could include. Any such link would have to be chosen for its relevance. This is a featured article, so any relevant subject should be given its due weight in the article text rather than listed in a "see also." The only possible exception would be parallel examples of things that are useful to list here for navigational purposes to direct editors to a subject they may also be interested in if they are interested in this one. Things in the nature of [[list of African-American politicians]] - I know that isn't a great example but that's the best I can come up with. Also, note that we have templates that provide links to families of related articles.Wikidemon (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
(ec)While I think your (Lulu)last statement may be true, I've never viewed a "See Also" as a cop-out for less developed articles...quite the opposite. I've always seen them as a way to keep articles that have way too much information for one article brief enough to get all the highlights, but still retain the ability to add more color and information about a notable topic somewhere else.LedRush (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure the scope of your comment, LedRush. To clarify mine: I think a somewhat different standard or judgment applies to a short article than to a long and developed one like this. Also the fact this article is summary style makes it a bit different. In something short (but still worth having), it may be difficult to describe the association between "Foo" and "Bar" without adding undue weight. If I write a two paragraph description of, e.g. a moderately obscure painter whose style is similar to another moderately obscure contemporary artist, I don't necessarily want to say "Foo paints in similar style to Bar" in the main prose, but still want to let readers jump to something else they are likely to want to know about. See Also works about right for that. However, by the time the article on Painter Foo expands enough to discuss a whole range of influences and contemporaries, the See Also should drop away as we have the opportunity to mention the specific nature of each connection in the main text (and wikilink appropriately). Obviously, I think this article is in this latter "sophisticated" stage. LotLE×talk 21:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems at least 3 people strongly feel that See Also links are bad here. Hopefully we can keep the discussion open a little to see if anyone disagrees, though I suspect that the above comments will be the consensus.LedRush (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've no problem with adding a 'See Also' section after the US prez election is held. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
If a "See also" would be valuable then, it would be valuable now. Support adding one. This is a simple matter of basic user-friendliness. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I support adding a "See Also" section here. It appears to be the only way to get any mention of the Obama-Ayers controversy. This controversy is notable enough to have over 1,000 Nexis news hits. It is a significant factor in the campaign, and the campaign is the only thing that makes Obama more notable than any other freshman senator. If you are using WP:SS to exclude even one sentence about Obama and Ayers, then WP:SS requires a link to the article here. WorkerBee74 (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I do not support adding a "See Also" section, for many of the reasons stated above. It's used primarily to avoid the work of blending in additional prose, and to add negligibly related content (see comment above mine). If there is additional prose to be added, why not go through the trouble of adding it well? In any event, this article just went through -- and passed -- another featured article review, so I'd be very hesitant to fix what isn't broken. --GoodDamon 23:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Bill Ayers

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

So, would it be POV to list in Obama's bio that Bill Ayers and Obama:

1) Started Obama's political career at Bill's house 2) Worked on two seperate organization boards for 7 years together 3) distributed grant money to Rev. Wright's church 4) Helped setup the largest push for "alternative" education in Chicago history

I'm just thinking might be a notable point in the life of Barack Obama. I completely understand if most of you consider it POV, especially since Wikipedia editors as a whole are generally thought of as having a liberal slant, but it's well sourced material (CNN among them). (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Only if Obama has announced a place for Ayers in his (Obama's) prospective Administration. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe Obama wrote something in Ayer's book too as well as speaking together on several occasions not related to their board work. I personally think it is important to include the fact that the $110 million dollars they spent on education didn't improve it in the slightest. Apparently, the results of Barack's only executive experience are "disruptive" though since they were reverted. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This has been hashed out a thousand several times already. Please see the recently closed discussions above, particularly the one closed just last night. Oh, and isn't a reliable source. --GoodDamon 23:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There is an existing mention of Obama's service on the board of the Woods Fund. I don't see why we can't add five words to that mention: "... with 1970s radical William Ayers." Five words plus a link. That's all. WorkerBee74 (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Not going to happen. Please replace broken record, stylus, whole record player. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Barack smoking and contract with DSA - why were the edits reverted?

Poster's question answered, discussion growing uncivil, further discussion unproductive and unlikely to lead to viable proposal for improving article - Wikidemon (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering the fact that it is Barack's only executive experience, I think it is very relevant, especially for someone running for an executive position, for the results of his chairmanship to be included. The source was very good - it was Barack's own organization that admitted the $110 million dollars they spent did not improve education. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

And that his only executive experience was shared with William Ayers during the Annenberg Challenge. This is, indeed, a part of his life. It's about time people start taking note... (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a case of WP: OWN by certain editors. There is a blurb included about him quiting smoking, but when I correct the record, with a good source, using the phrasing of that source - it is summarily deleted. Is the perception of him quiting smoking more important than the reality that he has been "bumming" cigs off people?

Why was his contract with the DSA deleted? Isn't it important to know which organizations he has pledged to support? TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

According to the person who reverted Thegoodlocust's edits, information about his support by the DSA and its affiliate, the New Party, was "unhelpful." Unhelpful to efforts to elect BO, perhaps.

Well I would revert it myself, but I don't want to be accused of engaging in an edit war - especially since someone else would likely revert my "disruptive" edits. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow! The addition by TheGoodLocust is even more craptastic than I would have guessed. I should have known! There is nothing in the given sources that even slightly suggests that Obama pledged alignment with DSA/New Party. What it says is that Obama (along with a bunch of other local politicians in 1996 or so) had a conversation with DSA members that the DSA journal thought worth reporting. Ever more of this same style of nonsense, invented whole cloth (maybe first heard on some right-wing blog or AM talk radio, who knows). LotLE×talk 22:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Please try to remain civil. I'll try to spell it out for you using quotes from my sources. First, in Sept-Oct of 1995 it states, "Candidates must be approved via a NP political committee. Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP." It also mentions Barack a bit at this point. Next, in July-August of 1996 it states:
"Secondly, the NP's '96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude. Danny Davis, winner in the 7th Congressional District, invited NPers to join his Campaign Steering Committee. Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in 7th Subcircuit Court, explained that due to the NP she was able to network and get experienced advice from progressives like Davis. Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration. The lone loser was Willie Delgado, in the 3rd Illinois House District."
What part is unclear to you? Candidates, after going through an approval process, must then sign a contract with them - Barack is one of their candidates.
I take it you have no problems with my sources for the failure of the Annenberg Challenge and Barack's "bumming" of cigs? TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Why the heck would someone bumming cigatettes make it into an article like this? It's absurd. I heard that punk George Washington bummed snuff off of redcoats...DARN HIIIIIMMM!!!LedRush (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, it was apparently important enough to mention how he promised to his wife to quit smoking. If his promise to quit smoking is notable enough, then I don't see why him, in all fairness, breaking his promise is any less notable. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Your convoluted "deduction" around DSA violates WP:SYNTH. The cigarette thing is simply non-notable. Actually, if you wanted to remove the whole discussion of smoking, stopping, etc., I wouldn't object. That all feels pretty borderline to me (as much as the smoking disgusts me personally, it's not why the bio subject is famous). LotLE×talk 22:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Again - please remain civil. You appear to be using loaded language when discussing this issue with me. It does not violate SYNTH - the website makes it clear that candidates must sign a contract with them. It also makes it clear that Obama is one of their candidates. As for the smoking, this is what I don't understand, it is notable enough to be in the article for a very long time demonstrating his "promise" to quit smoking, but as soon as the promise is broken it is all of the sudden not notable? This is illogical. As for the failure of the Annenberg Challenge - what is wrong with mentioning this? Do results not matter? TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the DSA bits: The sources don't say that Obama signed any contract. Even though the website makes it clear that candidates must sign a contract, we have no RS that says he actually did. Bridging those bits together is SYNTH. The Annenberg bits should go to the Annenberg Challenge article as the original reverter said in his edit summary -- Obama is not mentioned in the 271 page PDF you cite which also says quite a bit more than it simply being a "failure." --guyzero | talk 22:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
No, it doesn't qualify for SYNTH since it is the same source - SYNTH requires different sources. This is from the same author on the same website discussing the same subject. As for the Annenberg "bits," Obama doesn't need to be mentioned in my source - he is linked using the other sources in the article. And it makes it quite clear that it was a failure, the summary was wordy, but we can't include such verbosity in this article - just the overall result, which, according to the report, was statistically insignificant. In other words - it provided no measurable benefit. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
WP:SYNTH is: reliable source-A says A, reliable source-B says B, and then the editor makes claim C, by concluding that A plus B must equal C. Whether A and B are from the same website doesn't exempt claim C from being considered original research. Does the source say explicitly say that Obama signed a contract? If not, then we can't include it as it is a claim where we have no reliable source. As to notability/weight, we don't have any additional sources that say the Chicago NP was important to Obama, an influence on his life, etc. I also do not follow the idea behind condensing a 271 page document that doesn't appear to mention Obama at all (the article subject) down to a sentence that says the project failed can be somehow regarded as fair NPOV treatment. For NPOV, we'd need a paragraph at least to describe the findings of that document, which probably fails weight in terms of inclusion into this article. --guyzero | talk 01:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
You are stating your opinion as fact - the source is the same author on the same website. That is the same source. It CLEARLY states that candidates must sign a contract with them, and it also clearly states that Barack is their endorsed candidate. This is an obviously deduction and I suggest you look into WP:NOTOR - policy is clearly on my side in this issue. As for the CAC stuff, I wasn't summarizing 271 pages - I was using the summary. It makes it VERY clear that the project was a failure. Your argument seems to be that I am incapable of summarizing the summary - that is illogical. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there a reliable source that says he signed a contract? If not it is unsourced. That is very simple. Without that we don't even get to weight. With it, it fails weight as a non-notable event. Yes, that is an opinion. It is the opinion of various editors about what should be in the article. Opinions about how to apply guidelines, sources, and policies just fine on talk pages. That's what consensus is all about. Wikidemon (talk) 02:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
For the millionath time yes, it is sourced - did you even read WP:NOTOR? Simple logical deductions are allowed. It gives this as an example, "If A is in district B, and district B is in province C, then A is in province C." This example is EXACTLY the same as my logical deduction - Obama was their candidate, all candiates must sign a contract therefore Obama signed a contract. What part of this don't you understand? TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Might I recommend you read WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Brothejr (talk) 02:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Please note that WP:NOTOR doesn't apply to the claim that Obama signed a contract with the New Party. Again, you are making an inference/deduction -- a logical deduction that may even be true, but it is not automatic, as you say. You will need a reliable source that explicitly states that Obama signed a contract. I encourage you to take it to the BLP or RS noticeboards if you think you need further clarification on this beyond what several other folks who have tried to explain here. My point above regarding the CAC addition stands -- saying it was a failure is not NPOV, it is your OR. The fair NPOV treatment we would need to give this information would not pass WEIGHT and should go to the CAC article itself. If the reader is interested in the CAC, they can follow the link to that article. good evening, --guyzero | talk 05:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
To be specific, WP:NOTOR only applies to very, very obvious conclusions, like "Springfield is in Illinois. Illinois is in the United States. Therefore, Springfield is in the United States." That's the kind of syllogistic logic it allows. It does not allow for complex situations, such as closeness of relationships and factual statements concerning whether or not someone signed a contract to be synthesized from (very weak) circumstantial evidence. Please stop citing it now. --GoodDamon 00:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

