Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Criticism?

where is the section on criticism and controversy. not everyone loves him. Manic Hispanic 09:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a controversy section because he hasn't been in any notable contraversies. I'm not sure why there isn't a criticism section but I would guess that he doesn't have one because his opinions/statements are rarely polarized, such that what little criticism he does get, is for petty stuff that has little to do with things he's actually done. --Ubiq 11:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Time magazine had an article this week about his lack of support in the black community, who (Time says) prefer Senator Clinton. This might be worth mentioning. Steve Dufour 17:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

People simply not liking or loving Obama does not warrant a controversy or criticism section or sub-article. There must be sufficent credible, verifiable and neutral sources that cover such controversies or criticisms before they can be included. This is an encyclopedia and not a "political website." Edward Lalone | (Talk) 21:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:Edwardlalone on this matter. Italiavivi 23:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What about the Tony Rezko real estate deal. What about the racist remarks towerds whites in his first book. There are many other things. This guy is a politician so for sure he is a crook. The media loves him so its hard to get the dirt on him but it is there. Some of his views like social security, abortion, and affirmative action are very controversial. Manic Hispanic 00:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The real estate deal may be notable enough to be worked into the text; I'd rather defer to those who know more about it than I do, and apparently it has been discussed and excluded. The rest of your comments are absolute bunk. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I resent that. There should be a criticisms section for Obama period. Manic Hispanic 09:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can come forward with some non-trivial and verifiable sources that show any notable controversies or personal criticisms, there doesn't need to be a "criticisms" section. We have what his stances are on many of the issues - those link to sites where there is a discussion of the arguments for and against them. We don't need to duplicate content because you feel he gets a "free ride" or something in the media. --Haemo 09:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Not only does he get a free ride in the media he is getting a free ride from Wikipedia editors. It's a crime the Rezko real estate deal is not mentioned in this article. That debacle merits mention. Manic Hispanic 23:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

He's not given a "free ride" anywhere. He's been slandered by Insight Magazine and Fox News. CNN and MSNBC have done little Obama-Osama hit jobs on him. All this for a guy who's not been in one notable controversy. Obama did not commit any wrongdoing in the Rezko matter, and the event is simply not relevant to his notability. We're not going to create a criticisms section just because other people have one, or just because one editor thinks the absence of one is "unfair". Something actually has to happen that warrants us making an entire criticisms section. --Ubiq 09:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"Osama" errors

I seriously question the relevance of this, unless it can be proved that CNN etc. did it intentionally.--Pharos 22:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Intent may never be found, and, in-fact may not have been intentional, but the relevancy lies in the reality of a political race, how media on one or both sides of a perceived political aisle can subtly paint a picture one way or another to bias or promote a candidate. The NY Post is not known for it lack of political bias, just as the NY Times has been accused of being left, and the Washington Times to the right. Voters will decide on a candidate for a variety of reasons from actual abilities and experiences to the low and dirty aspects of race, religion, color, etc. While the latter is an unfortunate truth, they are factors; and the factors that are used are always relevant to a balanced story. Juda S. Engelmayer 23:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I know the Post is a right-wing paper. The problem is, there are no reliable sources proving either intentional or unconscious bias as the cause of the "Osama" errors. As such, I don't think this type of thing belongs in an encyclopedia article.--Pharos 23:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said, it does not have to be intentional. The fact that it was printed in a public forum now makes it relevant, as people within the general population will incorporate these messages into their minds, and find truths where they deem it convenient. Obama's race for the White House will, at some point, be reflective of what the media presented - truth, lies, intent, accidental, etc. I believe that popular media coverage that can and will impact some aspect of his future is totally relevant to an encyclopedic piece that defines the person, his life and his challenges.

Juda S. Engelmayer 23:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Judae1 wrote: "as people within the general population will incorporate these messages into their minds, and find truths where they deem it convenient." Juda, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Extrapolation on "Osama" typos/errors has no place in Wikipedia articles. Italiavivi 23:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This is hardly extrapolation, it is fact, and a very important fact. This is not some random sourced ad rag, it is from CNN, the AP and the New York Post. All three, and the other sources that covered it too that are not mentioned here, have contributed to making it totally part of Senator Obama's life now. Juda S. Engelmayer 23:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be OK to add this material, Juda. As long as it meets WP:RS and WP:BLP it should be fine. In fact, I'll help you with it! --sunstar net^talk 23:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It would not be okay, and I will immediately remove anything resembling the type of extrapolation which violates official Wikipedia policy. Italiavivi 23:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As long as it meets RS and is notable, then it should merit inclusion. So far the only bit in the article that meets Wikipedia's standards is CNN's screw up as it is supported by an AP article to support the criticism. The NY Post is original research supported by a blog at this point, so shouldn't be included until a reliable source can be found that is critical of the NY Post article. --Bobblehead 23:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That Blog you mentioned is the Empire Zone, operated by the NYTimes. The opening titles are not edited by the public, only the related comments are. The same standards that the Times puts into their articles are used when beginning a discussion. The headline is reliable. (About The Empire Zone - A blog from the metropolitan staff of The Times about politics in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, supplementing our news coverage. Juda S. Engelmayer 00:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realize the NY Post paragraph was actually referring two different articles. I meant the "Earlier, on January 20, 2007, the New York Post received some criticism for running a potentially misleading headline, "Osama' Mud Flies at Obama", for a story that discussed rumors that Sen. Obama had been raised as a Muslim and concealed it. The story itself never mentioned the Saudi terrorist, and the rumor is false." portion. A blog criticizing the Post for the article's title does not qualify as a reliable source for saying the post was criticized for the article's title. ~~I'm going to delete that sentence, but you can find a reliable source criticizing the article's title.~~ --Bobblehead 00:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A news source randomly making a typographical mistake is not notable, even if it can be documented.--Pharos 23:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree with Pharos. I challenge its notability: It was an error made by a news site, no news site was comparing the two, or anything even remotely mention-worthy. Wikipedia articles need not point out that "Obama" and "Osama" rhyme. Italiavivi 00:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This is just allowing politics and personal feelings here to get in the way. It is not that they rhyme that is at issue, it is that it is now part of his life, and something he will have to deal with. Like any other aspect of an encyclopedic bio, it has to not just mention the easy fluff, but the hurdles on the road to success. Juda S. Engelmayer 00:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The burden of justifying notability is yours. I don't care anything about "hurdles" or "roads," I care about Wikipedia policy, including WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NOT. Italiavivi 00:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

(EC)"A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other." Putting aside the question of whether WP:N even applies to a fact about an obviously notable person, this section appears to cite multiple, non-trivial published works about these errors, including the NY Times, NY Post, CNN, and the AP. So I'm confused as to why you think the information is not notable or verifiable. On your WP:Not point, I take it to mean that you think this is an indiscriminate collection of information - is that your argument there? --TheOther Bob 00:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A typo is not the subject of a work. It's a mistake in the work. I would aver that this is an indiscriminate collection of information.--Pharos 00:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A typo is not the subject of the work of which it is a part, true. But if it is then widely reported about and commented on, then it is the subject of the articles about it. The articles cited here seem to be the latter - they're articles about the typos, not articles containing the typos. --TheOther Bob 00:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I would further posit that including it in any way gives significant undue weight to simple typographical errors. This policy includes giving undue weight to verifiable and sourced statements. Italiavivi 00:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:Undue Weight is a little hard to apply because it deals with viewpoints, not facts. Nonetheless, I would concur if major news outlets had not also given it such weight. Simple typographical errors are not typically written about in the New York Times - these errors received fairly wide-spread media coverage and discussion. The news media apparently thinks the errors are significant, so it seems rather odd for us as a tertiary source to dismiss them as insignificant. --TheOther Bob 00:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight does not apply to only viewpoints. Your understanding of the policy is flawed, and I would encourage you to re-read the page. From WP:Undue weight: "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements." Italiavivi 01:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil, mate. In any event, WP:Undue Weight is a part of the neutral point of view guidelines, as your comment points out by noting that "giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements" is "not neutral." Since no one is talking about NPOV, I find that a little hard to apply that guideline. (Though I'm open to a NPOV discussion if that's part of your objection.)

But here's the thing - it doesn't really matter whether we call it undue weight or something else because (a) I think I understand what you're getting at (you see this as a trivial fact) and (b) as I did above, I'm willing to accept your view of the undue weight guidelines for the sake of this discussion. As I explained above, though, we would only be giving these facts the weight and significance more primary sources have given them. So applying your view of the undue weight guidelines, I still think these facts would not violate them. --TheOther Bob 03:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Maureen Dowd writes about a lot of things in her opinion column, in a rather sharp, witty style. She does not write straight news articles. There has been minimal coverage of this as actual news, and one of the things we are WP:NOT anyway is a newspaper.--Pharos 00:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems like even if we were to exclude the Dowd column, the AP and CNN are still reliable (and wide-spread) sources that reported this as a news story (as are CBS News, Salon.com, the CBC, etc.) (Though Dowd is a reliable source in any event regardless of her style or focus, and should not be excluded). If you run a search for this, it was apparently covered in places like Israel and Kenya - I'd say that's pretty widespread coverage. We're not a newspaper, but that doesn't mean that we cannot include facts from newspapers so long as they otherwise meet our criteria. With coverage this wide-spread and with an issue that so far seems to have a long shelf-life, this does not strike me as "news." --TheOther Bob 01:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

CNN apologizing for its own typo does not count as a news story. Many newspapers reprint short, quirky AP stories like this; that is not a sign of global importance. Now I ask you, does that AP story seriously allege that the typo was due to CNN bias?--Pharos 01:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

CNN reporting on its own mistake is a news story. (If they had apologized in a personal letter, that would not be a news story.) Worldwide reprinting is significant - this isn't a story about a painted cow that small papers picked up off the wire to fill the human interest section. It's a (I think) relatively significant, if minor, event in the career of a politician picked up by multiple reliable sources...

Which brings me to your last sentence, and helps me for the first time understand this dispute, I think. CNN bias? I don't see anything about the inclusion of these facts that seeks to, or does, demonstrate CNN bias. The reason I support the inclusion of this fact is because it happened, it was widely picked up by the press, and it's widely known about by the public (which is to say I asked three people randomly and they all knew what I was talking about...ok, not scientific). I don't think this event proves anything, nor do I think that the person wanted to include it to prove anything. I just think it happened and was deemed significant by the press, and therefore should be included. --TheOther Bob 03:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It was a trivial but embarrassing mistake, and it would have been irresponsible of CNN not to publicly apologize. That doesn't make it notable. The incident is just trivia without the idea that it reflects a media bias. Juda, who added the info, has intimated several times on this very page that the "errors" were due to political bias.--Pharos 03:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Pharos, I do not think I intimated any malice, but suggested that in may, in fact, not be intentional. I raised it because whether or not the media did it intentionally, readers will use it as they wish. Please don't put words in my mouth. Juda S. Engelmayer 05:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I realize you suggested the bias might not be intentional. I was just pointing out to TheOtherBob that your perception of a bias (intentional or unconscious) in the media is what prompted you to add that section. I certainly didn't mean to misrepresent your views.--Pharos 06:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

And he's probably wrong about that. But to my mind the fact that so many reliable sources thought it was significant makes it significant. I don't know (or want to know) what the facts mean here - whether it represents media bias, etc. To me, the fact that a more primary source than us decided the event was significant means that it's more than just trivia. But I think we're beating some sort of deceased equine here - my view is that there are a lot of sources, and widespread coverage. You're looking at the same stuff and seeing limited sources, and minimal coverage. That happens sometimes, and doesn't necessarily mean either of us is wrong - but I don't really see a way to bridge that gap and reach consensus. (Which is fine - I think adding this fact makes the article better, but I don't think the article will be significantly incomplete without it.) --TheOther Bob 05:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A typo as talking about a can rather than a cat, is benign and useless. A typo about a major political figure, referring to him as a major notorious bad guy, not once, but twice, and enough to merit national news coverage, is no longer indiscriminate. ~~Those thinking otherwise are just not being objective~~. Juda S. Engelmayer 00:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please cease your personal attacks. Editors here are holding discussion based upon our understand of Wikipedia policy, not a lack of objectivity. I would ask you to strike your comment from the discussion. Someone disagreeing with your writing does not mean they lack objectivity. Italiavivi 00:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Just because you say it does not make it true. I was referred to as contentious, and was not afforded the courtesy Assume Good Faith, as per Wiki policy. I am not contentious, nor am I trying to instill an opinion, I am, as you, editing as an objective observer too, and feel that what I posted meets the criteria, and there seems to be equal concensus. I disagree with being deleted because you say so. Juda S. Engelmayer 00:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the content of your edits were referred to as contentious, and they are. Do not misrepresent my words. You do not understand WP:CONSENSUS if you feel it allows you to insert contentious material over the objections of half the Talk page's editors. Again, I call on you to strike your attack against the editors here who object to your "Osama/Obama" typo section from the discussion. Italiavivi 00:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have no opinion on this, but let's be clear — you weren't referred to as "contentious". Your edit was referred to as "contentious". They're two very different things. I would not have used that particular word, but all it means is that the edit is disputed; disputed text is usually not included until consensus is reached on the article's talk page. Also, there is no such thing as "equal consensus", there is as of yet no consensus. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank You for that understanding. Wrong word then. Juda S. Engelmayer

These errors are relevant to the notability to those that made the errors (NY times or CNN or whoever else). They are not relevant to Barack Obama's notability unless he is somehow involved in the errors (i.e. if he were to criticize the NY times or otherwise engage them). They do not belong in a BLP. --Ubiq 04:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ubiq. CNN and NY Times' articles can deal with their typographical errors, that would be relevant. Italiavivi 16:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Plateform?

Hi all. I'm a lazy browswer who wants his platform handed to me in a nice easy to read table. I think a platform is a list of issues and his stance on them. From broad things like the budget to foreign affairs, down to specific things like the removal of 10-commandment statues and tax-breaks for gay couples. I know this is kinda hard, but I have faith in you guys. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.238.49.65 (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

My god, its not that hard to look for these things. I already answered you on the Hillary Clinton page, here is Obama's: Political views of Barack Obama. Seriously its not that hard to find these. Gdo01 23:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

I requested another semi-protect for this page. It's undergone way too much vandalism by anon IPs ever since it was unprotected. --Ubiq 03:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The black Kennedy?