"That one" redirect

Resolved: Page speedily deleted. GrszX 02:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I typed in "that one" just for the fun of it, and actually redirected me to this article. Would it be too far-fetched to assume that John McCain might be an editor around here? --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Legislation Disconnect

talk 06:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC): Narrative in this article correct. List of bills sponsored by Barack Obama in the United States Senate corrected. --guyzero

In the article, the following narrative is found: "In December 2006, President Bush signed into law the Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act, marking the first federal legislation to be enacted with Obama as its primary sponsor." However, when one goes to the list of bills sponsored by Obama, Bill 109.S 2125 is listed as "RS," which means it was recommended to the Senate, but not "ATS," which means "Approved by the Senate," which would be necessary for President Bush to sign the bill. Whether the narrative or the table is correct, please correct the other one. (talk) 05:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)James T. Turner, October 9, 2008.

Thank you James, I corrected List of bills sponsored by Barack Obama in the United States Senate as it was not marked approved. It was signed by Bush in December 2006 as this article states. [2]. Thanks again, --guyzero | talk 06:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The state Illinois election

Wasn't there something about Obama's opponents being pushed aside dishonestly? GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

He hired a lawyer to knock off all the other democratic rivals off the ballot, while technically legal, it is at odds with his current "politics of hope" philosophy. Funny, I remember a while back how we'd decided to include this information - I guess the WP:OWNers are more "passionate" about reverts only when it improves Barack's image. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Do you have sources or are you back to your insert random garbage act? GrszX 22:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
But really, it's mentioned in Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama. GrszX 23:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
So it looks like my "garbage" is accurate. It WAS in this article until it was deemed "unimportant" or "unhelpful" or whatever - the end result always seems to make Barack look better for some reason. In this case, this information was pushed to an article people are much less likely to read. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Or a more appropriate article where details like that can fit it. If you actually made a decent neutral attempt at improving the article, it would probably go a long way. GrszX 23:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
And once again, the "appropriate" details seem to only help his image. A neutral observer would likely conclude that the results of a person's work (like my AC addition) are important. A neutral observer would likely find importance in how a politician who claims to empower voters actually has a record of taking away their power by taking away their choice. A neutral observer would likely conclude it is ridiculous to include a promise he made to his wife, while NOT including the fact that he has broken that promise. This are my recent proposed edits, but they too are deemed "inappropriate" or whatever excuse is necessary to cut them out of the article. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, your recent edits about bumming smokes ("to reflect the reality of the situation"), being a Socialist or the project are either irrelevant or false. So the "excuse" excuse is pathetic. GrszX 23:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I used the term bumming cigarettes because that was the phrase used in the source. What would you have me do? Say he was begging for a smoke? Also, I never called him a socialist, but he was endorsed by, and signed a contract for, the Chicago DSA. Yes, it is a socialist organization, if you have a problem with that then take it up with Barack Obama. And your assertion that the results of his only executive experience in the CAC is "irrelevant" is flat out ridiculous - this is an encyclopedia article, and a person's record, a person's RESULTS, are very relevant. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The socialist reference is unsourced, WP:SYNTH, obscure, and likely untrue. Smoking a cigarette isn't well sourced, and it's a trivial matter. If it rose beyond that we would use more encyclopedic, dignified language. The executive experience thing is editors' opinion and argumentation, and if sourced would be a POV campaign argument, in either case not a proper subject for a biography. This is not anywhere near a close case, so it's probably best not to give it too much mind. Wikidemon (talk) 01:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The socialist thing IS sourced, is not WP: SYNTH for the reasons I previously explained, "obscure" is your opinion and its "obscurity" is frankly irrelevant and "likely untrue" is your opinion as well. You can find more sources for his socialist connections here and here. Your argument that I shouldn't include the facts about his smoking and time at the CAC are ridiculous, because they are already in the article. If they are important enough to be in the article now, then it is MORE important that the truth be included. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't wish to debate this in any detail because there's no realistic chance of this getting into the article, the main reasons being SYNTH, RS, POV, and WEIGHT/relevancy. You're welcome to your opinion, just trying to explain. If you'll make an effort to understand why that might help steer things to a more productive discussion of improvements to the article content. Getting back to Obama's litigation tactics that was an interesting move. You could look at it as a sleazy / opportunistic tactic, but you could also look at it as using the law to break up what had been a cozy, corrupt practice in Chicago politics. It's hard to argue in favor of illegal campaign tactics, and complain that the party who brought the law to the argument is the one in the wrong. In any event it isn't up to us to take sides. It was a bold, notable move that's worth reporting as a matter of due weight in some article relevant to his career. It is indeed covered for about what it's worth in Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama. Small compared to his overall trajectory, so not worth describing in the couple paragraphs we have here, but an interesting early event. Wikidemon (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
So basically, you've made up your mind, and nothing will change it - charming. You can quote SYNTH, POV and WEIGHT all you want, but that's just a smokescreen for shutting down reasonable debate. Once again, a person's record matters, and the oppposition to including his record, especially in the case of the CAC, is ridiculous. What would you have me say? The 110 million dollars he spent on education was a huge success? Sorry, but that's not the truth - the truth is that it was a waste of 110 million bucks and it was under his "leadership." TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I've closed the other discussion. I don't have anymore to contribute, having made my point, but if there's a point in continuing this one, please stick to any reasonable proposal for improving the article and try to work collaboratively rather than confrontationally with other editors. If this gets stale or uncivil, I will close down this discussion. Please note the terms of article probation referenced at the top of the page and also here: Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 02:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Why did you close down the other section? I made my point quite nicely there about how simple logical deduction are allowed. And, you seem to be warning me about civility, but Grzz has been anything but civil. Where was his warning?TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
IP trolling deleted - Wikidemon (talk) 03:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a way to improve the article or are you just trolling? GrszX 03:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to lie; I'm a rather conservative person. However, I refuse to let myself log in until the debate is over because I know that any edit I make to any political article right now will be charged in unfortunately a biased fashion. I can't help it. However, I have to point out I refuse to sit idly by and watch other editors get snowballed by people that won't take the high road and just exclude themselves from the conversation. I mean, seriously, if you have a political motive, you have no business edition articles right now. Keep it to the discussion page like I'm doing, and bring up points you feel are valid (once again, like I'm doing). There is no harm in that. I simply think this perfectly sourced material is relevant. And I also agree that if Obama's promise to his wife to stop smoking is notable, so is it when he breaks that notable promise. thats all I'm adding to this until the election is over. Please don't accuse me of trolling though because if I drink anymore tea I'm not going to be able to sleep!!! (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Jeepers folks, this isn't what I expected when I asked about the state Illinois election. A simple yes or no wouldn't sufficed. GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to apologize on behalf of, well, everyone. You gotta understand, for about a year now, this article has been pretty much the continuous target of every campaign smear you can think of. When the smear was about Ayers, it was all about making sure to wedge all sorts of details about Ayers into this article. When the smear was about Saul Alinsky, it was all about making clear that Alinsky had a tremendous influence on Obama -- even though the two never even met. When the smear was about ACORN, well by golly, better get that talking point in here too. Then back around to Ayers again. Sorry if that comes off as kind of snide, but it's been like clockwork; new smear, new attempt to get that smear into Obama's BLP. Same thing happens pretty continuously at the John McCain article. I guess we should all take it as a good sign, that Wikipedia is notable enough in and of itself now that it's become an active target for campaign surrogates. --GoodDamon 00:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The New Party affiliation is interesting and factual. See I will now put this as the reference.--Mikedelsol (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Update article with new information

I personally think we should include this in the short section regarding his campaign:

Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008

1) Christopher Dodd, D-CT $133,900

2) John Kerry, D-MA $111,000

3) Barack Obama, D-IL $105,849

And the list goes on for about 50 spots or so. All the big "earners" are democrats.

I can't wait to hear the reason's for rebuttal against adding this relevant, sourced information. (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

How is this relevent to this article or his life? Does this make the "top 500 events in Obama's life" list? I don't think so.LedRush (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Did I say it was relevant to his life? Or, did I say that this should be added in his short campaign section since it is indeed relevant to his campaign? I'm not sure you fully understood my question. In your opinion, are public officials campaign contributors relevant to their campaign? If so, we are in agreement and this should go into the article under the campaign subheading. (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
No, how is this relevant? Why include this one over others? That's the question for you. GrszX 21:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
This is relevant for more than just one reason. The first reason is that Obama is currently running for president and spending millions of dollars in advertisements (TV, Radio, etc.). The money he uses to fund this advertisements is public record and a source of scrutiny. Secondly, Fannie Maye and Freddie Mac are largely involved in current events at the moment, and a recipient of $2,000,000,000 of tax payer funds in an effort to bail them out of financial trouble. My question to you is how is this not relevant? NOTE: I have signed into my account. I am IP address and I normally don't sign in here because I'm currently at work. So, please don't assume the false sense that I'm a 2nd person. DigitalNinja 21:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
If it belongs anywhere, it should be in the campaign article. But Fannie Mae isn't even close to any of the top-five contributors.[3]--Appraiser (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah, but being any of the top-five isn't what's notable, it's being Fannie Mae that makes it notable, and the fact that he is the 3rd highest paid U.S. politician on the Fannie Mae hand-out list. That's whats notable. But yes, I agree it belongs in the campaign article which I'll move to shortly. However, it needs to be in the subheading here as well. DigitalNinja 21:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Oh, and isn't it ironic that Goldman Sachs is #1 on his total contributions list? That should also be included, thanks. DigitalNinja 21:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Check out [4] too.--Appraiser (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, campaign contributions and possible conflicts of interest should be included in both campaigns in my opinion--regardless of political party. I just find the Fanny Mae thing overly notable. DigitalNinja 21:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
[5] [6] .. can you explain the difference between the NY Times information and the opensecrets stuff? All of this seems to belong in campaign-related articles as noted above. Having this one data-point mentioned in the Obama bio looks POINTy as currently written. Are there separate articles somewhere that provide for capturing the contributions for these campaigns? thanks, --guyzero | talk 22:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Please remove this - no consensus for its notability and frankly, it is not a salient detail on Obama's life or career. It might make sense in the campaign article. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Of course, these sums are dwarfed by the amount received by Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, by orders of magnitude. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Those were the contributions of individual non-executive employees. The numbers are very different if you look at the contributions of executives, which would be the more notable information, unless you're going for the lower-pay-equals-more-likely-to-support-Obama angle. In any event, all of this is moot. This is Obama's biography, and I don't think the comparatively tiny amount of contributions coming from the lower-echelon employees of a company whose executives all supported McCain bears very much weight for his biography. --GoodDamon 00:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL!!! "Lower-echelon employees of a company whose executives all supported McCain". Kind of like Franklin D. Rains right? Yeah, I can see how he's supporting McCain and serving advise to Obama's campaign at the same time. Oh oh, I know, It's Barney Franks boyfriend that is running Fanny Mae and supporting McCain at the same time. Seriously, do you even read articles besides Wikipedia? How long have you worked for the Obama campaign GoodDamon, and Wikidemon.... DigitalNinja 02:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And secondly, how does WP:WEIGHT apply here? It's the majority obviously, since it's well sourced and accurate information. So, I can either take this to an arbitration committee, or you can discuss this like a normal human being. Either way, I'm not going away just because you personally don't want something in the article. DigitalNinja 02:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Reinstated the Fannie Mae reference

If you feel it needs to be removed, please discuss it here (and note the conversations above). It has nothing to do with WP:WEIGHT, and it's perfectly acceptable to reinsert it per my favorite guideline; WP:BOLD. DigitalNinja 02:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:BRD. In any event, that's the sort of low-level detail that belongs in the campaign article. It has zilch weight in Obama's biography. It's also lacking in context; it was individual employees who gave to Obama. Executives gave to McCain. -- GoodDamon 02:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Agreed. This has changed from earlier today. Its too much detail and POINTy. It may belong on a campaign-related article, if anywhere. --guyzero | talk 02:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
State your source that is was individual employees. Also, state your source that McCain received money from executives. Take off your Obama-blinders and read a little won't you? It's staying... DigitalNinja 02:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
[7] here you go for the executive contributions. Note government enterprises such as FM/FM cannot make campaign donations, so all of the data is regarding their employees. --guyzero | talk 02:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Beat me to it. I'm astonished anyone even needed to ask for that. It's been all over the media. -- Good
Check out WP:OWN, DigitalNinja. It is not a major part of Obama's life, and so should go in the campaign article, not his biography. Being bold does not mean allowing everything a user thinks is relevant into the article. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Ummm, that just means the same thing needs to be in the McCain article. I'm not sure I understand your motives or your logic. DigitalNinja 03:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
What? What bearing does this have on the McCain article, either? That's his BLP. Don't bring the same undue weight into that article. --GoodDamon 03:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
(ecX4)Reverted as lacking consensus, not detail with any significant weight to the biography, also as a low-level poltical campaign attack it is POV. Please do not re-add without first establishing consensus here on the talk page. To point out, it looks unlikely. Wikidemon (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note this content still exists in the article. Will a consensus-supported revert such as this place me in violation of 3RR? I was reverting the farrakhan vandalism earlier. --guyzero | talk 04:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I would be careful. That's why I am not reverting it either, and I'm only at 1RR. By article probation it's best not to go beyond that except by clear consensus. Otherwise, if one editor who thinks they're in the right reverts another editor who they think is just edit warring, the second editor thinks the first is edit warring, and there is no stopping it. Best if people would make a single bold edit, and if that doesn't take, discuss (which means disputed content stays out). Why don't we see if anyone else is willing? Wikidemon (talk) 04:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Someone else has done it. I think we're getting near consensus on this. --GoodDamon 04:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama & Fanny Mae campaign contributions

I've decided, after I slept on it, it does in fact violate WP:WEIGHT. I didn't mean to cause such a massive debacle. My god, when I read this entire mess, I just felt bad. And honestly I don't think it's a good idea to try and tie Obama into ACORN right now...

Thanks Wikidemon and GoodDamon for keeping a relatively cool head last night. If you too have been putting up with this for any prolonged amount of time, you deserve a user page of barn stars just for dealing with is. DigitalNinja 19:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I just spotted this. You're welcome, and thank you. I think all this hubbub will die down once the election's over. Everyone needs to stop treating these articles like extensions of the campaign, but I don't have high hopes for that until around mid-November. --GoodDamon 22:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
closing discussion. Do not' reopen to make disparaging comments about other editors

[8] this edit from User:Thegoodlocust goes far beyond the pale of what is an acceptable addition to a BLP article. This is a non-reliable-sourced 3rd party statement inserted into the first sentence of a paragraph that discusses his personal religious views (not Farrakhan's.) This isn't a notable statement about Obama in the context of his life. This is just a smear that you'd like to insert -- I have a really, really hard time assuming good faith about this insertion. --guyzero | talk 02:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Video is not unreliable. This video was recently shown on the news. And what part about it is a smear? It is just a fact that he has been declared the Messiah by a major religious leader. This deserves a mention compared with all the other insignificant crap that is in his "political and cultural image" section. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
It's not a smear, it's notable because it's national. I seriously wonder how many of these people work for Obama, this is ridiculous. FYI: We are building an encyclopedia here people. I support the information regarding Farrakhan going back into the article where it belong. DigitalNinja 02:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I just can't believe how white-washed everything must be.TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
(ec)OK, suggest here how you'd like to insert this revelation that will save the reader from the "insignificant crap" that makes up the rest of the article. Your prior attempt that I linked above did not use a reliable source (neither worldnetdaily or newsmax are reliable), and was inserted into totally the wrong section. thanks, --guyzero | talk 02:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Well what do you want? A youtube link of the video? Both sources show video of him being declared the Messiah and this was recently shown on Fox News. And sorry about putting it in the wrong section - I'll just put it in his "image" section next time. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree it needs to go into the right section, but other than that just stick it in here per WP:STYLE. Whats the problem? DigitalNinja 02:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You guys are kidding, right? You seriously want a declaration of messiah-hood in this article? No. Case freakin' closed. I can declare Obama the Lord of all Muffins or High Commander of Xenu's Army, but that doesn't belong in his biography. Farrakhan can declare Obama whatever the heck he likes; it has no bearing on Obama's life. Give this up right now, immediately, or I will take this straight to the BLP incident board, and you will lose. Don't try to insert it again. Don't edit war over it. This is way, way, way over the line. Stop now. --GoodDamon 02:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Farrakhan is a major religious figure. More importantly, he is a major religious figure in Obama's neighborhood and social circles. This is very relevant. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Again, no. There is literally no argument you could possibly provide that would qualify Farrakhan's declaration to be applicable to Obama's life. It's Farrakhan's lunacy, not Obama's. It has nothing to do with him. I strongly remind you that this is a biography of a living person. I won't even bother with further discussion of this. Let me put it bluntly: Place that gross BLP violation again, get reported. Give this up right now. --GoodDamon 02:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you read the section regarding Obama's political and cultural image - if the crap in there is notable then being declared Messiah by a religion is MORE notable. This is not an attack - this is a fact. There is no BLP violation, but there are a lot of Obama campaign workers trolling this page. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Jesus man, if it means that much to do, no big deal. It's all over the internet anyways (since it is notable, I would suppose). Don't worry, you can still vote for him. Although I think you could have handled this differently since you're clearing trying to stop out a growing consensus.