Foxnews used the Kennedy comparison today. He reminds me of JFK in some ways, he is handsome, youthful (JFK was one of our youngest Presidents) and something about his personality reminds me of JFK. A similar charisma leavened with sensitivity.

67.42.243.184 19:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've read at some Dutch news sites that Mr. Obama is being called the black Kennedy? Anyone knows if that is true, because i haven't read anything about it on American sites —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.105.35.109 (talk • contribs).

I've never heard him called that, but I can see how a parallel might be drawn. Steve Dufour 21:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Chris Matthews made that comparison this morning, though I don't think it's notable enough for inclusion in the article (at least not at the moment). —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope the expression doesn't catch on. :-) Steve Dufour 22:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I just read the Rolling Stone's article on Barack Obama. It does relate him to Robert F. Kennedy, but only in comparing his charisma and compassion with that of the latter.

"But Obama is not Kennedy."

"Bobby Kennedy grew up studying how to use America's power, and in his forties he began to venture out and notice its imperfections. Barack Obama came up in a study of those flaws, and now, thrust into a position of power in his forties, is trying to figure out what to do with it."

It was a very good article, and I can understand their comparisons and contrasts. 68.66.168.91 18:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Jackie 68.66.168.91 18:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Jackie P.

adding a controversy section, removing racial epithet from lead

A controversy section should be added that deals with: the madrassa "scandal"/"slander" however you want to look at that issue. It should also include the controversy of his statement regarding "wasted lives" in referring to US casualties in Iraq. Further, it should talk about the various issues regarding some people asserting he is african american and others the assert he is not. Another possibility is any opinions he might have that might be contraindicated by his religion, as I think he has a few. Ernham 19:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, criticism/controversy sections are unnecessary as most criticisms/controversies can be worked into the other sections of the article and criticism/controversy sections tend to turn into a dropping place for every complaint about the subject of the article. The madrassa "scandal"/"slander", "He's not black enough" complaints from the African-American community, and Howard comments can be worked into the 2008 Presidential election section/article as that seems to be the cause of those issues. As for the "first African American" comment in the lead, take a stroll through the archives. It's been brought up over and over again. --Bobblehead 20:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting that you insist I check the archive because it has been "brough up over and over again, yet you don't see any sense in a controversy section that talks about that very issue. Interesting, did i say? Maybe ironic is betterErnham 01:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should re-read my comment. I said it could be worked into the existing article and that a Controversy section was unnecessary. Suggest you strike your comment and try to respond in a constructive manner. --Bobblehead 01:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Your comments tend to be just a colossal waste of my time. You instruct me to check out O'Reilly's wiki, for instance, yet a full 25% of that wiki is a "controversy section" that is not at all "worked into the rest of the wiki".Ernham 18:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I pointed you towards the controversy section on Bill O'Reilly's page to show you what happens when a controversy section is included in an article and all the trivial crap that ends up in that section. I thought I was being clear about that, but apparently I was not. The only thing in that section that is even remotely encyclopedic is the Al Franken lawsuit and that can easily be worked into either the broadcasting career section, the O'Reilly Factor section of the article, or change the title of the Sexual Harassment lawsuits section to Lawsuits and work it in there. None of the controversies that you've brought up so far can't be worked into the existing prose of this article. I haven't looked into if reliable sources have been found regarding the controversies, but if there are reliable sources, then I can't think of a reason why they shouldn't be worked into this article, just not under a "Controversy" section. The fact that they are controversies should be self-evident without the need to label them as such. --Bobblehead 19:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment As this article is a biography of a living person we need to use caution when adding controversial statements to the article so my suggestion would be for you to write up a user page for a Barack Obama controversies article similar to Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies that meets verifiability, no original research and neutrality and tag it with the userpage tag until it is completed before we add a controversy section to this article. I agree with Bobblehead that criticism and controversy sections are generally unnecessary and can be worked into the article and when dealing with a living person it can cause unnecessary trouble for Wikipedia yet I recognize that there is a desire in respect to public figures to focus on controversies as this allows people to get on their soapboxes. I have the same problem with this as I do with those who seek to get on soapboxes in favor of living people as well.

There is absolutely no place in a biographical article for listing opinions that contradict OTHERS religions as there is no opinion held by Obama that contradicts HIS religion as religion is a personal belief set. This would be like saying that his opinions contradict his opinions. If there is an article about the beliefs of his official Church or denomination than it should be linked to and not directly brought into this article. Edward Lalone | (Talk)

Bobblehead wrote: "Another possibility is any opinions he might have that might be contraindicated by his religion, as I think he has a few." I'm not sure what you're getting at here, would you please explain in detail? Italiavivi 22:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible material I'm aware of fitting of a controvery section:

Real estate dealings.
African American "status".
Calling troop deaths "wasted lives".
"Madrassa" fiasco.

I believe a controversy section is warranted, as few of these lend themselves to being randomly injected here and there.Ernham 23:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not what you think fits in a controversy section that matters or whether a section is warranted because you think that this information cannot fit elsewhere because it can. It seems to me that you simply want to give undue weight (i.e., by prominence) to controversies by creating a section that gives greater weight to the differences of opinions surounding Obama. Also, the ACTUAL controversy must be mentioned in a reliable, verifiable, and neutral source. For example, the article "Obama's race dilemma" in the Boston Globe refers to his race as being a dilemma but does not refer to it as being controversial but does refer to Biden's comments as a controversy.

This source among others can be fitted into the article text fairly easily. The problem I see with what you suggest is that it requires a "POV" determination of what is and is not controversial and the section then becomes a dumping ground for editors who troll the internet and find a news article about Obama that they then add to the controversy section. Creating a new section simply because editors do not want to write a holistic article concerns me. If you can cite a source that actually labels any of these things as a controversy than you should as a part of the article cite those sources but it is original research to decide that a news article that reports person A believes Obama is not African-American while person B believes that he is and it gives the information undue weight in the article. Also, unless the article refers to it as a controversy it is original research to label it a controversy. This also goes to your point about Obama's opinions being contradicted by his religion. That is original research unless an actual source says "Barack Obama holds opinion A, and his religion teaches B and Paster C says that opinion A conflicts with B while Paster D disagrees. This has resulted in a controversy over whether Barack Obama's opinion on A conflicts with teaching B of his denomination." Edward Lalone | (Talk) 00:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

For reference on what happens with a "Controversy" section, I point you towards Bill O'Reilly's article. OMG!! He reports on controversial topics like the "War on Christmas", says Inside Edition won two Peabody Awards when it didn't, and calls Rush Limbaugh and entertainer and refers to himself as a journalist... Whooptie freaking do. :P If the controversy is really notable enough, it can be worked into the rest of the article (see Bill's article again). --Bobblehead 00:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I formatted your list, Ernham. A serious consideration is that for both the "wasted" incident and the real estate deal, Obama publicly acknowledged the "controversy" and apologized. [1][2] These are just two citations, one for each, but they're reliable sources (the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times), verifiable, and neutral (both are reports, not columns or opinions). I'm sure we can find other articles on these two issues, but I'm willing to back you up on these two at least. And while we may not need to create a "controversy" section, they could easily be incorporated in the main article during the relevant portions of his career. --Zz414 02:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ZZ414, the "wasted" and real estate incidents should be included. I also think the madrassa "story" should be included. There should definitely be a criticism section. Any subject that has been criticized should have one. 71.198.52.89 06:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently he also has had a long voting record of voting "present" instead of yea/nea to numerous bills in his state legislature, which is apparently in stark contrast to what he claims in his book should be the responsibility of a legislator. This is similar to what I earlier meant about contradicting one's stated beliefs on a subject. These are some major "hot-button" issues, too, including things like abortion rights, gun control/enforcement, etc. bhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20070213/cm_rcp/the_everpresent_obama

Why are so many editors so reluctent to make Obama look bad in any way. Many politicians have an extensive criticism/controversies section i.e Hillary Clinton and George Bush etc. It is unfair to them for Obama to be exempt. Many people have brought up valid criticism's/controversies that should be included. It is amazing the Tony Rezco real estate deal is not mentioned in this article. Manic Hispanic 04:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You know, saying this over and over again doesn't make your argument more valid, nor does it produce any sort of actionable sources that could be used to meaningfully discuss the article. You appear to have started with the statement "Not everyone like Barack Obama" and then proceeded to claim that such a truism implies a criticism section is needed. That is not compelling logic. --Haemo 07:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You're also failing to show why a criticism/controversy section itself is required in order to include "negative" things about Obama. You and the others trying to get a criticism section seem to be overly fixated on the belief that unless there is a criticism/controversy section then criticisms/controversies can not be included in the article. That simply isn't the case. Come up with some reliable sources to back up your claims of notability for the controversies/criticisms and work them into the article, just not into a section called "Criticisms" or "Controversies".--Bobblehead 20:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Bobblehead - I can speak from experience that there are a few "Hawks" out there watching this page and removing anything critical, followed by a discussion of other supporters, and thus the input is removed and "voted" to not be allowed. For instance, the issues of cocaine use to which he admitted is a felony crime. This has been discussed a LOT on the talk page, but gets almost no mention in the article. This is a HUGE issue for a Presidential Candidate, as one who openly admits to a felony. A Criticisms / controversies section would give an appropriate place to place facts, cited of course, and get them out of the reach of the criticism hawks! Thanks - Eisenmond 20:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Eisenmond wrote: "[Obama's cocaine use] has been discussed a LOT on the talk page, but gets almost no mention in the article." It is noted very prominently in the article's third paragraph, complete with wikilinks to cocaine and marijuana. Italiavivi 00:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Eisenmond, how would having a criticism section stop the "hawks" from "removing anything critical"? If they can remove it from the existing prose of the article, then they can just as easily remove it from a criticism section. If anything, it would make it easier for them to remove because now all they have to do is look in the criticism section. Wikipedia has a content dispute resolution process. If you don't feel that you are getting a fair shake in what makes it into the article, then you're more than welcome to submit a WP:RFC or WP:RFM.--Bobblehead 00:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Werdnabot?

What is everyone's thoughts of using Werdnabot to archive this page? This page is getting a lot of activity and it will only get "worse" the farther into the campaign we get. --Bobblehead 01:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this is probably a good idea. Chris M. 16:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Originally denied interest in 2004

Here's a good video clip of Obama denying interest in 2004 in running for President.[3] Should a note be made of this, just a sentence, in the Presidential section? --Zz414 15:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. I saw on CNN that he was asked numerous times from the start of his senate career and each time, as time went on, he loosened his answer more and more until now, when he decided to run. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐ 16:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a sentence in the presidential section saying "Obama first said he had 'thought about the possibility' of running for president, departing from earlier statements that he intended to serve out his six-year Senate term through 2010." - PoliticalJunkie 16:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, wow, that's just a very subtle way of putting it. I didn't even pick up on that. Any chance it could be reworded to indicate that he "denied interest in running for president in 2004"? If not, I'll see what can be done at the Obama Presidential Campaign page. --Zz414 21:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The current wording is fine, and not in any way subtle or covert. Trying to over-emphasize his impression of his presidential chances back in 2004, instead of focusing on more recent quotes, could be construed as undue weight. Italiavivi 03:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, over at Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, there is a quote from Obama after his 2004 Senate victory, in which he says "I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years." - PoliticalJunkie 02:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Experiment

Hello folks, Im one of the regular mediators. I anticipate much more discussion on this article, and as such I want to try an experiment for a high-traffic controversial topic talk page, (this seems to qualify). The idea is to organize the talk page according to a topic-based system, archiving the discussion in a topical way, rather than just in a linear way.

The first thing to do would be to work out a system for doing this. The basic system would be a topical list at the top, which link to subpages titled after the major issues relevant to this article. There are of course some potential problems with people editing other peoples comments - the important rule must be to be principled and consistent - making linkages to specific archive sections.

Im curious how this sounds to people. Please offer your feedback at Talk:Barack Obama/Organisation. -Ste|vertigo 09:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I generally like the idea. Is there any precedent for this on an article talk page, though? I've seen topical archiving on user talk pages, but I don't know that I have on an article talk page. I ask for two reasons: (1) perhaps talk page guidelines/help pages have something to say on point and (2) if this has been done before, the preexisting organization could possibly be a guide for this page. I know of nothing that would prevent such organization. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Im not sure if there has been any precendent on articles. I was thinking more of WP:VP and how it has topical separation on the intake. That of course wouldnt be the way to go here - all comments should be viewable on the main talk. Nor should the standard archiving method be replaced: We can have some plain redundancy, and that should satisfy those who are afraid their comments would get mangled. We need to of course identify the main threads of conversation for this article. Lets start with a basic list on a subpage: Talk:Barack Obama/topics -Ste|vertigo 20:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, this seems well-intentioned, and could be useful, but my initial reaction is that we have enough to do to keep the article itself organized and I for one don't relish having to think about where and how I post my comments on Talk. But I'm certainly interested in listening to how it would work, and who would maintain it. If I understand you correctly - having read this very quickly - this would take talk page comments and categorize them but leave them in place as well? Who decides? Tvoz | talk 04:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Part Arab

He said on MSNBC that he was part Arab also his father and step-father were muslum.

Uh-oh. If he's part arab, that makes him more white than black. Hmmmm. Guess that's 397093734702 strikes against labeling him "african american".Ernham 16:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If he said he was "part Arab", he probably only meant it in the sense that all East Africans probably have some Arab ancestry. His father was a Luo (Kenya and Tanzania).--Pharos 17:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Plus he was making a play for the Arab-American vote. :-) Steve Dufour 18:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Can someone please give the source for this information? I question whether he made such a statement on MSNBC and the context it was made in if he did do so. Often statements can be taken out of context or outright fabricated. I found one reference on ABC that said that Obama admitted to using cocaine and marijuanna as a teenager. This statement was not correct as he has explicitly denied using cocaine and has clearly stated that he "only" considered using cocaine and I do not recall if they did a retraction. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 20:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not correct at all. He admits to smoking marijuana and "doing some blow when I could afford it" (paraphrased, as I don't have the book in front of me) in Dreams from My Father. The interview in 60 Minutes on Sunday quoted him directly from his book, when the interviewer asked whether he thought it would be an issue in his campaign. He has never denied using cocaine. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: Although I do doubt the veracity of this claim :) —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

All East Africans have Arab heritage? No, not so. The Arab settlement was mainly coastal; as is the Swahili culture zone. The East African nations, such as Kenya and Tanzania extend deep inland, toward the African Great Lakes. His father's family is from the interior, even if Barack is a Swahili name.