But...My Fanny Mae piece is staying as it's unarguable relevant...especially right now. DigitalNinja 02:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, and goes way beyond NPOV and BLP. We can't go around calling anybody the Messiah, even if a notable person said so. Obama isn't notable for being the Messiah in the mind of Louis Farrakhan. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
The only thing that is ridiculous is how fervently you people are fighting this. I can put this in, with a youtube link, in the relevant section. This is a major religious leader we are talking about who has HEAVY influence in Obama's Chicago area. This isn't some unknown whackjob. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA article - not a campaign press release. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Please cut out the hostility. This does not look remotely appropriate for this article. Everyone has an opinion on the election. What Farrakhan, a fringe politician/leader thinks of the matter, is hardly anymore important than anyone else. And it is more than slightly trivial. I don't think there's a realistic chance that this could gain consensus among editors.Wikidemon (talk) 03:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
You've been caught wikidemon. I called you out on cleaning your talk page of "undesirable" elements before, but now we know you are working with others behind the scenes. Farrakhan is a major Chicago player and a major religious leader, especially among blacks in America. It is by no means "trivial" compared to some random Salon reporter's opinion.TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
They just reverted again. I'm going to AN/I and posting all the identifiable edit histories. This is insane. Thegoodlocust, if you could post a comment when I'm finished as to your own observations that would be great. Thanks. DigitalNinja 03:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Can we please delete or close these disruptive discussions and/or redact the personal attacks and accusations? This is out of hand. Wikidemon (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC) Also, pending a resolution from an administrator, can we get a community undertanding about stopping the disruption from this editor and DigitalNinja? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 03:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree - I don't think any of the regulars here, from any POV, could possibly support the insertion of this Farrakhan BLP violation or any of the rest. --GoodDamon 03:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Disagree you people are in "cahoots" and making a deliberate attempt to control information and this article, which everyone can see by looking at the history of what you deleted. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't an accusation - it was proof until you and your buddies constantly deleted it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, guys... there's something wrong here if a discussion that spanned a hour-and-half earlier today ends up being archived less than 8 hours later. Isn't this supposed to wait until at least five days past the last post to be archived? Whomever is doing the manual archiving appears to be doing so in order to 'freeze' the discussion, which is wrong. I take no position on either side, but way-too-early-archiving doesn't pass the smell test. Recommend this discussion be 'unarchived', regardless of whatever we personally think of it, and let it be run to its natural conclusion before its eventual automatic archiving. (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, nope. It can quickly be stopped for just about any reason, especially when it digresses like it did above. Brothejr (talk) 11:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Obama's education

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
closed - WP:FRINGE, perennial conspiracy theory, no WP:RS

Has anything countered this? YVNP (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The article has details about his education, sourced to reliable sources. Please read the early life and career section. Thank you. --GoodDamon 12:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Worldnetdaily is never a reliable source for factual information. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
It is about as reliable, or more reliable than MSNBC. It is just a fact that Obama hasn't released his school records, medical records, state senate records, etc, etc. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Sure, and my brother's blog is exactly the same as Time Magazine. Except it isn't. It was long ago determined that worldnetdaily does not fit any of the criteria for WP:RS. They are acceptable as a source only for the opinions of their contributors, nothing more. If their nutty claims were true it would be pretty easy to find the same information in actual reliable sources. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Obama was paid to be a community organizer. He was not a volunteer.

In a world were many, many folks work very hard to accomplish goals for their community, and do it for good and do not work for money, it is relevant, informative, and truthful to say that Obama was paid to work as a community organizer. It distinguishes him from pure volunteers, the vast majority of "community organizers." Removing the word "paid" from the phrase "worked as a paid community organizer" is just concealing the truth and misleading readers into believing that Obama was a volunteer. Rharrykelly (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If he volunteered it would say he "volunteered as a community organizer" and not "worked as a community organizer." GrszX 13:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
"Worked" implies he, well, worked. This isn't broken, it doesn't need to be fixed. And frankly, it's a bit off-topic for a summary style biography; it's the kind of low-level detail that belongs in the proper sub-article. --GoodDamon 13:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
And incidentally, the whole "truth matters" thing just reeks of POV-pushing, as if the article were a lie before your edits. Please try to be less combative, as this article is on probation. --GoodDamon 13:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Grsz and GoodDamon use sophistry to mislead. Volunteers "work." Let me say again, volunteers "work." Grsz and GoodDamon are afraid of the clarity and truth that word "paid" provides. Millions of community organizers worked in the civil rights movement, gay rights movement, feminist movement, anti-war movement, better education movement, political movements, and more. Nearly all worked, nearly all were unpaid. If Grsz is serious, he'd suggest (just as he suggests we could otherwise write "volunteered as a community organizer") that we should write that Obama was "paid to be a community organizer" or "took a job as a community organizer" or "was employed as a community organizer." I could go for that. I reject GoodDamon's contention that "truth matters" reeks. And yes, absolutely "truth matters" IS my POV. Rharrykelly (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rharrykelly (talkcontribs) 13:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The word has two meanings: to engage in activity, and to engage in activity for wages. When presented with the form "X worked as a Y", the latter form is implied. We're trying to write excellent prose here, which is difficult if every phrase has to be contorted as to avoid offending everyone's sensibilities. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Chris. Sincerely, you make a good point in general, but it doesn't apply to this specific. You'd be right if "Y", i.e. "community organizer", didn't powerfully imply volunteer. Compare: If I said that I "worked for the neighborhood watch committee", would you think it was my paid job? Let's avoid these contrary implications and just tell-it-like-it-is. Let's avoid ambiguity. Let's keep things clear. Rharrykelly (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I rather think your example does imply wages. Just because some fire fighters are volunteers doesn't mean that "worked as a fire fighter" is ambiguous, or that writing "X worked as a fire fighter" without qualification is ignoble in the case of salaried work because it would somehow diminish the achievements of unpaid volunteers. This article shouldn't be held responsible for the reputatation of the volunteer community organiser sector. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
"some fire fighters are volunteers" some? That's glib. Three out of four firefighters in America are volunteers. (Hello, small-town-America.) See, Volunteer fire department Until I was thirty-five, I too worked as a volunteer firefighter. Saying volunteer is just truth. Saying one is paid does not "diminish their achievements"; it's just truth. Saying neither in a bio is just ambiguous. Rharrykelly (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've been insulted a lot, but accusing me of sophistry... Well, I never! In any event, I'm not "afraid" of the fact that he was paid. Of course he was paid. He was specifically hired to do that work. Which is all laid out in the appropriate sub-article of this article. Look... This article is in summary style, a style that allows for individual focused articles on very narrow subjects, with an overarching main article as the "parent," if you will. And using that style, with excellent prose throughout, this article is a featured article. So if anything, I'm "afraid" of unnecessarily breaking the prose in this article. I don't think anyone coming to this article looking for neutral information confused "worked" in this context as meaning "volunteered." If they want to know exact figures, they go to the sub-article about that period in Obama's life. It's a matter of keeping the articles well-organized. So I'm going to ask you, please revert back to the prior language. I won't revert it myself, but if you won't, I will ask for consensus on this page, and I'm likely to get it. You're fixing something that isn't broken. --GoodDamon 14:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


Since I won't revert the wording myself, I'd like to know what the community thinks. I propose we restore the previous wording, since it wasn't broken.

(Question what was the previous wording?)LedRush (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - As person making the proposition, obviously. If you have alternate wording you think is better, feel free to oppose and provide it as an alternative. --GoodDamon 14:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. (FYI, the only change here is the removal of the prefix "paid" from "community organiser". The phrasing "worked as a", without qualification, amply implies remuneration anyway, while tacking "paid" onto it makes it look like we're patronising the reader and bumps our word count unnecessarily. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - I am happy with the previous wording. Brothejr (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Mixed - I've always assumed that Obama was not organizer sounds like a volunteer position to me. While I agree that it looks a little odd to place "paid" in front of "community organizer" I think it does provide information that many people will find relevent. Could we put something in the article itself, instead of the lead?LedRush (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I just don't think it's necessary. The whole sentence makes it clear this was his job for three years. He would have long-since starved to death if he wasn't paid the whole time. --GoodDamon 15:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
There are lots of "jobs" that provide housing, stipends, or other means to allow you to live...and many of these wouldn't be considered "paid" positions.LedRush (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'd be happy with this to be addressed in some manner in the article body, such as phrasing it like "Obama was employed as a community organiser" or such. I don't think this is needed in the lede. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I've given my reasons above why the word "paid" is necessary. But the standard isn't whether it's "necessary," but whether it's beneficial, in the sense of being relevant, clarifying, and true. It resolves the ambiguity created by the phrase "community organizer." Like LedRush thought, many others also assume Obama was a volunteer community organizer. I'm not terribly concerned that this single word "bumps our word count." Regarding deleting, Wiki suggests “Clarify it instead of throwing it away.” Why not just drop the "community organizer" phrase? Rharrykelly (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we compromise?