Are you actually suggesting that it would be impossible for someone with arab ancestry to make it into Kenya? That's just absurd. Arabs migrated all over east/north Africa Ernham 18:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This Arab heritage idea is erroneous until someone can prove otherwise. Dogru144 18:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is it "erroneous"? Unproven, sure, but not "erroneous". Those are not synonyms.Ernham 18:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Conversely, could we talk like regular people?

Conversely, New York Daily News columnist Stanley Crouch commented: "When black Americans refer to Obama as 'one of us,' I do not know what they are talking about."

I changed the word "conversely" to "on the other hand", exact same meaning but I liked the sound better. Plus, Crouch's comment is rather shocking, and almost the only critical comment in the whole article, and I thought people needed to take a pause before they read it, hence the four word expression. Besides that, "conversely" is not a word which most people use very much. Does anyone have any other ideas for improving this sentence? Thanks. Steve Dufour 14:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought the intent of wikipedia was to have the voice of a scholarly document? In this case I am sure that it is fine, but we need to ensure that we use appropriate voice, and not steer towards slang, colloquialisms, etc... or as it was stated above, how "regular" people talk. Let's aim for that higher rung! Thanks - Eisenmond 16:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok with me. "On the other hand" is out. However I still think that there could be a better word than "conversely" to open this sentence. No big thing however. ...I gave something else a try, I hope that it's better. Steve Dufour 16:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"conversely" (adverb) with the terms of the relation reversed see http://www.onelook.com/?w=conversely --HailFire 18:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Some alteratives, to communicate the same meaning, but none that look like an improvement. Is it the choice of words or the thought that is the issue here, Steve? Important to get that clear to move the discussion in a useful direction. thanks. --HailFire 18:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"Contrariwise" might be fun. :-) Steve Dufour 22:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, I thought that my second change to "A contrary opinion was expressed by..." was good because it gave the readers some warning that a negative statement was coming up...... Then they would have a chance to get out their smelling salts. :-) Steve Dufour 23:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that "conversely" has been put back. The sentence just before the one about Crouch's statement reads: "Another article in The Nation analyzed Obama's ability to "transcend race" with white audiences." I am not sure if what Crouch said is exactly "converse" to this. On the other hand, it is a "contrary opinion". Steve Dufour 07:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You've convinced me. Can we agree then on contrarily? See this note "contrary describes something that contradicts a proposition..." I think the proposition being contradicted here is Obama as everyman, as "one of us". I think using more words to contrast Crouch's meaning with the views of others risks punishing the reader with confusing and debatable constructions, because clearly "us" means so many different things to different people. --HailFire 10:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Contrarily" is fine with me. Steve Dufour 17:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

...So we started with a perfectly natural, comprehensible, everyday wording like "Conversely, X", and ended up changing that phrasing to the unusual, opaque, and erroneous "Contrarily, X"? Huh. The magic of Wikipedia at work? -Silence 02:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If you would like to take out the quote itself that would be fine with me. It is just one guy's opinion. Steve Dufour 05:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I rarely ever hear the word conversely, even on television. Contrarily is fine, IMO. Shakam 05:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer "A contrary opinion was expressed by...." but contrariwise, compromise is a good thing. Steve Dufour 05:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, you haven't convinced me. To my New York ears, "contrarily" is absurd and never used; "conversely" is common usage. I am with Silence on this one. We also could try the simple "However" to indicate that Crouch's statement takes a different point of view from the "everyman" quote. Tvoz | talk 04:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, "Conversely" is in extremely common usage, especially in formal contexts (like encyclopedias and other academic works). It is also, however, quite common in colloquial contexts. "Conversely" gets 26,500,000 hits on Google; "Contrarily" gets 841,000 hits on Google. There is clearly no grounds whatsoever for favoring the latter over the former on grounds of common usage. If anything, the opposite is the case (by more than thirtyfold!).

Besides, "Contrarily" is actually being misused in this context. "Conversely" was being used correctly in the original sentence. Conversely, "Contrarily" is being used in a way that misunderstands the word's common meaning. "Contrarily" means either "in a contrary disobedient manner" or, less commonly, "contrary to expectations"; it almost never means "on the other hand" or "conversely" in common speech. -Silence 05:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally (oh, sorry, is that another word that "regular people" supposedly never use? damned adverbs!), the best option that's been proposed so far seems to be simply using "On the other hand". It resolves most of the issues that have been brought up above, its only disadvantages being that (1) it's less concise than "Conversely" (though since this was argued to be an advantage above, it's not really significant), and (2) it's idiomatic. Numerous style guides, especially for formal writing (e.g., encyclopedic writing), strongly discourage relying on idioms when normal words (like "conversely") are available in their stead. However, since "on the other hand" is such a common idiom, I don't see this as a major issue; if others agree that this isn't a serious cause for concern, then I don't see any reason not to just use "on the other hand". In most situations, however, "conversely" is indeed perfectly acceptable wherever its meaning is appropriate to the context; the idea that it is more opaque or arcane than words like "contrarily" is pure nonsense. -Silence 05:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I followed Tvoz's suggestion and changed the word to "however". It seems like it conveys the meaning and is a simple, natural word that doesn't draw attention to itself. Steve Dufour 16:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is this so important? --Calibas 21:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is. I expected my first change of "conversely" to "on the other hand" to pass without comment. If I had known that it would lead to such a long debate I would have just left it as it was. Steve Dufour 23:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

"Conversely" sounds fine to me. "A contrary opinion was expressed by..." unnecessarily introduces passive voice, and "On the other hand" sounds personal and..."unencyclopedic", as much as I hate to use that word. ShadowHalo 00:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Right now there is no introductory word to the sentence. That seems to work too. :-) Steve Dufour 00:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Move protection

I fully move protected the article after noticing a bit of move vandalism today. I don't think there's any reason to ever move this article. I didn't change the article's semi protection. · j e r s y k o talk · 04:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

good call Tvoz | talk 07:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There might be call to move this article someday if Barack loses the election and ends up deciding to change his name for the next time around. ;) -Silence 04:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

"Future election candidate" box - why on top?

We have this box, appropriately, in the section on his Presidential race. I do not think we need it on top as well - most of the page - his early life, education, his Illinois legislature years, his Senate campaign and service, his books, etc - are not subject to the rapid changes that the Presidential section is, and that the box addresses. I don't particularly see the need for the box in any case, but I can live with it in the Presidential race section, not on top of the whole article. Also ok with me if it's in the separate Presidential campaign article. I removed it from the top and it was instantly reverted - I removed it again and asked for this to be discussed in talk. Anyone else have an opinion on this? Tvoz | talk 08:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Leave it in the Presidential section, not at the top of the article. Italiavivi 14:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. - PoliticalJunkie 20:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture

The "popular culture" section is mostly political commentary. Nothing wrong with political commentary on a presidential candidate, but it should be labelled as such. So you don't all have to go looking, I would consider the Oprah appearance to be pop culture, the Time cover to be borderline. But NYT (Brooks), Daily News (Crouch), and WSJ (Noonan) columnists, along with his own book, can hardly be considered "pop culture" references. Can we move those into a different section? I would consider Obama in pop culture to be his appearance on Monday Night Football, the satire they just did on 30 Rock, and maybe his appearance on The Daily Show or any late night talk shows. Entertainment versus politics. --Mykll42 22:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC) (Whoops... sorry)

What if it was changed to: "Public Image and Popular Culture"? Steve Dufour 04:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

What about simply "Public image"? "Popular culture" usually implies stuff like appearing on the Simpsons or getting mentioned in an R&B song. That isn't applicable here. -Silence 04:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

"Cultural and political image" works for now. And, I agree, his popular culture image is of limited notability compared to his political image. Mykll42 06:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

How does "Cultural and political image" have any advantages over simply "Public image"? I don't see anything cultural about his image other than the trivial fact that he's influenced culture, nor do I see anything political about his image other than the trivial fact that he's a politician. -Silence 07:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Culture is a suitably broad term that encompasses both an appearance on Oprah and how he is viewed by political commentators. A section on just his political image wouldn't necesarily include that and it is notable given her cultural influence. I'm going to guess you were joking about the political image thing. Mykll42 07:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Mixed Marriage

No mention of mixed marriage regarding his parents or birth. Is this irrelevant in 2007? Surely with some people saying he's "not black enough", this is relevant. ObamaNation 04:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, how did we miss that. Have you actually read the article? Tvoz | talk 06:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

C'mon, let's stick with WP:CIVILITY. User:ObamaNation, please note the first section's third paragraph: "Of his early childhood, Obama wrote: "That my father looked nothing like the people around me — that he was black as pitch, my mother white as milk — barely registered in my mind."[13] As a young adult, he struggled to reconcile social perceptions of his multiracial heritage." Italiavivi 06:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Obama's new stylized "O" logo.

As seen at his site and online store. [4] Any idea what the copyright status on this campaign logo with regard to Wikipedia use would be? Have past articles made use of campaign yard signs/bumper stickers or logos? Italiavivi 18:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Under US law a creative work is copyrighted as soon as it is made. If other people start using it a work can lose its copyright. This happened with the "smiley face". I am not a lawyer however. Steve Dufour 18:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not public domain as works of the federal government are because a political campaign is not a federal government entity. It's almost certainly protected by copyright (possibly even trademark). We would have to claim fair use to use it here. And I am an attorney, though this is not legal advice, yada yada yada. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Put a bumper sticker on your car and photograph it. Obama will not sue you. :-) Steve Dufour 18:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It is, indeed, copyrighted, so a fair use claim would have to be made. However, if you look closely at Obama's new website, you'll see a Creative Commons licensing symbol along the bottom. It does not link to any legal pages yet, but it's entirely possible that Obama is licensing all content on the website under a CC license, which, depending on its iteration, may be compatible with Wikipedia. Someone would need to contact their legal team for clarification. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It is highly unusual for them to display the "CC" logo without clarifying the license. Reading their terms page one finds copying restricted to "personal use" only, and "bulk uses" are verboten. This is more restrictive than the strictest CC license, which only bans commercial use. It's pretty clear they don't understand what the Creative Commons is, and just thought it would look cool on the webpage. Too bad.--Pharos 19:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not very clear at all. The site launched at 12 AM this morning, and discrepancies in text (that very likely was copied from prior websites) isn't at all out of the question. I'm going to shoot them an e-mail to ask to clarify their licensing. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. And please point them to this page. And remind them that if they want their photos on Wikipedia, they'll have to be cc-by or cc-by-sa. Thanks.--Pharos 19:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll update when I have a response. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the senate campaign sign here on Obama's article, Ken Salazar's old Senate election logo is used at his article, with a Fair Use claim on the image itself. Hillary Clinton has the same, with her "Hillary" logo. I know George W. Bush used a stylized "W" logo for some campaign material, but can't find that one in use on Wikipedia anywhere. Italiavivi 19:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

We're still awaiting the board's official declaration, but based on Kat's letter summarizing policy, a fair use claim for a campaign logo would not be permissible unless there is scholastic value in including the logo (in other words, using it merely for decoration is not permitted). —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with who/what you're referring to. Kat's letter? Italiavivi 19:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[5] —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Italiavivi 20:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Unarchiving this section since the one below it covers the same area.--Bobblehead 00:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images

Fair use images are required to contribute substantially to the article. Can anyone justify the substantial contribution of Image:Obama 08.JPG and Image:Barack Obama campaign logo.JPG. Perhaps those of you with connections to the campaign could have them release the images under an acceptable licence if they want them included. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There is already a discussion on this topic here on the Talk page. This additional section is unnecessary. I would also refer you back to the discussion at the Wesley Clark FAC, which you apparently arrived here from. You do not believe campaign logos contribute significantly to the article, others do, and Sen. Obama's site also has a CCommons tag on it. Italiavivi 15:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

In this revert, you replace free-use content with fair-use content. Why would you do this? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I restored deleted content. Again, there is already a Talk page discussion here concerning Obama's campaign signs. Do you intend to actually participate in Talk discussion, or will you dodge and wikilawyer all day? Did you bother reading the Talk page before editing the main article, or making this new Talk section, even? You do not believe that campaign logos contribute significantly to an article, others do. You do not appear to have consensus in your corner. Italiavivi 15:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You restored the fair-use image that I replaced with an equally good (better, some might say) free-use image. I've asked for a fair use review. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A review which you have now disrupted. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Disrupted? Uh... —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's fair use policy is quite clear. In the event that free use images exist, they are always preferred over fair use images. We have not been able to confirm what parts of Obama's website are covered under CC, and, based on their Flickr photostream, it would not be compatible with Wikipedia anyway (they are presently released using the NC clause). I'm very sad my pictures from the Austin rally didn't come out very well so I can't contribute :( —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

So If the problem is getting the images as free use... is there anyone in here who works on the campaign? Or does someone want to contact the campaign? All the new candidates seems to be falling over themselves to be internet friendly I wouldn't be surprised if they would release the campaign images with a license that works here. After all it can't hurt. (I am willing to write the campaign if no one else has closer ties). --Rtrev 05:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I just wrote them today (unrelated to this recent discussion) re: the unexplained CC logo, as bbatsell's earlier correspondence apparently hasn't been answered. I checked it on the comment form as a "technical problem" in the hope they would be more likely to read those carefully.--Pharos 08:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

We should strive to obtain some free example of the campaign material and the non-free images don’t seem particularly original or important. However, I don’t understand why the Time cover was removed; to appear on the cover of Time is definitely significant. Additionally, the image was doing a good job of representing the press coverage as a whole (again due to the magazine’s cover’s importance) and I don’t see from where a free replacement could come that would be similarly representative. —xyzzy_n 11:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia talk:Fair use#Barack Obama on cover of TIME magazine --HailFire 14:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Black support update

Here is a story which says that a majority of blacks now support Obama: [6] I'm not sure how to put in into the article however. Steve Dufour 17:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008#Opinion polling would be a good place to put it. - PoliticalJunkie 17:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The information about the poll has already been added there. I understand that we can not have daily poll updates in this article. :-) Steve Dufour 20:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

pictures

Editors of this article may be interested in this Flickr photo set, which has a lot of decent pictures of Obama and is compatibly licensed.--ragesoss 06:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

His US Congress headshot is in the public domain and is probably the best photo for the main picture in this article. The sub sections are fairly well pictured, though we could maybe use a picture added to the "2004 DNC" section, the "State legislature", or the "Political advocacy". Other than those sections, I like the pictures that already exist. --Mattarata 06:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Junior?