I still don't see the need for a change, but how about this for wording:

The new wording has the benefit of actually being trimmer than the original. It can be wikilinked appropriately, to more or less match up with the current one, and I think expresses everything appropriately without any of the connotations that a "paid" community organizer is somehow lesser than a volunteer one. --GoodDamon 16:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Agreed - It conveys the info and avoids the "dirty" feeling that throwing "paid" in there left.LedRush (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed - --guyzero | talk 16:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed - It reads well and I like it. Brothejr (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed - Good job Rharrykelly (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed - That works. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Love you Loonymonkey! "That works"! Rharrykelly (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've added that, as there seems to be consensus. --GoodDamon 18:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"Islamic school"

A single source is being cherry-picked to prop up the notion that Obama went to an "islamic school" despite multiple RS's that say that Obama went to Roman Catholic and public secular schools. I added those multiple RS's to the FAQ for convenience. Please self-revert the BLP vio or would a 3rd party please check. --guyzero | talk 17:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

[9] thanks! --guyzero | talk 17:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I've noted it on the ongoing AN/I report for the user. --GoodDamon 17:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Now that we're entering the home stretch of the campaigns, some editors are working tirelessly to push a specific POV in this and related articles (the same thing, albeit with the opposite POV, is happening in McCain/Palin articles as well). Most likely, this will all die down after November 4, regardless of the outcome, and we can get back to maintaining a stable featured article. Until then, it's going to be a long month! --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to use this photo either around his community organizing or in the upcoming ACORN section

[[10]]TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

What ACORN section? And what's the source? --GoodDamon 18:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Do you own the copyright to that photo? If not, you can't use it here.--Appraiser (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
There won't be an "ACORN section", so the question is moot. Besides, the copyright belongs to ACORN itself. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh I know that - it would be too "controversial" to talk about that area of Obama's past - let's just stick with the vague term "community organizing" without going into the details. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
No, it's just that Obama's community organizing role was with Project Vote, not ACORN. Although he had contact with members of ACORN from time to time (helping with training new people, etc.), it was not the kind of association that would help you fuel a new smear campaign. Better luck next time. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Project Vote is an arm of ACORN, Barack Obama gave ACORN $800,000 to "Get out the vote", he trained them every year for many years, and they pushed the Fannie Mae mess that Barack stayed out of. Did I mention Barack got the 2nd highest amount of money, in history from Fannie and Freddie? He very much worked with them, trained them, and hired them. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a source for "Obama give ACRON $800,000"? DigitalNinja 19:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes I do right here. Even more "odd" is that he tried to hide the payment to ACORN. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the link to Pittsburgh entertainment, however, it doesn't do much to advance your case. GrszX 19:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
First of all, Project Vote is not an "arm" of ACORN. It is a 501(c)(3), and as such it must be an independent entity. Second, the money was not given to ACORN. It was given to "Citizens Services Inc." Third, McCain's campaign manager (Rick Davies) has received more money from Fannie Mae than any politician, including after the organization was bailed out by the taxpayer. Try again. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
My gosh, you're right! The only thing worse would be if McCain was associated with Franklin Raines. DigitalNinja 19:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Actually, that link you provided is pretty good! I don't see a reason why it can't be included into the article. However, I learned my lesson last night and so I won't be adding it. Great find though! :) DigitalNinja 19:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is another link you might like - this shows ACORN affiliates and Project Vote is indeed listed despite Scjessey's pleas to the contrary. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
<sigh> Apparantly you don't know how "sister" is used here. GrszX 19:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
And apparently you don't realize that the link shows Project Vote using an ACORN email address for contact info.TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, that feeling is coming over me again. I'm going to force myself away from this article before something terrible happens to my ability to click the "edit" link. I personally feel there is overwhelming evidence for this information to be included into the article. Why is it that nothing negative towards Obama's popular vote outcome can be included into the article, regardless of how true it is? That is most unfortunate. Now, if you don't mind, I'm going to read WP:FUCK and tomorrows a new day. DigitalNinja 19:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I urge you to read the article for some perspective. There are things in the article about Tony Rezko, Reverend Wright, and other influences on his life that have sufficient weight. Rezko was involved with the purchase of Obama's home, a notable event in just about anyone's life, so merits a mention. Wright was his pastor for many years, so also merits a mention. Both could be regarded as negatives, but the larger and more important fact is that they bear weight enough for a mention in the summarized biography article. The smaller stuff, like tenuous connections to ACORN, belong in the sub-articles, where they generally are already. That's the whole point of summary style, making the smaller details which would otherwise be lost available in sub-pages. (As an aside, if more detail on ACORN came to light, I wouldn't mind it going into the article. Frankly, ACORN has been unreasonably slimed; they were legally required to hand in all registration forms they received.) I guess what I'm trying to say is, you shouldn't be trying to find support for negative opinions about Obama or positive opinions about Obama. You should be trying to find information about Obama. --GoodDamon 22:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Well it IS true that $800,000 went to ACORN from Obama, and it IS true that Obama's campaign mis-described the purpose of the money that went to "Citizens Services Inc." until they were challenged, and it is true that "Citizens Services Inc." turned out to be an ACORN subsidiary. This according to a spokesman from the Obama presidential campaign. We can rely on this source -- it's Obama. Rharrykelly (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Washington Times: "Citizen Services is inextricably tied to ACORN. Along with nonprofit sister organization Project Vote, Citizens Services and ACORN share the same New Orleans address and the same executive staff while money flows freely between the three entities. In 1996, Project Vote's tax returns show it paid ACORN more than $4.6 million for campaign services and Citizens Services more than $779,000 for legal and administrative services." Rharrykelly (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


Given that they are running for the presidency, is it appropriate to have a section of the health of the candidates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradrogersau (talkcontribs) 15:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


I'm sure that the one-page medical report released by his doctor is available somewhere. Additionally, playing basketball, which he's fond of doing, does risks his health. It's quite easy to sprain an ankle or jam a finder while playing basketball. Additionally, there's always the outside chance of a concussion as a result of being undercut (likely given his mad ups) and landing on his head. In today's 24-7 news era, I'm sure that discussions of the 25th amendment would come up if he was even a little light headed for 30 seconds. He's certainly a prominent enough figure, or soon to be, that his health is fair game. It should be a section. I want to know about every time he tweaked his shoulder while bowling or wrenched his knee getting a defensive rebound. Additionally, have you seen the pictures from when he was a kid? He apparently went from pudgy to gaunt during adolescence. Someone needs to get to the bottom of this.(Gwopy (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

You're kidding, right? Predictions about his future health and injuries based on playing basketball and speculation on what led him from being pudgy to being tall and slender -- aside from, you know, growing up and getting exercise -- have zero place in this article, or any of the sub-articles for that matter. I have no problem with getting information on his current health into the article, but speculation on future injuries and amateur medical analysis? Those I have a problem with. --GoodDamon 17:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I suppose. A health and fitness section might reference his preferred activities, but I'd assume that meat of the section would simply be a summary of his recent doctor's report. Since the POTUS releases his/her medical report, I think Barack's health & medical history warrants a section.(Gwopy (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC))
Big problem here is that Barack has never opened up his medical records to the public and has only issued a one page response to the press. So So trying to get anything beyond the beyond that one piece of paper would be conjecture (IE. WP:SYNTH and WP:OR). Brothejr (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


I suffer serious injury just watching the Sixers playing, so obviously Obama's penchant for shooting hoops means Biden will probably have to take over at some point. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - NPOV will require that we provide detailed analysis of Obama's shooting average from every position on the court. His half-court shot is of particular concern as I've seen one too many games that are saved by a shot from that distance at the buzzer. --guyzero | talk 22:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - One thing we are all forgetting is what really matters, his three point shot. If he cannot shoot a three point shot, then how can he possibly lead the country? Brothejr (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Gun legislation

I think that it is relevant to keep the statement about Obama's stance on gun control. It was deleted, reason: "ungrammatical addition wouldn't be of sufficient biographical weight even if improved in style." There can be an entire paragraph devoted to Obama's position on the second amendment, but a sentence or two about the issue should be enough to keep it in the article. Both the Palin article and the McCain article have a snippet on their position on the gun control. Gulfy32 (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

support - since both other articles have a snippet regarding gun control, it would be a good idea. I'd include NRA rating. (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be a better topic for Political positions of Barack Obama? Don't forget, this article is in summary style, which means the sub-articles can be largely considered to be part of the main article, this one. I don't think the gun issue has been a large enough one in Obama's life to merit an entry in the WP:BLP article. --GoodDamon 00:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we should include his ever-shifting position - especially his support for handgun bans and how he voted to make it illegal for homeowners to defend their homes with firearms.TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Even though the above editor has been blocked, I think this is a good place to make a particular point regarding recentism. Articles about politicians tend to become subject to some very disruptive editing during election cycles, because the ability to sift out recent, notable-only-for-the-moment events becomes difficult. Hard as it may be, sometimes it's best to let the campaign slogans simmer for a while. See what actually becomes long-term notable, and what doesn't. What's dominating the news cycle today may be a footnote in a week, and completely forgotten in two. --GoodDamon 15:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Boston Globe article for "Further Reading" section

I recommend the following link to a very illuminating Boston Globe article:

Levenson, Michael and Jonathan Saltzman, "At Harvard Law, a unifying voice", Boston Globe, January 28, 2007.

Zonkerette (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but what from this newspaper story are you proposing be incorporated into the article? Did you have a specific addition in mind? --GoodDamon 19:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note we already use this source (currently ref 19) as support for the sentenced regarding the Harvard Law Review. cheers, --guyzero | talk 22:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Noted. I'm not quite sure what makes an article worthy of Further Reading vs. what only merits a footnote (one of more than 172). But I'll deal with it. Thanks.

I still think it's important to mention that Obama was asked by his peers to run for president of the Harvard Law Review. He hardly shows the "blind ambition" which McCain is accusing him of. (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Help needed on the Branchflower Report

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

Please help expand the Branchflower Report article on Wikipedia. The report looked in to Sarah Palin's conduct relating to the Alaska Troopergate scandal. Thanks for your help.--Utahredrock (talk) 02:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This does not appear to have anything to do with this article. This request might make sense on the Palin article, or in some sort of general "Politicians" wikiproject. Let's not stray into every topic that editors here "might care about." LotLE×talk 02:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. This is off-topic, and should probably be closed. Personally, I'm not at all interested in editing at the shoutfest formerly known as Sarah Palin's BLP article. --GoodDamon 03:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

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

barack obama, sr.

a spirited discussion is currently underway here regarding Barack Obama, Sr. and the appropriate manner in which to address him in that article with regard to wp:mos, and common convention. all are invited to contribute. --emerson7 20:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama and Odinga

Shame on Wiki for not mentioning this controversial subject!