Because his father is Barack H. Obama, Sr, is his official birth certificate name "Barack Hussein Obama, Junior"? Steveprutz 18:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Has the "Jr" been confirmed? I see it's been added ti the article.Mykll42 18:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

NYT and Harvard Law Review

I've restored this line: In February 1990, the New York Times reported his election as the Harvard Law Review's "first black president in its 104-year history." As per earlier talk, it is safest to name the source and use an exact quotation where terms "black" or "African American" are given. Also, HLR is a journal, not a newspaper as the recent edit stated. Lastly, I think no "The" flows better here before New York Times. Though I realize it is an open debate, I think we should put the readers first, and keep the prose as easy to follow as possible given that this sentence is already loaded. Hope others agree. --HailFire 10:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You could be accurate and readable: The New York Times reported his election in February 1990 as the Harvard ... - that's assuming the election took place in that month, and not just some belated news coverage. - !!!!

Done. --HailFire 14:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Mother's ancestors owned slaves

There are now reports that his mother's ancestors owned slaves. This could be embarrassing to Obama, so I propose that we immediately delete any edits that mention this. Ogeez 20:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Ogeez is right! We should go through every single biographical Wikipedia article, then investigate the genealogy of every single subject. If any of their great-great-grandparents owned slaves, we ought add a three-paragraph section informing our readers of such! Italiavivi 22:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

She's descended from Jefferson Davis; of course her ancestors owned slaves. Gdo01 20:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's that relevant. However, if something is embarrassing to Obama, that alone is no reason for deletion. - PoliticalJunkie 20:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I just finished reading the conversation in the "Smoking" section. - PoliticalJunkie 20:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Ogeez needs to be WP:CIVIL and stop trolling this talk page. --Haemo 10:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. WP:NPOV comes above WP:CIVIL in the hierarcy of wikipedia principals. Why is no one criticizing the tyrants who run this article for violating NPOV? Ogeez 23:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so we're fascist tyrant Obama volunteers. We get the message. Now could you actually talk about the issues rather than engaging in attacks upon everyone else? I've seen you bring up two so far; smoking and whether or not he is Muslim. The second is addressed in the article rather clearly, and the first has been determined by a consensus of editors to not be notable enough to be in a featured article. You have previously stated that you believe that anyone coming to an encyclopedia to read about Mr. Obama will want to know whether he smokes; I disagree, and feel that people looking for that sort of information would be better served by The Inquirer. Oops, does that make me Hitler? We're building an encyclopedia here, not a tabloid chronicling every little fact about Obama (either positive or negative). The most notable facts and events in his life are included, and if you want to read more, you can follow our links and sources; as tertiary sources, that's what encyclopedias are supposed to do. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, I'm sure Ogeez believes that the accusations made against Prescott Bush being a Nazi sympathizer belong in the article about George H. W. Bush.Shsilver 00:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please be WP:CIVIL. Ogeez 00:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, how is it uncivil to suggest that you are an even-handed person who believes that things should be consistent?Shsilver 00:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I just don't think it's fair that Hillary_Rodham_Clinton has a link to a Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_controversies page with twenty-five separate "scandals," while this Obama page has almost no negative information. Our nation finally has a chance to elect its first female president, and wikipedia is undermining that opportunity with its biased reporting. Ogeez 00:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is not attempting to "report" anything; it's an encyclopedia. (Add.: See WP:RECENT.) HRC has been in the public's eye for much longer, and has accumulated many more controversies in that amount of time than has Mr. Obama. Just because HRC has had a lot of controversies does not mean that we should manufacture "controversies" that aren't controversies at all for a political opponent of hers. I also think you're overestimating Wikipedia's role in the 2008 primary :) —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, and again, this argument comes up - "X has a section like this, why not Y" - as if the Encyclopedia is somehow bound to include every factoid and attempted smear campaign equally. This is simply not the case - not all controversies are created equal, and the simple fact is that Mr Obama has not been a party to any which are particularly notable outside of his campaign; which there is a separate page for. Comparing something like "Whitewater" to what is essentially a semantic argument over whether Mr Obama is "black" is ridiculous in the extreme. The difference should be self-evident. Also, User:Ogeez has some gall telling other people to be civil when he has repeatedly engaged in baseless name-calling towards other users on this very talk page. Physician, heal thyself. --Haemo 00:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that many if not most of the so-called controversies that have been added to Hillary Rodham Clinton's controversy page are ridiculous, trumped-up nonsense, including things about her hair and who she was named after, put there to smear her. I hope this article isn't headed in that same direction.

Furthermore, here is what the New York Times reported today about Sen. Obama's response to this news item - "He also acknowledged for the first time a recent revelation by a genealogist that his mother’s ancestors in Kentucky owned slaves, something reported by The Baltimore Sun last week.

'It turns out that her great-great-great-great-grandfather actually owned slaves,' Mr. Obama said before another audience, over breakfast, at George C. Wallace Community College. 'That’s no surprise. That’s part of our tortured, tangled history.'" NYT March 5, 2007 Tvoz | talk 05:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't have a choice of who our ancestors, or even our parents, are; so, why would this be important? He didn't choose to have slave-owning ancestors. shakam

How will the Obama hawks repress this?

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash6.htm

Less than two months after ascending to the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama bought more than $50,000 worth of stock in two speculative companies whose major investors included some of his biggest political donors, the NYT will splash on Wednesday Page Ones.

The paper claims, according to newsroom sources: One of the companies was a biotech concern that was starting to develop a drug to treat avian flu. In March 2005, two weeks after buying about $5,000 of its shares, Obama took the lead in a legislative push for more federal spending to battle the disease.

The paper's Mike McIntire and Chris Drew get front placement [side by side with Libby Coverage] for details of Obama's most recent financial disclosure:

It shows that he bought more than $50,000 in stock in a satellite communications business whose principal backers include four friends and donors who had raised more than $150,000 for his political committees.

A spokesman for Obama says the senator did not know that he had invested in either company.

Impacting late...

As this story develops, its just might, might merit mention along with the Tony Rezko deal. Obama could kill someone and you libs wouldn't mention it, because it's not "relevent" or "npov". What part of "all sum of human knowledge" don't you administrators on a power trip understand. Because you power abusers think it's trivial doesn't make it so, notability is subjective. It's hilarious how glossed over he is, no negative mentions of him at all, and yet it's featured, that's the plutocracy wikipedia for you. Wikitruth is right. Spare me the same lame excuses you give everyone not kissing Obama's ass. Manic Hispanic 06:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that could be a very important story and we will see the impact that it has. But I guarantee you, this post in its various incarnations is absolutely no way to prove your point. Even saying "you libs" seems to indicate to me that you are approaching this article with a POV. OH... here's the Times article: [7] Mykll42 06:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There was no wrongdoing by Obama in the Rezko matter. It would be pointless to put it in his article. As far as this "controversy" goes, Obama apparently did not know he owned the stocks until several months after they were purchased. When he learned of them, he immediately sold them to avoid any perceived conflict of interest (he sold them for a net loss of 13,000). This doesn't seem to be much of a scandal or controversy at all.

It also might help to be civil and assume good faith of other editors. Bashing one of the best articles on wikipedia and its editors isn't a good way to make a point. --Ubiq 01:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not one of the best articles on wikipedia, that's a joke. Whatever I know nothing short of <WP:BLP violation removed> will get him negative criticism from you holy editors.Manic Hispanic 04:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I gotta tell you I find that offensive on a few levels. Anyways, it looks like this story isn't going to have legs. Tucker Carlson gave it a pass and he's not known for being notoriously pro-Obama. Mykll42 04:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Tucker has been a pretty consistent Obama critic. And I'mDown, I'll advise you of WP:CIVIL and WP:BLP. Further incivility and disruption will be remedied. Thanks. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Civility should not be applied to politics. And you give me WP:BLP. Well all I have to say is this article violates NPOV because it is slanted towerds the postive, and anyone who attempts to interject any criticism, or issues that are controvorsial, is quickly silenced and there edits reverted. This page is full of Obama hawks with the intent to silence dissenters. Manic Hispanic 06:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well... aside from the fact that civility should be applied to politics, this isn't politics. It's encyclopedia writing. And if this remains a serious topic of interest after a few days, it will find its way into the encyclopedia article. But it won't remain a topic of interest because he violated no rules and remedied the situation, taking a financial loss in the process, when he learned of it. Any one who had read the NYT link I provided, as opposed to the Drudge link, would know that. Mykll42 06:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi protection?

When was the semiprotection status removed? I signed on after a few hours and saw a tennis match of racial epithets and gorilla pictures on a Senator's page. Mykll42 03:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I Agree, semi protection should be re-instated for anonymous/new users...I counted like 12 revisions of vandalism by anon users over a 10 hour stretch today. Bjewiki 03:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to head over to WP:RFP and make a request for semi-protection. --Bobblehead 03:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely with sprot - this is a chronic problem on this article, and it's time that this page get long-term semi-protection, like many others have. This is an embarrassment and only goes to further make Wikipedia look amateuristic and unreliable. I would hope that the regular editors here who have objected in the past will get the message that this is not going to stop in the foreseeable future, despite everyone's hope that it will, and that far greater damage is done by allowing this vicious vandalism than by restricting edits to people who take the 2 minutes it takes to register (as anonymously as they like). I have said this repeatedly - see the archives - and others have agreed. To those who are against sprot: we tried it your way, over and over and over, each time with the hope that this time would be different, but it isn't. Enough is enough. Tvoz | talk 03:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I put in a request. Mykll42 03:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, nothing is also enough. This latest restoration of sprot was blatantly preemptive. IP blocking was not even tried. I have changed to the sprot template that warns unregistered users that their contributions are not welcome on this page. We could do better than this. --HailFire 01:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? sprot2 is exactly the same as sprot. It is IP/new blocking. Just a different tag. Tvoz | talk 01:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason I prefer the sprot2 tag is that it is less obtrusive - it doesn't deface the article. It's used all over wikipedia, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, JOhn Kerry, george W. Bush, Tony Blair, and many others. It doesn't indicate the length of term of the sprot, it just doesn't deface the article. Anyone who goes to edit the page is told "Note: This page has been semi-protected so that only established users can edit it.". Tvoz | talk 01:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I didn't realize y'all were talking about the templates. I selected the link to the article and saw the template at the top and assumed the sprot was long term so changed it to sprot2 (for the same reasons as Tvoz, apparently). Sorry about that. I can self-revert if you'd like. --Bobblehead 01:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this latest semi protection has a time limit, short or long - but in any case I don't think sprot2 means anything different from sprot - it's just a less in-your-face tag, which I for one prefer. I'm happy to discuss it though.Tvoz | talk 07:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The sprot issue is a moot point. The dictators who rule this article immediately delete almost everything posted by an IP user anyway. Ogeez 05:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC

Excuse me, are you talking about the gorilla picture, the "Iraq Saddam Hussein Osama", the Muslim conversion - or what? I don't know of any editors here who have deleted anything constructive from an IP address just because it was from an IP address, if that is what you're suggesting. That is an absurd assertion, and I don't appreciate your impugning the hard work people put in here. There are no dictators, there are people who work together to reach consensus. GUess what, we don't all agree about everything - far from it. But most of us try to be respectful and listen to the next guy's idea, and come up with reasonable compromises. You win some, you lose some. We have a damn good article, in my opinion - and guess what else: I don't work for Obama, paid, unpaid, volunteer or any other way. I find the man interesting, and I want his article to be fair. I work on Hillary's article too - and lots of others. If you'd like to contribute constructively, great. If not, why are you hanging around here? (That's a rhetorical question, by the way. I'm not going to have a debate with you.) Tvoz | talk 07:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't let him get to you. All he's done so far is call editors of this article names (fascists, dictators etc.) and has done absolutely nothing to contribute to it. Best to just ignore him (or perhaps get admin intervention maybe?). --Ubiq 01:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I remind User:Ubiq that "calling for bans or blocks" is considered a serious violation of WP:Civil. Please remember these important community standards.Ogeez 02:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Says the guy calling other editors "fascists" and "dictators." Italiavivi 03:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I find your use of the word "civil" amusing. I said "admin intervention" which sometimes simply means the admin will warn an editor. I think a warning is definitely warranted in this case. I didn't "call for a ban or block" so your point falls flat. --Ubiq 14:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

He is not African American

He and his wife are members of an Afrocentric African-separatist church, Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. The church's website [8] describes the church's predominantly race-based belief system as follows:

"Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:

1. Commitment to God

2. Commitment to the Black Community

3. Commitment to the Black Family

4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education

5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence

6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic

7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect

8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"

9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community

10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions

11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System

12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System."

Obama is more correctly referred to as an African-African-American. Contemporary use of the term African-American refers to those Americans of African descent that trace their heritage to the black experience in America before the 20th century. Being that neither his maternal, nor his paternal heritage can claim such an experience, makes calling him African-American extreme disinformation. - JC

He's African and he's American, thus he's African American. 23:30 February 21, 200 - Fentoro

My God this is a stupid title. Most African Americans have some White ancestry and 1 out of 6 White Americans have some non-White ancestry. You know what-- he is 100% American, Can we get over this idiocy and focus on what the man has to offer as a potential President?

Commitment to the black community, the black family, the black work ethic, another reference to the black community, black leadership, black value system. This isn't racism?? Has very little to do with Obama, but if I started a Caucaso-Centric church based on promoting the white community and white leaders, you think people would let it slide as easily? Gosh, this country's messed up. Regardless, who cares if he's an African-American, an African-African-American, African, or American? Does it really matter?

67.42.243.184 19:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

He is a mulatto, or mixed race, which ever you prefer.Ernham 01:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Race is self-identified here in the U.S., and he identifies himself as African-American. That he is biracial is discussed in the article, though. Italiavivi 01:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity is self-identified, not race, sorry, not even if it's "politically favorable", as in the case with this guy's phantom race. Additionally, African-american is often reserved only for those that are the descendants of the orignal slaves brought here from Africa hunreds of years ago. I see two strikes against him for the supposed label of "african american"Ernham 01:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed a lot and a compromise was finally reached. He is an American, for sure. He is also "black", as that word is used in the USA. The article does not say he is African American, it only quotes the Senate Historical Office. Steve Dufour 05:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the article does state that he is African-American: "In February 1990, he gained national recognition for becoming the first African American to be elected president of the Harvard Law Review." He is also included in the Wikipedia categories Category:African American politicians and Category:African American Senators. -Silence 06:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That sentence could be tweeked a bit. As for the categories, I don't think we want to say that he is NOT an African American when he says he is one. Getting back to Ernham's post: A "mulatto" or a "person of mixed race" can be a member of the group of people called "African Americans".Steve Dufour 06:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Then it would be superfluous to have the words "mulatto" and "mixed-race" if the aren't really definitive. I know one thing for sure, if/when the exploratory committee decides he should run, the article should read, "If elected, he would be the first African-American (I know I'm not going to win this on here so I guess I'll let you all have your little fun), as well as the first biracial president." Shakam 06:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The ironic thing is that if he had tried to distance himself from being labeled an African American he would have been strongly criticized for that. So he just can't win with certain people. Steve Dufour 20:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

His father was born in Alego, Kenya, Africa, and his mother was born in Wichita, Kansas, America. Sounds African-American to me. Ground Zero | t 21:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

GZ, exactly correct. I made the same point in one of the thousands of earlier rounds on this. I can't believe this is still being "discussed" - frankly, it makes me sick. Tvoz | talk 22:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand where people are coming from on this? Are they saying he shouldn't be elected president because he isn't black enough? (anti-Obama statement) Or are they saying that someone so talented could not really be black? (anti-black statement) Steve Dufour 06:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

When one refers to something such as "african amrican", you are refering to a cultural element that is found in north america. This unique cultural element is completely different on an ethnic level than someone that is the first generation son of an African immigrant(with a phd no less) raised in upper middle-class suburbia. To correctly refer to him in a "racial way", you would have to call him half caucasoid and half negroid. We don't usually use terms like that. Someone said that because he is "black" and lives in the US he can use the term "afircan-american". That's interesting because I have an Indian(ethnically indian!) friend at college that is at least two shades darker than Barack. Here's the kicker: he also came from african immigrants(south africa). Is he really African American too? HmmmErnham 15:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Obama is what he is. The article gives all the facts needed for a person to make up his or her mind about what label to put on him. If you like you can write an op-ed type article expressing your views and if you get it published I will cite it in the article. Just leave a note on this talk page. Steve Dufour 16:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The article should not mention race, period. Give the facts and let people decide. You have already declared him african american in the first paragraph. That's absurd POV pushing nonsense. This wiki is already an "op-ed", unfortunately. Ernham 18:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It's your POV that this article should not mention race. The facts have been given and this issue has been brought up not only here but is mentioned in numerous places. Those who advocate not mentioning race in my view have an agenda and such should not be given serious consideration. Also, someone who says "period" when making a statement of opinion is the one who is pushing a POV especially when they call noting Obama's description of himself as absurd. It is acceptable in living biographies to cite the source's own statement about themselves ranging from political descriptions to religious and racial descriptions. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 02:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Race itself is often an ambiguous and "messy" concept. No need for it here, really. We have a picture and we have the facts on who his parents were. Present those and let the reader decide. I also specifically asked for a statement BY HIM. Those you provide clearly refer to him in third person and do not fit the bill. I want a statement by him. Ernham 16:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, your position isn't in line with Wikipedia policy, but I'll humor you; he uses it throughout Dreams from My Father. For example, here's a sentence from the first page from the "Preface to the 2004 edition": "As I mention in the original introduction, the opportunity to write the book came while I was in law school, the result of my election as the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review." —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Part of his importance is that he is a black (as that word is defined in the USA) American. The opening paragraph only quotes the Senate Historical Office on his African American-ness. Steve Dufour 18:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

We'll just see what happens on 2/10. Shakam 05:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

So, he can call himself African American, even if he's not? Seriously, he's half white, half black. He's no more African American, than he is white. How do you think people would react if he called himself white? It's amazing how reverse racism works. Anyone can call themselves African American, while it's a crime to be white.

That doesn't make a modicum of sense, but that's irrelevant. Can we please keep political posturing OFF THIS PAGE? This talk page is meant for discussing changes to the article, not to debate his candidacy. Thanks. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is some people think that Wikipedia is a campaign tool and not an encyclopedia. This discussion about whether he is African American or half-black/half-white is best left outside of this article. Yet, even when this issue is dropped it will be brought up in a week or two weeks as another political hack decides to come to Wikipedia and promote their POV on this subject. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 02:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If he calls himself African American Wikipedia should rely upon his statement just like Wikipedia would rely upon his statement that he is a Democrat. We don't use people's POV as to what is African-American and what isn't to decide whether someone would be labeled as such. The only legitimate source as to whether he is an African American is Obama himself. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 02:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'd have no issue with the inclusion of the term "african american" if he himself has described himself as such. in the absence of such "proof", it should only be said who his parents are (there is a picture of him, obviously) and let the reader make their own "logical" conclusions. Ernham 02:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The Meet Barack section of BarackObama.com states, "He went on to earn his law degree from Harvard in 1991, where he became the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review." It goes on to say, "In 2004, he became the third African American since Reconstruction to be elected to the U.S. Senate." I think that we violate neutrality when we decide that we will not mention that Barack Obama is African American when he himself has stated that he is. We walk a fine line when we decide that those who define African-American one way are correct and therefore ignore the obvious fact that he claims to be African-American. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 05:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"The only legitimate source as to whether he is an African American is Obama himself." - This is not in line with WP policy. This has been discussed to death in the archives. Please look back through them before throwing more verbiage out her. Basically what it breaks down to is that you use the racial designation used in the source you are quoting/paraphrasing/summarizing. For example you will notice in the first paragraph he is referred to indirectly as the first African American senator. That designation was used because the source being cited used it. It is notable, verifiable, etc. There is no need to gratuitously add racial designators. But if you cite a newspaper article calling him "black" then use black. If you refer to a quote from Obama himself that uses "African American" use that. There is no need to use one "true" designation. His racial/ethnic/national history is well discussed in the article. Adding your own arbitrarily decided designators is not acceptable no matter what standard "you" (this means any one editor) believes is the "standard." Use your cites and don't add extraneous racial designators. It is that simple. --Rtrev 02:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that this has been discussed before and am sure that it is now being discussed because someone else brought it up but past discussions on this does not prevent current or future discussions from taking place. Also, I do not intend to spend time reading the archives when it is sufficient to discuss what has been brought up. If there are points made in the archives before other editors have arrived that you feel are important than you should mention them but don't assume that new editors or editors who have chosen to have input on this article are going to rely heavily upon past discussions. That you and others may have discussed this before does not give you immunity from having to discuss it with those of us who were not a part of those discussions. I also do not think that your interpretation of Wikipedia policy regarding racial desgination is correct. There are sources which state that he is African American and therefore it makes sense to state as a part of this article that he is based on those sources with citation. If there is a conflicting reliable source than that can be provided for but sources which conflict with statements that have been made by a living person are required to be removed. There are certain criteria for including information provided by the person and these are:

Information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if:

Information meets verifiability, NPOV, and no original research policies.
It is relevant to the person's notability;
It is not contentious;
It is not unduly self-serving;
There is no reasonable doubt that it was provided by the subject.

This information is verifiable, is neutral, and is not original research. It is relevent to Obama's notability (i.e., he is an African-American candidate for President), and it is not contentious. This information does not unduly benefit Obama and it is clear that the information was provided by Obama as it is available on his website. To impose a requirement that racial designators that are used by Obama himself to describe himself not be included in this article is a POV and violates Wikipedia policy. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 05:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that you can't use Obama's racial designation for himself. I merely stated that wasn't the only one you can use. It clearly lays it all out in the policy you just copied and pasted there. Its a matter of usage. It is fine to say he is an African-American presidential candidate if you have a nice cite talking about it (which there are many). What is not appropriate is tossing out racial designators wherever an editor thinks it sounds nice (I am not saying that you have or want to do this... it has just happened in the past). --Rtrev 06:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If you are able to show based on policy that using racial designations that the subject of the biography uses to describe themselves as editors think appropriate than you would have a point yet there is nothing in policy which prohibits or otherwise requires that such descriptions not be used. If this is not the case than you should reference the policy in question. The Manual of Style refers to this as, "Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves" and "this can mean using the term an individual uses for himself or herself." I don't intend to edit this article so you need not worry about whether I will ever use the word African-American anywhere in the article. I am here simply to add to the discussions on the talk page. I don't agree that it's inappropriate to refer to Obama as African-American wherever an editor feels it appropriate to mention and I believe that only one citation (with multiple sources as necessary) at the first mention of his being African-American is sufficent and that each reference to his being African-American need not be cited. The statements included in the article about Obama being African American stand alone on the few citations. Another example is religious designators which need to be cited once and then the person can be referred throughout the article as Catholic if they are consistent with other policies such as neutrality. It may have happened in the past that people included "racial designators wherever they thought that it sounds nice" and on the face there is nothing inappropriate about this except where it violates other policies. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 19:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You can't compare what a person chooses to be, to how a person is born. Bad analogy. Shakam

PLEASE READ RE: RACE DISCUSSION

To be more specific for those who don't want to go back through the archives themselves or muck through the WP manual of style. Look at WP:STYLE#Identity as well as WP:NOR. The somewhat definitive discussion can be seen in the archives please look through them! --Rtrev 03:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

People are too lazy to read the archives, they think they are special and that their input is better than what has already been discussed. This topic has been beaten over and over again (with me a contributing factor.) He is not African-American. How about we move forward in time and not backwards??? shakam 06:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

He is not african-american in the way the term is used in the united states, which is in fact unique, just like the sun does not revolve around the earth. Any "debate" that came to a contrary conclusion is not worth my time to read through.Ernham 17:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Unique or no that is not the point. The point is that you should use your sources. IT IS NOT OUR CALL. Wikipedia editors do not make reality we simply report what is out there. The fact is that a lot of people refer to him as "African American" and it is included in many verifiable, notable, and neutral sources. When citing those sources use African American. When citing a source that uses "black" use black. It is not a binary system. Please read WP:STYLE#Identity as well as WP:NOR as I stated above. --Rtrev 05:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So in other words, it's your way or the highway, hmm? Nice to see your attitude (not to mention your POV) so clearly spelled out for us; thanks. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The Earth does in fact go around the sun. Sorry if reality upsets you.Ernham 18:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the American Heritage dictionary an african american is "a Black American with African ancestry". He's african, he's american, he's an african american. Slightly off topic, why do we call blacks african americans when we don't call white people european americans? --Calibas 00:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Generally, we do, we just call them caucasian. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Caucasian doesn't mean european american. --Calibas 17:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, isn't this interesting, then? My indian friend, born in south africa, since he is "blacker" than 95% of the "black" people in the USA, is in infact "aferican american"?Ernham 01:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Is he of African descent? If so, then yes. If not, then no, he's Indian (or Indian-American, I don't know any of the context). Now please, stop your POV pushing. It's becoming beyond ridiculous. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Just jumping into this discussion, I don't see what's to argue about. He's mulatto, and that's really all there is to it. He is African American and Caucasian, therefore mulatto (or of mixed race, if you prefer). End of story. I don't really see the big deal you guys are making this into. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐ 01:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The reality is, if he does in fact want to use the term African American--and we do place that in the lead-- there MUST be a controversy/ criticism establishing that many other African Americans think he is a pretender. If it's not bleated about in the article, then we don't have to include that criticism/controversy. Apparently Barack has even gone as far to defend his usage of the term by claiming "decendents of slaves and recent african immigrants have a lot in common ", a mind bogglingly ridiculous statement if I ever heard one. Ernham 17:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

In what way is that ridiculous? The examples he cites are based on skin color. A cab wasn't more likely to stop for him because he wasn't descended from slaves or because his mother was white, a security guard less likely to watch him, a real estate agent more likely to show him a property. He specifically cites the case of African immigrant Amadou Diallo. That seems pretty straight forward. My input, and granted I'm new here, is that he qualifies under all three descriptors: black, African-American, mulatto (or mixed race). However, he isn't designated as being the only mixed-race Senator in the Senate [9] or the first mixed-race editor of the Harvard Law Review [10]. He is listed as African American. Those are two pretty decent sources to cite in an encyclopedia article, regardless of what some editors of the article believe to be the case.--Mykll42 21:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Mykll42 - well put. To my mind, anyone who would seriously question whether Obama should be called black, African American, or a person of color - any of those interchangeable terms - is either blind, illiterate, or with an agenda. And just so you know, I believe that most of the regular editors here would totally agree with you on this and have worked diligently to use common sense and obvious fact when describing him. It is only a few who are hell-bent on squeezing controversy out of the most innocuous statements, and twisting reality to fit their own positions. None of which belongs here, as far as I'm concerned. Good to have you here - I hope you'll stick around and help us keep this article on course. Tvoz | talk 06:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, well put Mykll42. I'll just throw in my two cents here; does it make any sense at all to not call him "black" or "African American"? It doesn't matter exactly what his ethnicity is, his skin tone speaks for itself. Why is this even being debated? He is a "halfrican", which is the same as "mulatto", which is defined as "black". --Hojimachong^talk 06:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The term african american will be removed with a more amibuous term or there WILL be a controversy section added that contains many african american leaders that feel he does not have a right to call himself such. Take your pick. See Ward Churchill's supposed ethnicity, for example. Ernham 18:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would you pick a term more ambitious than African American? I don't get what that means. Jiffypopmetaltop

he meant "ambiguous" perhaps? best I can figure Tvoz | talk 23:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think, I'm not sure, that ultimatums are not usually considered civil. Before adding a controversy section, please cite your "many African American leaders" who feel that Barack Obama should not be considered African American and let the community decide if this is an actual controversy or a socio-political equivalent of the Evolution-ID "controversy."Mykll42 23:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No, Ernham, we try hard here to make decisions based on consensus, and you do not have consensus for removing the term, so I expect it will be reverted. Also, your last note sounded like an ultimatum, and that's also not how we do things here. There are a lot of editors working on this article - try posting some proposed wording here on Talk and see if it flies. Threats aren't going to get you anywhere, and they interfere with the creation and maintenance of a good article. Try a new approach. Tvoz | talk 23:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC) (cross posted with Mykll42 - both of us saying essentially the same thing)