Barack Obama: The Novel

The article on Barack Obama: The Novel was linked on the disambiguation page, but was deleted because it supposedly was not the purpose of that page. But, where else would that link go? Certainly not here - correct? Also, the same person deleted the entire article, under a "Snowball" exception. What's going on? Lewisfan (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Out of respect to Wikipedia, I won't add the article back (although someone else might consider it), but it seems to me that things sometimes get deleted too quickly without time for discussion. Even if there is a genuine reason to delete the page, it needed to be discussed properly first, since the page was clearly not vandalism.Lewisfan (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The Question of Barack Obama's Place of Birth 2

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

Closing this as disruptive, and highly unlikely to result in a change to the article. Can we please, finally, keep the discussions here about improvements to the article, not conspiracy theories? --GoodDamon 01:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The Washington Times.

Here's the link:


also here is one for the Philadelphia Times Herald :


Now do you guys believe me when I say that Obama's not natural-born (born in the US) and cannot run for the Presidency? Angie Y. (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No. Quite simply, if there was any truth to this, it would have come out to the media with all the details that attempt to prove his citizenship long ago. Besides, I can file a lawsuit claiming that you stole everything I own in an attempt to furnish your home on Mars. That doesn't mean you actually did it, it just means that I've filed the lawsuit. If someone can provide the supposed proof of this allegation to the media and the media outlets who publish it are deemed reputable sources, I'll take a look. The two article you link to provide nothing but talk of the lawsuit and the hearsay that they've been presented. --Kickstart70-T-C 17:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Angie Y, no of course not. Do you realize the exact same thing happened to McCain, that someone tried to sue asserting that since McCain was born in a Naval base outside of the U.S. that he isn't eligible? First of all the lawsuit is patently bogus. The man in question doesn't have standing to challenge Obama's citizenship. He wouldn't be directly harmed by Obama not being a natural-born citizen. He isn't a parties whose protected rights or interests would be violated. The only person who could file suit against Obama for not being a naturally born U.S. citizen is McCain, and he is most certainly not crazy enough to take that kind of a gamble. So this is all a moot point. The only person who can raise the challenge wouldn't dare do it, and outside of the context of this election what does it remotely matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The Washington Times article says, "Several fact-checking groups, such as and have determined that the certification posted on Mr. Obama's Web site is authentic." If authentic, the birth certificate establishes eligibility. Nothing else needs to be said about it.--Appraiser (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Also from the WT article:

He has filed suits for clients against President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, claiming they knew about the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks before they happened.

I would dare say that you won't be able to use this lawsuit to include such an assertion on their respective pages either. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 21:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Where is the evidence he was born in Hawaii?

There is currently a lawsuit to determine his citizenship status. Why is his birthplace listed as Honolulu if this is in dispute? It should be "allegedly" born in Honolulu. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The Washington Times article says, "Several fact-checking groups, such as and have determined that the certification posted on Mr. Obama's Web site is authentic." They are talking about the Hawaii birth certificate posted here.[13] If authentic, the birth certificate establishes eligibility. Nothing else needs to be said about it. The fact that someone has filed a lawsuit has no bearing.--Appraiser (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
First of all, Factcheck is run by the same people who funded Obama CAC - hardly a neutral source and the Washington times just repeating what they said isnt' exactly reporting. Second, that isn't his original birth certificate - everyone agrees on that since it is "laser" printed. Finally, a Hawaiian birth certificate doesn't mean he was born in Hawaii - as shown here, which is according to the state government of Hawaii. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Please read WP:FRINGE and WP:BLP before wasting any more of our time with this. We don't add fringe theories to biographies of living people. Period. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't even start down this path. There is no reputable source for this absurd claim, and these discussions pop up just about daily. Even mentioning this in the article would be a BLP violation. I strongly suggest you close this discussion, as it will never amount to a useful change in the article. --GoodDamon 18:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is just one mention of it, I can provide at least 5 other news sources about the lawsuit. I read fringe and I'm not sure how this applies specifically in this case - how does BLP apply in this case for that matter?TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh sure, you can provide plenty of evidence for the lawsuit. There's no question that there's a complete nutball out there suing out of the mistaken belief that Obama isn't an American. Heck, I could file a lawsuit claiming Obama is literally a space alien, and therefore only suitable for a position as High Supreme Ruler of the Galaxy, not President of the United States. Doesn't mean that has any place in his biography. Now then, in all seriousness: Stop now. Right now. Don't persist with this, don't go down any sort of list of fringe theories you might have about Obama and try to insert them. Just stop. --GoodDamon 18:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Well you are more than willing to use fringe sources to assert he was born in Honolulu, but since there is no good evidence for the assertion it is unreasonable to include it in the article. In light of this, I propose we change his birthplace to "unknown" until this is sorted out - anyone else agree? TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Look, just stop. You're being disruptive. Why don't you start an anti-Obama blog or something? Then you'll be free to spin whatever conspiracy theory about him you like. Why waste the time of Wikipedia editors with this nonsense? --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Where's the evidence that McCain wasn't born even a foot outside the Panama Canal Zone? Look, I can be stupid too. GrszX 19:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama's own statement that the was born in Honolulu is a reliable source. Without a reliable source to the contrary (not a reliable source that some people think the contrary) the statement stays. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

A controversy and lawsuit exist on the place of his birth. For the article to ignore this seems ridiculous to me. The existence of the lawsuit is well established. No fringe sources are needed. [14] The only question is where does this go in the article? RonCram (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

double standard in favor of his white ancestry

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

This article list Obama as a member of every white ethnic group it possibly can yet the cherokee ancestry of his mother is unmentioned. Just because Obama has one French ancestor doesn't mean we have to mention it. It's a double standard YVNP (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC) I beg to differ, here are published statements to disprove your theory that it is in favor of his white Ancesry: From Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.' From Dreams of My Father : 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.' From Dreams of My Father: 'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.' From Dreams of My Father: 'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.' From Dreams of My Father: 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself , the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.' By the way, his mother was White. What we do have is a case of Denial, or a case of Pergury. He is lying to the American people, saying that he is African-American and insinuating that he is of slave descent.(He is African-Negro, Kenyan descent, his ancestors never were slaves.) When it is a fact he is Arab, which is of slave owner descent. Jdodson1980 (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

African American

How can we say he is the first African American to be nominated by a major political party for president? His mother is white American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

For the consensus position on this please review the FAQ at the top of this talk page. Wikidemon (talk) 08:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Barack Hussein Obama is not half black. If elected, he would be the first Arab-American President, not the first black President. Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya , his father's family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12..5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro). What he isn't, not a genetic drop of, is 'African-American,' the descendant of enslaved Africans brought to America chained in slave ships. He hasn't a single ancestor who was a slave. Instead, his Arab ancestors were slave owners. Slave-trading was the main Arab business in East Africa for centuries until the British ended it. Let that sink in: Obama is not the descendant of slaves, he is the descendant of slave owners. I don't need to quote any sites, just look it up there are too many to mention. Everyone, including Wikipedia needs to get their info correct, we are not electing a Black man, but a White/Arab! His name alone, all three, tells us that he is of Arabic descent. Jdodson1980 (talk) 12:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

See FAQ (above). GoodDay (talk) 12:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

His mother has Cherokee ancestry and it is fairly notable. We list Obama as a French American, Dutch American, German American, and even a Irish American based on having even ONE ancestor from that ethnic group. But not article does not include him as Cherokee. Just because someone wants to promote Obama as a mulatto or play up his white ancestry doesn't mean we shouldn't mention this YVNP (talk) 07:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You keep bringing this up. It's my understanding -- and I could be mistaken -- that the percentage of Cherokee ancestry is extremely negligible, while his African and Caucasian (French, Dutch, German, Irish) ancestry is dominant. --GoodDamon 11:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Cherokee descent is widely overreported by Americans, and often subject of family mythologies (among both Black and White Americans). The reasons for this widespread belief are odd, interesting, and peculiarly American, but unless we have some more notable reason for reporting it, and some better citation for the fact, I do no believe we should include the information in this article (including via the category). LotLE×talk 16:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

See section "Black American" for comment. Jdodson1980 (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

See FAQ (above). GoodDay (talk) 12:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

PHD for Barack Obama junior

Does anyone out there have the title and text of the PhD of Barack Obama junior. I wouldl like to read it. thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

- Does Obama claim a PhD.? Rharrykelly (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe Mr. Obama, Jr. obtained a PhD. His father did. Junior earned a Juris Doctor (J.D.) at Harvard Law School, graduating magna cum laude.
Senior (his father) had a PhD in Economics from Harvard University. I'm sure the Harvard Library has a copy of this should wish to peruse it in person. (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
That's my understanding. What's talking about? Did I miss something? Rharrykelly (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

← Wrong, and wrong. Barack Obama, the Senator, has a JD, not a PhD. As far as we know, Barack Obama Sr., his father, earned a Masters degree at Harvard, not a PhD. Tvoz/talk 23:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

To be more precise what I am looking for is not his phd but his senior thesis at the Columbia university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Nobody seems to know. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

[15] FTA: "At the time Barack Obama was a student, the political science department had no mechanism by which undergraduate political science majors in Columbia College could receive recognition for writing an independent thesis,” said university spokesman Robert Hornsby. “The department's procedures for students to write theses were created in the 1990s." There is more detail in the article linked. --guyzero | talk 15:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem with page

Half the time as I sit here and just refresh the page, the box on the right puts up "Islam" beside "Religion". This needs to be fixed ASAP. Pinget77 (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That's because some people either have nothing better to do than vandalize, or they are here to post incorrect information in an attempt to influence the election. Either way, they are malicious vandals who will be blocked from editing. Thank you for pointing it out- there are many editors watching the article who revert such vandalism on sight. Tvoz/talk 23:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Question of Barack's Religion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
closed as resolved / subject to trolling - Wikidemon (talk) 13:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Over and over Sen. Barack Obama has mentioned he is Christian (United Church of Christ), I don't understand why someone found it necessary to place Islam under the religion section. Stick to the facts.Amoussaw (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Completely absurd, I saw that and was about to change it but thankfully others are on top of things. Never has Barack Obama even discussed any individual affiliation with Islam. I believe that edit can be considered an attempt at vandalism. He is a member of the UCC, as backed up by this Washington Post article: IrisLaRue (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

(addressing any new editors in general) Yes, that is known as WP:VANDALISM, a byproduct of the WP:EDITORS"anyone can edit" approach here. Some people, for whatever fringe theory, partisan, trolling, test edit or other purposes add junk to the encyclopedia. It usually gets removed very quickly, but sometimes they persist. When that happens they usually get blocked from editing temporarily by one of Wikipedia's administrators, or if it looks like they are here only to vandalize, they get blocked indefinitely. If the vandalism gets too bad from more than one source the article might be protected, but this is a last resort because it stops people from making productive edits too. Thanks for pointing it out. Hope that helps. Wikidemon (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Great minds, apparently - I hadn't seen this when I answered above, in the same way. Keep up the good fight. Tvoz/talk 23:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a statement that was published in Audacity of Hope: "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." also take a look at this site: [1]. This website has quotes out of Sen. Obama's own mouth that he is Muslim multiple times in interviews and other documents. What is absurd is that despite all of the evidence to the contrary he still tries to "claim" he is Christian. Jdodson1980 (talk) 11:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Obama's father

You do not say anything about the religion of Obama`s father. This might or might not be relevant for the question if Obama is in fact moslem if not in his own eyes, then in the eyes of the moslem world.--Radh (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to the message I left on your talk page before spouting more of this ignorant commentary. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
His father is well documented (including his religion) in this article and has an article of his own. Marking this discussion closed as the foundation for it is to repeat a BLP violation/smear. thanks, --guyzero | talk 17:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Include info about Andy Martin, the man behind the anti-Obama smear campaign

Somebody ought to include some of the information from today's front-page New York Times article about him, such as the recent Fox News special about (that is, against) Obama--and yes, I have posted this same comment in the Talk page of the article about his campaign, so that you can collectively decide if the information about Andy Martin should be in which article, and where. Here's the link: (talk) 10:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is the disambiguated link to Andy Martin's page: so of course, his name should be scripted as Andy Martin (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for providing this. I don't think the WP:BLP article is the correct place for it, but it certainly belongs in the campaign article. Generally, the standard for inclusion in BLP ought to be whether the article's subject has been demonstrably, personally affected by the material in question (it changes his/her behavior, cost or is essential to an election win or job, etc.) Since we don't yet know what the real effects of Mr. Martin's anti-Obama campaign will be, it's premature to include it here. But by all means, get it into the campaign article; there, it's extra-super pertinent. With sugar on top, even. --GoodDamon 11:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"So is the Andy Martin article going to remain? It was deleted earlier as being 'non-notable' after it was created during the whole 'madrassa school' thing with Insight Magazine and Fox News. It's not as if it's a newsflash that he started the smear when he was running against Obama for Senator, as he's always bragged about it. But there's also no point in working on that article (again!) if it's going to disappear (again!) Flatterworld (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Full name in lead

I just made a reversion[16] of a good faith edit to shorten Obama's name in the introduction to the lead. Just as a reality check, we've decided to use his full name "Barack Hussein Obama II" at the top of the lead, right? And then every other mension, just "Barack Obama". That conforms to the MOS - Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Names. If that's right I'd like to put a simple statement to that effect in the FAQ because it's a noncontroversial issue and it comes up once or twice per week. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed per MOS and common sense. This is his biography page and it is his full name. Also agreed that only mentioning his full name in the lead and "Barack Obama" everywhere else is appropriate per MOS. thanks, --guyzero | talk 19:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Also agreed. Attempts to pepper his full name throughout the article are POV-pushing vandalism (you don't see the same behavior with people who don't have that middle name). Using it in ways that match the MOS is perfectly legitimate and recommended. --GoodDamon 19:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Yep, obvious conformance with MOS. LotLE×talk 20:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree. This was settled long ago. Full name goes in the opening sentence of the lede, common name is used for article title and infobox. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I've added an FAQ, feel free to change/delete/etc. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

←Yes, we have long agreed that bold first line is full name, common name in infobox, title, and anywhere else it is needed for clarity. Tvoz/talk 22:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Did Obama write "Dreams from My Father?"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Closing - No point discussing WP:FRINGE theories here. Moreover, there is already a discussion on at Talk:Dreams from My Father. Wikidemon (talk) 05:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Jack Cashill, using techniques from literary and authorship analysis, has concluded the Barack Obama is not the sole author of his memoir "Dreams from My Father." Cashill compared writing styles and vocabulary from the book to a known Obama sample and to a sample written by William Ayers. Cashill concludes the book is written in Ayers writing style. [17] This is a very interesting analysis that Wikipedia readers will be interested to learn about. RonCram (talk) 05:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Did Obama write "Dreams from My Father? [Updated]

New evidence is out on this topic and it deserves to be discussed both regarding this article and others. The article Cashill published on Oct 13 analyzes writing samples not previously available.[18] These are samples from Obama and Ayers. One of the more interesting features of this analysis was the use of nautical terms. Ayers spent time as a sailor while Obama never has. This is not WP:FRINGE. People in the media are picking up on this story and that will accelerate with this latest contribution by Cashill. [19] RonCram (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that article managed to combine every recent unfounded smear into one giant unrecognizable smeararrific maelstorm of smearyness that it could be used as a condiment. --guyzero | talk 06:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I am misunderstanding something here. Tvos writes "same comment as above" (even though I stress the fact new evidence is given in the latest article) and tries to limit discussion of this topic. It seems to me Tvos is missing the point. I have linked to an article that has new evidence about this controversy. New evidence means the subject is not closed. The article by Cashill may not mean anything to Tvos if he does not know anything about "literary analysis" or "authorship analysis" but it is meaningful to others. Tvos, may I suggest you google these terms so you can learn how law enforcement uses this approach to catch criminals and protect us from terrorism? It is also used to determine authorship of ancient literature, although that is a bit more arcane. If you do not wish to do this research, may I ask that you at least not disrupt the discussion here of people more informed on the issue than you are? This is not a fringe theory. It is reported in Toledo Blade, Toledo's only daily newspaper, which is a WP:RS. RonCram (talk) 06:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The Toledo Blade piece is an op-ed (not a news piece) by some guy who thinks McCain's ticket to success is to go as negative as possible. It is not appropriate for this WP:BLP, any more than the thousands of op-eds about Sarah Palin or McCain are appropriate for their BLP's. Claiming that someone lied about authoring a book is a very serious charge, and requires much better sourcing than this op-ed piece and a few wingnut blogs. That is, after all, the essence of WP:BLP. MastCell Talk 06:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
MastCell, you are correct that it is an op-ed piece, but it is still published in a RS. We are not talking about a blog or DailyKos, which is obviously unreliable. This is a daily newspaper and for that reason qualifies as WP:RS. You may argue that it is only reliable for that columnist's opinion, but that qualifies it to be discussed here. There is no valid concern for violating WP:BLP. RonCram (talk) 07:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
To RonCram: Thanks ever so much for the instruction. Here's my suggestion for you: spell my name right, don't make assumptions about my gender, and read more carefully. The comment I was referring to was the one made by Wikidemon in closing this rather desperate attempt to smear this individual. And here's another suggestion: read WP:BLP and try to understand what it says. This entire discussion, and its companion on Talk: Dreams from My Father should be removed according to policy. We do not tolerate potentially libelous comments or smear tactics here. Tvoz/talk 06:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about misspelling your name, Tvoz. Contrary to your assertion, this discussion should not be removed. It does not violate BLP as it links to RS. You may not like the discussion, but it is valid and has good evidence to support it. I studied authorship analysis when getting my Masters. I am not an expert like Cashill (with his Ph.D. and years of experience), but the way he handles the evidence is compelling to someone who is familiar with the field. RonCram (talk) 07:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Jr vs II

Sorry if this has been discussed before, but is there a reason for II vs Jr in his name? I don't think I've ever seen him or anyone in the media use II before and a quick google for "Obama II" shows mostly sarcastic or informal uses [20] whereas "Obama Jr" gets quadruple the g-hits and appears to be used in more serious contexts. [21] --B (talk) 12:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Please see FAQ at top of this page. Wikidemon (talk) 13:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I did and I don't see anything relevant. Can you point me to the specific question that I should be looking at? Obviously I'm missing something. Thanks. --B (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
      • indeed, it would be helpful to provide a link to said faa. --emerson7 15:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, here are some links to archived discussions.[22][23][24][25][26][27] The best I can figure out from these is that we are listing his full legal name exactly as it is on his birth certificate per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Names. That section tells us to use the full name in bold at the very top of the article, then for the rest of it use his common name (i.e. "Barack Obama" or "Obama" for short). He has gone with various minor variations in his life, he has never officially changed his name. Looking through some other articles I see we're not 100% consistent on this throughout Wikipedia, but it does make the most sense to list his legal name first. We could say something about him also being known as junior, e.g. Barack Hussein Obama II (also known as "Jr.") or something like that. Wikidemon (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmm ... my concern is that "Obama II" is getting almost exclusively pejorative usage whereas "Obama, Jr" seems to be the preferred name. I guess if II is from his birth certificate, then it is what it is. --B (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I share your concern, B - the insistence on "II" feels extremely partisan, in a negative way, to me as well. Tvoz/talk 17:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
That is odd. I would assume "junior" is more perjoritive than "II" least in my mind. Regardless, the issue seems clear, and the current info correct.LedRush (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
If you call him "Junior" or "II" not attached to his name, either of those is rude and disrespectful. If you call him, "Barack Obama, Jr", that is his name. Personally (and I don't claim my personal experience to be indicative of the entire country or world) I don't know anyone who uses II unless there is also a III. Outside of Wikipedia, I have only seen II used in reference to Obama when making jokes. --B (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Explanation of discussion closures