I'm not sure what it "sounded like", nor do I really care. The facts are his racial claims of being "african american" are controversial. I do not believe that they are controversial enough to warrant mention if, and only if, the wiki does not already have a pretext as decribing him as such. Can't have your cake and eat it too.Ernham 02:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You should care what you sound like as that is the first step to being civil. A controversy in the discussion page of his wikipedia article does not imply the existence of a controversy in the real world. Even the Stanley Crouch piece from The Daily News doesn't imply that Obama isn't African American. So, as I said earlier, please cite your sources and we will come to a consensus. Here's one for me: [11] Mykll42 02:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he is called AA because America still lives in the immediate, centennial-past? (rhetorical, don't bother responding)Shakam 04:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Didn't Stephen Colbert interview a women who said Barack is not an African American? While I think he is an African American, and so does the dictionary, a fair amount of published material says he isnt; just do a quick web search and you'll find some of it. I think you should make either a controversy section about his racial identity here, or make or find an article which covers the debate over what is the proper defenition of African American, and put a link to it here. For the record, I am for refering to Barack as an African American in this article, as he fits the dictionary defenition of being one, and it is fairly linear and unblamable to accept the dictionary as the final authority on all questions of what words mean. Some people might argue that Bush is not the president of the United States, because he didn't get more votes then Gore in Florida, or the popular vote. They deserve to be mentioned in wikipedia; it is not proper however that because of their opinions, wikipedia does not flatly call Bush president in his article, and where relevant.-Somebody

If I recall correctly, she said that Obama is not "black", which is more of a social construct than African-American is. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Having taken a glance at the article, I really don't think it would fit it, to have an section about the debate over whether or not Barack Obama is an African American or not. A sentence could be slipped in, or a link which goes to an article covering the debate over what the proper citerion are for being an African American.-Somebody —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frelt (talk • contribs).

Could those looking to change how african-american or black is used in Wikipedia articles please start by focusing on articles with less noteworthy individuals. I would be much more likely to support a change if a number of other articles were changed in a way that went against how individuals identified themselves as black, and instead started assigning them non-black labels. This is not the article to be having that debate about. Frankly I think that this idea of telling people of a certain race or ethnicity that they don't fit the wikipedia version of that race is going to be a tricky business, and would suggest that it start elsewhere.

The race ("blackness") issue.

Here we have Salon's Debra Dickerson [12] and NY Daily News' Stanley Crouch [13] both raising the issue of Obama's "blackness." Can we accept that Obama's race is indeed a matter of controversy, with regard to blacks in America and calling himself "African-American"? Two reliable sources, both black columnists, mind you. I'm having trouble with arguments against notability being used on this article, at this point. Italiavivi 19:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think Obama's race certainly is a matter of controversy and indeed notable. Marget Carlson of Bloomberg covered the question as did Marjorie Valbrun of the Washington Post [14]. However, I think the issue of "not being black enough" is more directly related to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 because the onset of the campaign has led to the question being raised in the media. - PoliticalJunkie 19:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe this controversy first emerged when Obama was running against African-American Alan Keyes for Senate back in 2004, but I'd have to dig up sources from back then. Italiavivi 19:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Neither Crouch nor Dickerson question his ethnicity, they question his cultural identity and heritage as someone running for office. More succinctly, neither says he has no right to be called African American. That being said, I do think this merits independent mention. His description in the first few paragraphs should not be changed. Both columns are worth reading, even though Dickerson's is a little pro-Hillary for my taste. Mykll42 20:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Valbrun acknowledges Obama's "blackness has increasingly been discussed on black-oriented radio shows, at political conferences and on Sunday morning news shows". Even though she says he has a right to be called African American, the topic of Obama's race has still been broached and other people disagree with her. - PoliticalJunkie 20:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, Italiavivi, you're right. I found this quote:

The carpetbagging black Republican Alan Keyes opened up this racialist can of worms when he opposed Mr. Obama in the Illinois Senate race back in 2004. Badly outmatched and reaching for any brick he could find, Mr. Keyes blurted out that Mr. Obama was not black because he was not descended from slaves. The Daily News columnist Stanley Crouch later seemed to second that view, saying that Mr. Obama had not “lived the life of a black American.”

from here. - PoliticalJunkie 20:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't really matter in context of the discussion, but Dickerson's column references polling data which is out of date as Obama is seizing control of the African American vote. I understand that this is not the place for polling data, but if a work we cite uses polling data, should we respond with updated data? Or just directo the appropriate page. Mykll42 20:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be better to specify the poll parameters on the article. --– Emperor Walter Humala · 21:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A minority of any action volunteers automatically all the distinguishing features of that minority. Should the minority be human, then colour, speech, education, and roots, are going to prejudice each of us, according to our own unique background. Obama is black; being black will be mentioned. Obama is university educated; being university educated will be mentioned. Obama smokes; being a smoker will be mentioned. All the demarcations will come out that we can imagine, because he is part of an American minority. Similarly with those in a majority, but the restraint of exposing every nuance is in effect. Clinton is white; being white is not mentioned, while other demarcations are. What I mean by all of this is that African-American, black, et al, is going to get plenty of, inevitable, exposure in the press and public. Time to acknowledge that reality and not be slowed by any further opinion on it. --Free4It 00:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

2008 not 2010 campaign fund

The article refers to Obama raising money for a 2010 campaign - surely this should be 2008? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.129.102.19 (talk) 05:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure what section you're talking about and am too tired to hunt, but if he is not nominated in some fashion, then he will in all likelihood re-run for his Senate post in 2010, which is likely what it is referring to. Until he set up his exploratory committee, any monies contributed would have gone towards that campaign and could not have applied to his Presidential campaign. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Website of that campaign. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Osama

The Democratic presidential debate in Nevada was cancelled because the chairman of Fox News made a joke about the words "Obama" and "Osama" sounding similar.[15] This is notable. Together with the CNN "Where's Obama?" headline,[16] this merits a section about people confusing the two names. Ogeez 08:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It merits its own section in the Fox News article. It doesn't merit its own section in this article. Discuss this on Talk:Fox News. Same thing with CNN's "mistake". --Ubiq 09:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't need to tell people that "Osama" and "Obama" sound similar, nor does a typo on CNN's part justify an entire section in Obama's article. Attack jokes on Roger Ailes' part belong at Fox News, nor does Ailes win himself a sentence on his target's article every time he makes a joke. Ailes didn't "confuse the two names" as you assert -- he swapped them deliberately. Italiavivi 14:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone added a section about the Fox News controversy to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. Should it stay? - PoliticalJunkie 20:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-U.S. views

The article could be improved by adding links to non-American articles and media coverage.172.146.15.93 06:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any of those readily available? Mykll42 06:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone want to add some Australian article! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TL500 (talk • contribs).

Obama is not muslim

This was debunked rather well at snopes.com, at the link below. The opening paragraph of the Wiki page on Obama states that he is the only practicing muslim in the Senate. No where else in the article is it mentioned.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

Yeah.. It's called vandalism. --Bobblehead 02:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Even this article that you cite admits that he was educated in Muslim schools as a child. The American people deserve to know that, and it should be mentioned in this aricle, as well as the Arabic orgin of all his names.

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpauX35gwYo for more details.

March 17, 2007 edits

Today's edits by one user has seen a deletion to a paragraph with citations in it. Cited material should not be deleted without discussion on a talkpage. Ronbo76 20:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I've had stuff deleted even if there was a citation. There was no discussion about it, just someone deleting it. Therefore, a citation does not prevent deletion. We need to clean up the article and eliminate irrelavent stuff. So what if Obama cosponsored a bill. Senators do that thousands of times during their senate term. What is relevant is if Obama's bill is passed as was the case in the Congo bill. Also relevant is if he has a bill jointly with the GOP, such as with Senator McCain. Also revelant is when he submits a bill about his pet subject, withdrawal in Iraq.

Why is the pastor that married him so important. It just detracts from Obama. Why not list which airlines he's an elite frequent flyer or what brand of tires he uses? Dereks1x 20:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Stuff deleted without a citation does not fly on this article. You need consensus which is why your edits have been reverted. Your deletions are throwing off the POV of this article. If material is properly introduced into an article with citations, deleting it because it "does not seem important" to you becomes opinionated editting. As for mundane info, there are enough editors on this article that if one or more had objected to it, it would have been deleted. Not every piece of minutia will be introduced into an article but some things like who married whom are present in many other articles.

Please also learn how to sign your name on a talkpage. The four tildes occur after your last sentence as here ==>. Ronbo76 20:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This user's continued deletion of material does not meet consensus with me. I will, however, not engage in an edit war. Ronbo76 20:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Consider deleting fluff

For example, "In September 2006, Obama supported a related bill, the Secure Fence Act, authorizing construction of fencing and other security improvements along the United States–Mexico border." under the legislation section. He simply voted on the bill. This is not newsworthy. 80 senators voted for the bill. The bill was not Obama's idea. If he wrote a bill with McCain, that's worthy of wikipedia. If he has a pet issue, such as not fighting in Iraq, that's worthy of mention. If you mention a bill that he voted yes or no, then you should list all the hundreds of bills that he voted on. If one includes the Secure Fence Act trying to fool the reader to thinking that it's Obama's idea, this is fraud. For a neutral viewpoint, I think the sentence should be deleted. If not deleted, there should be a note that Obama was simply voted on the measure, one of hundreds of votes, and that it wasn't his idea.Dereks1x 20:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Breaking news: Obama didn't pay some parking tickets while in college!

Hhhmm...Failure to pay a parking ticket. What a monster.

128.138.173.224 06:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

So, are the fascist dictator Obama hawks guarding this page going to oppress this very noteworthy information [17] [18] [19], too? Italiavivi 23:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, those parking tickets weren't from college; he broke the law in law school! That's like frowning in clown college: it's a serious impingement of character.--Pharos 23:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Finally, a candidate who forgets to pay his parking tickets, just like me. A man of the people!

OBAMA GAINS MY VOTE.

On a serious note, please, grow up, and quit being so concerned about such petty matters. I'm sure plenty of anti-Obama editors have forgotten to pay at least one parking ticket in their lives. I'm sure I have at least five, since my old college was a pain with parking permits.

If this is the deepest dirt one can bring up about Obama, I think one needs to re-assess their own motivation. When the information arises that he killed a man and drank his blood, I'll consider it a noteworthy point. Jaywalking charges, not so much. --C.Logan 23:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Damn it, sarcasm is impossible here. Please be aware that all references to "clown college" in my comments in future are to be interpreted with a grain of salt :)--Pharos 01:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, my comment was more directed to the news agencies such as Fox who drum the story up, and to a lesser extent the user who posted this, although he may have been sarcastic too.--C.Logan 03:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

He was. Italiavivi 03:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The man had to also drink his victim's blood for your noteworthiness? Truth be that all of these aspects [smoking, ticket trespasses, law school flaunting,] have an undeniable influence in our personal assessment of the man; but, not any of it needs concrete exposure in an encyclopedia. --Free4It 00:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Smoking? Really? Does he eat red meat, too? I certainly hope not! Carnivores can't be leaders!

Things like smoking shouldn't really be on the radar. Really, think about that for a second. :Smoking is bad for you, but equally so are things like french fries, lack of activity, and auto emissions. However, I don't expect that the president should be a vegan cross-country runner who drives a SmartCar. To be fair, this is slightly bigger news than if Obama once hit the bumper of a parked car while backing out of a parking space.But this isn't the sort of thing that would have any effect on his campaign. The third article cited above even concludes on that note.This is, essentially, news sites scraping the bottom of the barrel for Obama dirt.--C.Logan 00:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, a picture is starting to be painted here. It turns out that Obama is a product of the American melting pot, invests money at a loss, smokes, and parks illegally. I think he may have been my college roommate. Mykll42 05:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm still trying to parse the meaning of "Obama hawks". I thought Obama followers were leftists. I thought hawks were right-wing. This is very confusing. I think I'll have a cigarette, and I don't even smoke. P.S. Be careful, though, senses of humor are a rare commodity on wikipedia. Tvoz | talk 06:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the ironic part. Despite my troll-like language, I'm trying to make a serious point. Discussing this information just paints a more complete picture of the man. It might even help people identify with him. But there's no way I'm doing the work to research and write about these issues, only to have the secrete police delete my work. Ogeez 06:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Troll like language and behavior you mean. Jiffypopmetaltop 06:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the funny thing about it is that it does make me identify with him, a bit. The more politicians try to paint themselves as saints, the more your B.S. alarm goes off. Obama seems at least more genuine- he's made some of the same mistakes that I have.--C.Logan 07:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

~~All right let's stop discussing trolling stuff here. Keep focused on improving the article. thanks~~ --– Emperor Walter Humala · ^{( talk? · help! )} 05:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on, there's no harm done. Sometimes one needs a break from said improving activity. Tvoz | talk 05:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

well, I have to admit I was angry while typing that, sorry and no problem. see ya'll around. --– Emperor Walter Humala · ^{( talk? · help! )} 23:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

20060926 p092606kh-0093-515h.jpg

{{editprotected}} The caption for 20060926 p092606kh-0093-515h.jpg should read "only Tom Coburn's hair is visible behind Rep. Henry Waxman of California." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bradywahl (talk • contribs).