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

Let me make something abundantly clear here: Discussions of material that, if included in the article, would grossly violate WP:BLP, is never useful. To be blunt, it would simply not matter whether you achieved consensus to include the material or not. You cannot violate WP:BLP. That is set-in-stone policy. Attempts to insert such violations will result in almost immediately being banned, so why bother wasting talk page space on it? Such discussions will never yield anything that results in a change to the article. Ergo, there is no reason to leave them open. --GoodDamon 13:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

While I agree in principle, I think it is important to note that there can be honest disagreement as to what violates WP:BLP. There are a lot of attacks and attempts to introduce POV from on the article, but there is sometimes a backlash from well meaning editors that goes too far in preserving the status quo and excluding discussion that can be helpful. Nothing in here is a criticism of GoodDamon or any other editor in this page, it's only my opinion based on observation.LedRush (talk) 14:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
IMHO, the articles of Obama, Biden, McCain, Palin & their respective talk-pages, should be protected, until after the US prez election. GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I would go further. I would want a more comprehensive rule and standardized format for officials running for high office. I see variation in how the current rules and edits are applied to different candidates, and even if these are subconscious, more comprehensive rules and standardized formats would help.LedRush (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Let me be clear. I have made no edits that violate BLP. I have only used reliable sources and discussed ways to make the article better. The attempts to limit discussion of issues raised in RS sources is contrary to Wikipedia policy. The Talk page is the place for editors to hash out any issues to reach consensus. An attempt to cut this process short is contrary to Wikipedia policy. ALWAYS. Trying to hide behind BLP when the sources are RS is blatantly wrongheaded. RonCram (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
You used WorldNetDaily and an opinion piece. Those aren't reliable sources. No reliable source questions:
  • Whether Barack Obama is a Christian
  • Whether he's really African-American
  • Whether he was really born on U.S. soil
  • Whether he really wrote his books
None of those accusations come from reliable sources. They are all -- repeatedly -- discredited, and Wikipedia does not want to risk a libel suit. Trying to include any of the above will not only fail to make the article any better, they will result in WP:BLP violations that will almost certainly get reverted with prejudice. So I just can't see anything useful coming from discussing them. --GoodDamon 14:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Discussions are closed all the time on Wikipedia - that is why there are templates for it. This page remains useful and the article stable only because of the continuing efforts of many editors to keep things on track. Several every day are closed for various reasons, many more if you count simple disruption and vandalism. Today's closures are all WP:FRINGE theories regarding Obama's race, religion, birth, and his book supposedly being ghost-written by Bill Ayers. Even if any of these were to get past the straight face test and BLP, they have all been dealt with before or elsewhere. Closing them does not interfere with the consensus process because the conversations tend to become contentious, and there seems no reasonable possibility that they would gain consensus,Wikidemon (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I wonder what the next discussion on this talk-page will be? Obama actually drowned months ago & was replaced by a double (like the Paul McCartney stories)? Obama is the real father of Palin's pending grandchild? Folks, can we please have this talk-page protected ('til Nov 4)? GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
yesLedRush (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Believe me, I'd like nothing better than not having to come here and see the same nonsense over and over and over, but I'm not in favor of protecting talk pages except in extreme vandalism situations, and then only very short-term. Tvoz/talk 16:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I've added an entry on the FAQ concerning discussion closures. --GoodDamon 17:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

GoodDamon, you have a number of bullet points which are wrongheaded. You say no reliable source questions whether Obama was born on U.S. soil or really wrote his books. Not true. WorldNetDaily is a reliable source. It does have a conservative bent, but it is run by professional journalists and every article has to pass through editor's blue pencil. One evidence of the fact it is a reliable source is that WorldNetDaily has a correspondent inside the White House. Saying WorldNetDaily is not a reliable source may subject Wikipedia to lawsuits. Also, the issue of whether Obama was born in HI or not is the subject of a lawsuit now. Reliable sources have covered this lawsuit and the article should include the existence of the suit. While the outcome of the lawsuit may be in doubt, the fact of the suit is not. The issue of the authorship of Obama's memoir is also being discussed in daily newspapers. While nothing definitive has come out, the case made for Ayers is compelling from an authorship analysis approach. This is a controversy which is widely known. It hardly makes any sense for Wikipedia to pretend it does not exist. RonCram (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

We can easily deal with those things after November 4. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
WorldNetDaily has come up at WP:RS/N repeatedly, and is not a reliable source. Nor, I might add, is DailyKos or Huffington Post. See WP:RS for specific examples of high-quality reliable sources, which are the kind that must be used on WP:BLP articles. And no, not a single reliable source is itself raising any of those questions. They are debunking those questions. That they are also reporting on them in the act of debunking them does not mean we have to include them in the article. The stories on the lawsuit, for instance, basically label the guy suing as a complete nutball. I could sue Obama for being a space alien, but even if that got major news play, it wouldn't be appropriate for his biography. Please, give this up. This is not productive, and will not result in a change to the article. --GoodDamon 19:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I do not understand why you linked to WP:RS/N. I searched in vain for any mention of WorldNetDaily. If the official position of Wikipedia is that WorldNetDaily is not RS, I will notify Joe Farah immediately. I don't know for certain but it would not surprise me if he chose to pursue legal action. Please provide me this evidence or drop your claim. Of course, DailyKos and Huffington Post are not RS. They are not run by journalists with editorial oversight and a White House correspondent. If the White House has determined WorldNetDaily is reliable, who is Wikipedia to contradict? Regarding stories labeling the Democrat suing over Obama's citizenship as a "complete nutball," that says more about the media than it does about the plaintiff. I have seen some of the evidence that the birth certificate posted on the web is a fake and the suit has merit. The document needs to be examined by an expert. The fact Obama is fighting that analysis only makes him look like he is hiding something. While the plaintiff may be wrong, he is not a nutball. Even if the only RS publications on this topic call him a nutball, it is still notable. What is productive is an honest and open look into the evidence - something that does not seem to be welcome here. RonCram (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
RonCram, you know full well that busy noticeboards like that one are frequently archived. By all means, bring WND up there, and you will quickly be the proud owner of links to the last thousand times WND was dismissed as a partisan, unreliable source. Same for DailyKos. --GoodDamon 22:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe RonCram is asking for a "fair and balanced" analysis, if you know what I mean.

Anyway, I have given you notice about WP:LEGAL. The idea that someone could successfully sue the Wikimedia foundation because some editors do not believe their website qualifies as a reliable source under our definition of "reliable" is frankly laughable. Maybe if you got Bill Ayers to ghost-write the lawsuit. heh...

I urge you to go ahead and contact Joe Farah and watch him laugh in your face. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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


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

Is Hussein really is middle name or is it vandilism? --Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 16:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It's his middle name. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Please see the FAQ, which answers most common questions about Obama. --GoodDamon 16:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

What did CAC money fund?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
discussion redirected - please see Talk:Chicago Annenberg Challenge, where the subject is nominally more relevant. No realistic likelihood of this discussion resulting in improvement to this article. Wikidemon (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

CAC gave away $150 million and achieved no improvement in student scores. What did the money fund? According to an investigative report by Stanley Kurtz, CAC "funded extremist Afrocentrists who shared (Rev. Jeremiah) Wright’s anti-Americanism." Kurtz writes: "Obama and his very small and divided board kept the money flowing to ideologically extremist groups like the South Shore African Village Collaborative, instead of organizations focused on traditional educational achievement." [28] It seems to me these facts should be mentioned in the article. RonCram (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ron, an op-ed in the National Review a few weeks before the election is not a good source of "facts" for a biographical article. MastCell Talk 19:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
No no, RonCram has a good point, only he has slightly missed the mark. Actually, CAC was a front that allowed taxpayer money to be funneled to big business and other Wall Street fat cats, e.g. via the Industry and the Commercial Club of Chicago. It proves that Obama is the most conservative member of congress.
Seriously, though, see here for a pretty good refutation of the Kurtz piece. Not that Politifact is a reliable source either, but if you want to know what was wrong with Kurtz's opinion piece, it's a pretty good (and mostly partisan-neutral) refutation. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you please, please, please stop posting opinion pieces as reliable sources? I've already demonstrated they are not. If you have a problem with the current language at WP:RS, take it up there. You already know the kind of sources that currently qualify, and the kinds that don't. There is no way -- zero, zilch, nada -- that this ludicrous "story" is getting incorporated into the article. "Afrocentrism"? Come on. --GoodDamon 20:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC) This piece was the result of investigative reporting. Kurtz did include his personal opinion in the piece but I did not cite the article for the opinion but for the facts he cited. I did not like the term "Afrocentrism" either, only because I do not really know what it means. Apparently it can be used to described Rev. Wright's viewpoint. I do not think people will object to the factual reporting of the story. RonCram (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I for one already objected to the "factual" reporting of the story. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

After rereading the article, very little time is spent on Obama's years with CAC at the moment. Adding this information would be undue WP:WEIGHT. I withdraw my plan to include it. RonCram (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


In the article summary, I accidentally stated "small ass on". I ment to say "small add on". My sincere apologies for that typo -_-. Javascap (talk) 03:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The keys are right next to each other. It's perfectly understandable. And made me laugh a little. --GoodDamon 03:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't idiomatic usage favor tight instead of small?   Justmeherenow (  ) 19:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm shocked, Just, shocked. Tvoz/talk 00:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. However symbolic this may seem to certain individuals, a typo is a typo and therefore it is not within logical reason to become 'shocked' to the conventional error in this page. Preparing a Better Future 01:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alethiometryst (talkcontribs)

Oh for God's sake, I was talking about Justmeherenow's joke. Nor can I decipher what you are talking about in your reply. Tvoz/talk 00:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)