Done John Reaves (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Picture was swapped by HailFire for another one where Coburn is visible, so this is now moot Tvoz | talk 07:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

to dereks1x regarding major edits

Dereks1x - I am sure you mean well in your editing of Barack Obama, but there is a problem with the way you are doing it. Some of your edits are not careful, and introduce errors in language and wording; some of them are taking an article that many editors have worked hard to keep NPOV and making it less so. Also the article has been given featured status, and we have recently undergone a review of that featured status, and one of the criteria is stability - that means, once wording has been established for sections that are not current events, for example, editors are supposed to try to keep that wording as it is without making lots of changes. His early life, for example, has been gone over and over and the wording is fair, accurate, and not changing, so there's no need to edit it further beyond an occasional tweak. Also the reference style has been under scrutiny and editors have worked hard to keep it consistent and in compliance with standards. PLease believe me when I tell you that the regular editors on this article are diligent and non-partisan. We're not pushing any agenda, pro or anti the Senator regarding his Presidential ambition. What we want is for there to be a fair article, with a reasonable level of detail but not too much - that's another issue in Featured status - with reliable references, and a consistent style. If anyone has ideas for additions or major changes, we try to discuss them on the Talk page before implementing them. I'm asking you, then, to do that. I'm speaking for myself here - as one editor of the page - and one of the ones who has reverted some of your multiple edits yesterday and today. It's very time consuming to do this over and over - you are today reinstating things that were removed yesterday. Please stop doing that and come over to talk instead and say why you think your changes are needed, and I assure you that fair changes will get a fair hearing. I'm posting this on your user talk page and on Talk:Barack Obama where it can be discussed more. I hope you don't take offense, and I hope you will be a cooperative editor on this highly-visible featured article. Thank you. Tvoz | talk 21:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, didn't know it was a featured articleDereks1x 21:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

And also, please don't edit other people's entries on article talk pages. Tvoz | talk 21:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Dereks1x, I removed your addition to the legislation section because it was an uninformative list of non-notable bills that Obama has filed in 2007. The point of this article is not to act as a legislative record for Obama, but to record only the notable legislation that he's a sponsor on. None of those were particularly notable and none of them have even made it out of committee yet. Also, links to Thomas do not work once you close your browser session. They are unique to your browser session and will not work for anyone else that tries to follow those links. Additionally, including the full bill title is not informative as they don't say what the bill actually does. If you want to include Obama's legislative record for this year, find a secondary source that explains what the bills actually mean. --Bobblehead 22:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Comparing editors to being from a foreign country is the best WP:CIVIL edit summary. Ronbo76 01:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

removed paragraph

"Senator Obama has taken positive steps to eliminate actions which might be deemed improper. In an agreement with his wife, Obama agreed to stop smoking in exchange for her helping him run.[99] He has said that he will only invest in mutual funds or money market accounts after critics accused him of buying individual stocks which would benefit from government funding that Obama was proposing.[100] Obama also paid 15 parking tickets which were issued to him 17 years ago.[101]"

This is an absurd paragraph and I removed it. Is he stopping smoking because it "might be deemed improper"? Gee, I would have thought it was a health issue. Or maybe an image issue. But not a matter of propriety. And neither of the other two items are notable. Even consensus on your own "survey" here (a method I don't particularly subscribe to because we don't do these things by vote) says they are not notable or we should wait and see. NOne of this belongs in the article. If people insist on including something about his trying to stop smoking - and the importance of this escapes me - then come up with some better wording than that it mught be deemed improper. My opinion, as a long time editor of this article, is that including it gives it undue weight, and I see no need for it at all. There is a whole lot that has been left off of this article, for space reasons, and because you can't include every detail. This is one I'd pass on. Tvoz | talk 09:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write the paragraph you removed, nor do I approve of its wording, and I don't appreciate you attributing it to me. I'd note that the paragraph includes mentions of the blind trust and parking tickets, which I (along with Talk consensus) opposed here as being notable enough for inclusion. Again, if you don't like surveys, don't participate; they're plenty useful. This is not "voting," Tvoz, this is examining consensus. Italiavivi 20:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoa- hold it - where did I attribute it to you? I know you didn't add that paragraph - it was added by an IP address User:71.212.111.238 - and I never suggested that you had anything to do with it. In fact my comment says that the paragraph is not what the survey results revealed, and although I don't like the idea of the survey I didn't do a thing to disrupt it - I didn't participate, but I also didn't comment on it until now. You owe me an apology for that snide edit summary and your accusation above. And by the way - the survey was introduced here without your signature attached to it, other than in the edit summary, for whatever reason you had. When I said "your survey" I actually was talking to all of the participants in it - in fact, I hadn't even noticed who posted the opener. My comment about a survey not being a vote was precisely speaking to the point that we attempt to edit here by discussion and consensus, not majority rule. Tvoz | talk 21:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Then why does your criticism of an anon's insertion belong here, in this survey? You're boycotting all surveys, but your criticism of some anon's shoddy insertion belongs in a sub-section of this one? You've owed me an apology for your repeated snideness ever since you were overruled on calling Cat Stevens Yusuf Islam; I'm not holding my breath, nor should you hold yours, where apologies're concerned. Anyhow, you are correct: Wikipedia happens via consensus. Surveys can be used to reach and re-examine consensus, as this one has, nor does your dislike of the format (or those who wrote the "polling is evil" opinion essay) alter the very valid results. Italiavivi 00:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Italiaviv, I think Tvoz just put it in the wrong header is all. It's all good here. Mykll42 01:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

There ya go. Moved the header out so that it's not part of the survey. As far as Tvoz's actions. The quitting smoking is notable because Obama made it notable and a sentence saying he made an agreement of his wife to stop smoking in exchange for her helping him run is hardly undue weight. The Obama's made it notable by including it in every interview they gave in the weeks following his announcement. Now, concentrating it in a paragraph along with the non-notable parking tickets and stock purchases and preceding it with the "might be deemed inappropriate" is a bit much. So getting rid of the paragraph was probably a good thing. Just need to figure some way to work the quitting smoking sentence into the article somewhere.

The only thing evil about "voting" is if all you do is count noses. Going by pure discussion is often more contentious as a vocal minority can often out talk a majority, which is just as evil. That's why you take surveys. Not only is the "agree" or "disagree" important(but to a far lesser degree), you also get the most important thing, why people feel the way they do.--Bobblehead 01:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Just one point here about what is being characterized as the "polling is evil" opinion essay: I personally did not say here or anywhere that I thought polling is evil (nor does that essay say that, actually), nor have I seen anyone say that anywhere. So perhaps the hyperbole could be dialed down a bit. I said I don't like surveys, and I chose not to participate in - or disrupt - this one. I do, however, think it is helpful to re-read WP:NOT from time to time - and regarding this discussion, see WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY in particular. By the way, WP:NOT in its entirety is official policy - not a guideline, not an opinion essay - so I guess we ought to keep it in mind. Tvoz | talk 05:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY applies to polling: name counting, head counting, and tilde counting. This survey was in no way a vote, it was a place where individuals may express their opinions in an organized, structured manner. The summary consensus of those opinions is now available for all to see. You are more than welcome to abstain from this survey on principle, but it reeks awfully of just doing so to make a point. You are wrong that no one has cited the "polling is evil" essay in the past on this Talk page, and obviously missed Bbatshell and Edward Lalone (the latter of which went on to disrupt the entire survey on principle) last month. Anyhow, this is not hyperbole, and I don't appreciate your misrepresenting it as such. I know WP:NOT very well, and it doesn't apply in this case (though you're welcome to keep insinuating otherwise all night). Italiavivi 21:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Since I was dragged into this (kicking and screaming while on a wikibreak, no less), the above is not a poll. It's structured discussion. A poll looks like this:

Obama's smoking is not notable.

Yes

-- fake user 1

-- fake user 2

No

--fake user 1

--fake user 2

In my example, no discussion is taking place, just a straight up head count. Those types of polls, in the absence of other discussion, are pretty much not permitted on Wikipedia, and not through an essay, but through a pretty clear guideline: WP:!VOTE. I imagine Tvoz originally placed it under that section because the added paragraph incorporated a good portion of the issues discussed there, and not to personally attack your efforts, Italiavivi. Can we put this behind us and keep moving forward on discussing and writing the article at hand? —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Bbatsell, thank you - that is why I placed it there, as I have explained above and elsewhere. My reminders of official policy that Wikipedia is not a democracy were prompted by the comment down below by an editor who suggested that his or her "side" "won". And that's why I don't particularly like the survey method, because it can be misconstrued as a vote. But nonetheless, I did not disrupt it. The hyperbole I refer to is using the word "evil", which I didn't, and the WP:VOTE essay doesn't either. And yes, I'd like to move on too. Tvoz | talk 00:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Bbatshell was the one who linked m:Polls are evil in past discussions. There are quite a few Wikipedians who subscribe to that opinion essay, and draw from it opposition to any survey whatsoever. The "evil" wording is in no way my creation. Italiavivi 01:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Punahou School

ok, you win. We'll let the sharp reader click the links and figure out that Punahou School is a very expensive and famous school and we'll let the point slip by the dull reader by not commenting on how great the school is. Frankly, I think that is being biased, not neutral, but I'll let it slide. Dereks1x 20:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Trying this description from http://www.punahou.edu/page.cfm?p=11 ("About Punahou", 2nd paragraph) --HailFire 07:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

good wording Tvoz | talk 18:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Father's ethnic group

Is there any good reason we can't link to Luo (Kenya and Tanzania)? Personally, I think that's one of the most interesting articles that someone reading this page could stumble upon.--Pharos 05:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I would support that; can you go pull out your dusty old copy of Dreams from my Father and find the quotation? Use citebook to cite it. --Hojimachong^talk 05:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

What quotation? That his Dad was Luo is all over the book. Page 9 to start with. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I added this information as a footnote with the wikilink, to avoid the sentence becoming too unwieldy. Tvoz | talk 07:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

But why hide the link in a footnote? His father's culture is at least as interesting as the color of his skin, which is quite fully discussed in the main text.--Pharos 16:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did so in order to keep the text as succinct and specific to the senator himself as possible - probably the same reason the description of his father's home village was shortened. If we're concerned about the length of the piece, we have to do that - but that was just my take on the best way to both incorporate interesting information and also keep the article lean and readable. Maybe someone else will have a better idea - I personally don't think this is crucial either to include or to exclude. Tvoz | talk 01:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it'd be good to incorporate it into the article's main text, not in a footnote, somehow. This is part of what Wikipedia's all about, interlinking relevant articles, and the Luo article is very well done. Italiavivi 01:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Trying this. --HailFire 07:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Not surprised that you came up with a way that works - fine with me Tvoz | talk 18:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the official trips section useful?

It seems to me that this section is irrelevant with the exception of the African trip and the HIV test. Other senator's wikipedia article do not have a official travel section. This may be because long time senators have made many trips. In the interest of neutrality, the trip section should NOT be there IF the purpose is to falsely convince the reader that the Senator is well travelled and therefore qualified in foreign policy (I must add that I am not saying this is the case). In the interest of fairness to other senator's articles, the official trip section should not be there unless the trip is newsworthy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dereks1x (talk • contribs) 03:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Slavery

How come no mention of how the fact his ancestors OWNED slaves could hurt his campaign image? Just an interesting though^[1]. Jmlk17 16:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussed up here if you'd like to comment. I think the consensus on the issue is clear there, though. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

new section on controversies (neutrally worded)

Shouldn't wiki be neutral and allow neutrally worded descriptions of controversies about Obama. If you don't have this, then wiki is not being neutral but hiding information. North Korea and Iran are countries that hide information from the public and Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece of North Korea. Do you favor neutrally worded mention of controversies in a new section or do you favor censorship like in North Korea? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dereks1x (talk • contribs) 20:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

That's a good question. Let's vote on it. Please vote "Neutral worded" or "North Korea." I'll start.
Neutral worded: I agree that wikipedia should embrace free speech instead of North Korea style censorship.Ogeez 18:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversies follow-up

My side won several of the votes on Obama controversies. What should we do about this now? We need to write about his smoking, blackness, dispute with Australia PM, and Fox News madrassa expose. Ogeez 00:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean your "side"? Also, the madrassa one is tied. Jiffypopmetaltop 00:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That's because you voted right before posting this message. Please stop being a WP:Troll.Ogeez 14:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Also it's not a vote. See WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY which is, by the way, official policy, not an opinion essay. Tvoz | talk 05:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I find your use of "my side" highly suspicious, Ogeez. Jiffy wasn't being a troll, so I wouldn't refer to him as that. The madrassah smear job by Fox News has its own article already. The criticism from Australian PM has already been noted. I'm sure the quit smoking with Obama thing will be in there soon, if it's not already. Doesn't look like there's much work left to do. --Ubiq 01:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Censorship of controversies is not being neutral, the hallmark of wikipedia. That's like omiting all mention of Watergate in a Nixon article or Whitewater in a Clinton article. Perhaps there could be a section under controversies near the end and just bullets with a description and a neutral analysis. Dereks1x 02:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hardly equivalent, and there's no censorship. Tvoz | talk 02:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

change in the info box at the top right????

Hey what happened? It used to be bigger! There was a section on occupation, which said "attorney, law instructor" and some other info.

Anyone remember what it said? If it's good, why not replace it?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.212.111.238 (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

His occupation is currently Senator, which is amply covered. Tvoz | talk 02:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Differences between articles

Hi all, first time that i write on a discussion and i'm not so good with english :) The question is: i see that Rudy Giuliani has his {{tl|Future election candidate}} template on the top of the article, why there's no such thing on Obama's? I see that Obama's article is blocked too, why did you choose not to place the template {{protected}}? Not a criticism at all, just to know!-- bs (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Bella - your English is fine! We do have the future election template, but it's in the section specifically about the 2008 presidential campaign, because that is the section expected to change rapidly as events unfold. Most of the rest of the article shouldn't be changing so quickly, so the template on top might be misleading and isn't needed there. There's no rule about where it goes, but when I see them on top for articles like this, I tend to move them down to the appropriate section. As for the semi-protection - the lock on the top indicates semi-protection, and the only users blocked are anonymous IP addresses and brand new user accounts. If you have a named account you';re welcome to edit - the reason is we've had a tremendous amount of vandalism, sometimes vicious, on this article by IP addresses. Not all editors here agree about this, and we've taken it off numerous times, but so far semi-protection has had to be reinstated because the vandalism quickly returns. Many of the major candidates, and many other articles on wikipedia, have similar semi-protection. As for the template - some of the editors here felt that the lock in the corner was sufficient and did not deface the article as much as the big template. It means the same thing, but is less obtrusive. The main purpose of the encyclopedia is to allow readers to get information as easily as possible, so some of us think the less obtrusive lock serves the purpose of protecting the article, but allows readers to read in a less distracted manner. Hope this answers your questions - just my opinion, of course. Welcome. Tvoz | talk 19:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't notice that obama's was just semi-protected (i didn't know enwiki way to flag protected and semi-protected pages, actually). Thank you Tvoz!-- bs (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

New info from Wall Street Journal front page

What do you think? From Obama's Past: An Old Classmate, A Surprising Call, Wall Street Journal, Vol. CCXLIX No. 68, March 23, 2007, p.A1

1. Keith Kakugawa, his Punahou classmate, is mentioned in "Dreams From My Father". The article has Keith's picture. Called "Ray" in the book.
2. describes Punahou School as "exclusive, mostly white Honolulu high school." WSJ article says "The two bonded, Mr. Obama wrote 'due in no small part to the fact that together we made up almost half of Punahou's black high school population' in a student body of about 1,700.
3. Kevin called Obama recently and "tensions rose when Mr. Kakugawa asked for some money to be wired via Western Union, according to both him and Ms. Adler. Ms. Adler brought in senior advisor Robert Gibbs, and together, they phoned Mr. Kakugawa last Saturday...the exchange left Mr. Kakugawa upset."
I think #1 might be relevant for wikipedia, but just a brief mention that Obama was featured in a front page article of the WSJ regarding an old friend who called him for monetary assistance, which was denied. It's front page news. That's news.

I think #2 and #3 are not relevant unless you want to modify the reference to Punahou school being "exclusive". It really it exclusive. That's now verified by the Wall St. Journal and about half a million Hawaiians can vouch for that. It's no surprise because the race to the Prez is tough. You need help like Punahou or Phillips Academy like the Bushs. MLK High in the inner city is not good enough. That's just life.

Some wikipedia articles have a "trivia" section, particularly the airline articles. Is that good for this article????Dereks1x 20:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's that relevant. In Dreams From My Father, Obama used different names to shield the identity of many people, not just Mr. Kakugawa. Also, I'm sure Obama has been asked for favors by many people, an old friend asking for financial assistance is nothing special. - PoliticalJunkie 20:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Besides many presidents went to ordinary schools, or less. Lincoln of course is the most famous example. If if was possible for any kind of school to prepare someone to be president then I think we should invest a lot of money to build more of them, :-) Steve Dufour 02:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with PoliticalJunkie - this happens all the time as someone moves into prominence and is not notable. As for Punahou, it is accurately described now. About a trivia section, no it is not good for this article. If something is notable, we'd include it in an appropriate place. Tvoz | talk 17:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

law firm

Obama's former law firm was described in the article as "civil rights law firm". This is biased so it's against wikipedia policy. It's also false. The firm does a whole lot of plaintiff stuff. Originally, I summarized it in one phrase. However, someone edited it out. As a compromise, I placed a link and just refered to it as a law firm.

Before people edited out the description of Punahou School as being well respected. If you're going to edit that out, then you should agree that "civil rights" law firm should also be edited out. There's an even stronger case because Punahou is well respected (no dispute) but it's a lie to say that the firm is primarly a civil rights law firm. Furthermore, wiki editors said people could just click the link to Punahou to see how good it is. The same now goes for the law firm.

The neutral POV is not to lie and mischaracterize the law firm. Either describe it in its entiretly (got edited out) or give a link and just describe it as a law firm. Dereks1x 21:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

From the Miner, Barnhill, & Galland website... the "About Us" section. [20]. "The firm has acquired a national reputation in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development work." Referring to something as a "civil rights law firm" is not giving it a POV. Calling it the "renowned civil rights firm" would be. Which is why that isn't what we did. Referring to the Punahou School as a private school is not POV, referring to it as "the famous and well respected private Punahou School" is. I hate to not assume good faith, but this appears to be more of a vendetta against us for disagreeing with the Punahou descriptor than a genuine intent to improve the article. Mykll42 22:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

As someone who stumbled on this page, I looked at the law firm's website. It looks like that do a whole lot more than civil rights. They also don't appear to be funded by donations. I suspect that civil rights is a small part of the firm's work. So my two cents are that it would be inaccurate to call it a civil rights law firm unless one wants to paint a false picture (perhaps as a campaign tactic). There's nothing wrong with a law firm doing other kinds of work! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TL500 (talk • contribs).

I see that this sentence was reworked to be more specific: it now indicates the nature of Obama's work in the firm, rather than characterizing the firm itself, so this complaint is now moot. Not necessary, by the way, to suggest that this was a "campaign tactic" or that anyone "wants to paint a false picture". You might notice that the referenced article refers to the firm as a "civil rights" practice which is likely where the original poster picked that phrase up from. Try assuming good faith, TL500, eh? Tvoz | talk 07:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Rather than a blanket (and somewhat vague and inaccurate) one word characterization of his law practice, more specifics were added. For example, a reference was added to pre-existing text in the article backing up the notion that he did employment cases and some voting issues. Also he continued to work part time after being a state senator, he did not quit as the old wikipedia version implies. Everything is neutrally worded. Someone (Bobbelhead) reverted the change....please don't do this especially because the old version was less specific and less accurate. Dereks1x 18:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You seriously need to learn how to follow links and use the history function, Dereks1x. Tvoz was the one that completely reverted your change.[21] I attempted to incorporate your changes into the article (albeit with bad grammar).[22] I'm not sure why you feel the need to delete that Obama was a civil rights attorney though as the sources you provide clearly say he worked on minority employment cases and minority voting rights. Both of which fall under the big banner of civil rights. --Bobblehead 00:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no evidence that he's board certified in civil rights. Attorneys can be board certified in a number of areas. Furthermore, employment cases, his main work, is not necessarily civil rights cases. One can sue for wrongful termination for many reasons. The current wording makes presumptions. It is more accurate to just say what kind of work he did, i.e. employment, voting, rather than a blanket statement of being a civil rights attorney doing employment and voting. That's like saying "GWB is an environmental president who was president during the cleanup of the World Trade Center". The first part of the phrase is opinion, the second is fact. The same goes for Obama's description.Dereks1x 18:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Except there isn't a variety of sources saying Bush is an environmental President like there is saying Obama is a civil rights attorney. I added a source saying he was a civil rights attorney, so can we stop deleting it now? Remember, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. --Bobblehead 01:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This is extremely DISTURBING that this wikipedia editor is suggesting that it's ok to put false information as long as it's verified (meaning that old lies are ok as long as someone else told the same lie before in print). In a related law firm matter in the Obama article (under the family life part), someone deleted the part that Obama and Mrs. Obama met at Sidley Austin LLP. This law firm is significant in that Mrs. Abe Lincoln was a client, that they are a very big and (disputable) prestigous firm, and they even have a long established wikipedia article. Any desire to add compromise language to include the name? (Bobblehead????)Dereks1x 15:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Bobblehead said nothing of the kind - what Bobblehead said is that the threshhold for inclusion is verifiability, in other words, truth alone is not enough, facts must be verifiable. So stop making accusations. As far as you r question above, no, I don't think the name of the law firm where Obama spent a summer and met his wife is particularly notable - I don't think it matters one way or the other and as you;ve been told, one of the things we try to do is keep the wordcount manageable. The context of that section is family - where they met hardly matters. The rest of the article by definition will grow, so there is no need for excess in these minor details. What we have is accurate, verified, and plenty comprehensive. Of great concern to me also is that you keep reverting the sentences about Miner. The wording I reverted to, which a number of editors have worked on and pretty much come to the same essence, are, again, accurate, verified, and enough detail. Continuing to re-insert the wording you want is not helpful and is disruptive. The sentence about working on law briefs is completely unnotable and unnecessary - that's why several editors have deleted it. So please stop re-inserting your wording unless you find consensus to do so here. Tvoz | talk 18:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not keep reverting changes about Obama's law firm. The old version had a blanket and potentially misleading statement that he was a civil rights lawyer. His cases were mostly employment cases. The new language has been developed as a compromise by several editors but you, Tvoz, all of sudden changed it back to the old wording. The compromise language had been there for a few days. Even wiki's policy is to revise, not blanket revert it back. What do you have against a neutral and verified description of obama's legal career? Please stop this! Dereks1x 20:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Dereks1x, I don't think there is consensus on your preferred wording, especially the removal of "civil rights". The wording is basically me trying to incorporate your additions in an NPOV manner and attributing the areas where you have concerns. As far as whether or not the wording should be in the article, I don't care. Based on edits, Tvoz and Hailfire appear to favor the removal of your edits. Based on that it seems one in favor of including, two against including, and one neutral. If you'd like, you can create an WP:RFC and present your preferred wording and Tvoz and Hailfire's preferred version and see if a consensus exists for the inclusion of one over the other. --Bobblehead 21:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

(****I think Derek1x put back in the term "civil rights" to compromise with you and make you happy****)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by HumanThing (talk • contribs).

Ok, quit fighting. I see there is a dialogue and useful interaction between Bobblehead and Derek1x. That's good. I must say that I disagree with Tvoz as far as her reverting back to the oldest version. To have some description appears to be better than blanket "he was a civil rights lawyer". Without commenting on Tvoz' political beliefs, an ardent supporter of Obama probably likes the blanket "civil rights lawyer" because it portrays a do-gooder but a lawyer who does employment law and some voting issues is less dramatic but more accurate. Furthermore, I see that compromise language incorporating both the "civil rights" term and a more description phrase has been added (and deleted by...let's not name names). Peace man...quit fighting, lehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&action=edit&section=26t's compromise! Let's use NPOV not a oversimplified version.HumanThing 22:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not revert to the oldest version or to "he was a civil rights lawyer". I reverted to HailFire's wording from the 21st which seemed to more accurately and succinctly describe this short part of his career. Further, I don't see the consensus that Dereks1x is claiming. I don't know what the point is of the sentence about not participating in any trials and writing law briefs (by the way, that's what non-trial lawyers do, it's quite far from notable). This is far more detail than is needed in this very minor part of the man's career, it seems to me, and I see no attempt to get consensus here for the additions. Finally, I don't know who you are, and you don't know what my political beliefs are, nor do you know who, if anyone, I am an ardent supporter of. So why don't you keep your characterization of this edit to yourself. Tvoz | talk 04:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Calm down, Tvoz!!! User: Human Thing did not call you an Obama supporter or anti-Obama person. See "without commenting on Tvoz' political beliefs...." The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dereks1x 14:27, 24 March 2007

The editor sniped him and he responded. I don't see how what he said needs to be calmed down. --Ubiq 08:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

After reading this subsection, I merely wanted to note that I believe certain editors are confusing Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies with the non-existent truth policy. That's it. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking over it again, this entire issue is specious. The firm is described here, a neutral source, as having "a national reputation in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development work" and does other legal work as well, but that sentence is the lead. The AP article printed in the International Herald Tribune that is cited quite clearly states that Obama "chose Miner's Chicago civil rights firm, where he represented community organizers, discrimination victims and black voters trying to force a redrawing of city ward boundaries." So characterizing it as a civil rights firm was never incorrect or POV or anything but accurate. We can go into more detail about what specifically he worked on, but it is excessive considering the short period of time - 3 years in the beginning of his career. I'm leaving that for now, but I would favor shortening it, as we have had to shorten all over the article. I've removed the entirely unnotable sentence that describes the common practices of an associate in a law firm: they work on briefs, contracts, and legal documents. There's nothing unusual or notable about this - I don't see it mentioned in other articles about people who were associates at the beginning of their careers, and it is not needed here. I am not saying it is untrue, and I know it is mentioned in the article cited, but a lot of other material is also true but also not notable for an encyclopedia article. And saying he "never participated in a trial while at the firm" sounds POV to me - as if that somehow diminishes his status. Perhaps you don't know how law firms work - most associates are not trial lawyers, they write briefs and appeals, and do the day-to-day work that is needed. So this is simply unnotable. FInally, I previously changed the incorrect syntax "as an Of counsel" and see it was reverted without explanation. An attorney does not work as an of counsel. They are of counsel. It is a legal term, slightly awkward, not all that familiar to the public, but if we're going to use it, we have to use it properly. His of counsel affiliation is minor - he maintained an association with the firm as lawyers often do when they move on to other activities or retire, and the article doesn't say that he worked there parttime for all of those years - being of counsel doesn't mean you necessarily work parttime throughout the time you have the affiliation. It says he "agreed to work for the firm in summer when the legislature was out of session." but that doesnt even clearly state that he did so throughout that time. His CV notes that he maintained an of counsel relationship, but without more research we don't really know what the nature of the association was (perhaps others have some other documentation). But the point is that all of this is extremely minor and unnotable, and I don't see the necessity for including it in the article. It is not a matter of coming up with compromise wording, it is a matter of accurate and verified representation of the notable items in his career - given the fact that we want to keep the article to a manageable size. I'm editing this paragraph again, accordingly. I see absolutely no consensus here among the editors who generally work on this piece, saying that we need all of that detail. And I think this issue has gotten way more attention than was needed. Sorry this is so long, but I think it was needed to be clear. Tvoz | talk 09:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the latest Tvox revision is close enough for a compromise. It doesn't give him the blanket term "civil rights lawyer" which is too close to "civil rights leader" which is what MLK is. Obama is no MLK. However, it does refer to his civil rights caseload. A small suggestion and revision, however. Not everyone knows what an associate lawyer does so a modifier, sort of a descriptive phrase, is appropriate. On the positive side, it shows that the guy is a team player, not a prima donna that insists on talking in court. The preceding comment was entered by User: Dereks1x.

To the best of my recollection it never said he was a "civil rights lawyer", has nothing to do with "civil rights leader" or Martin Luther King so stop bringing up red herrings or your opinion of Obama - whether you think he is like MLK, a team player, a prima donna or anything else. No one else is trying to show that the guy is anything - are you? I continue to say that the phrase about what he did on a day to day basis for 3 years at the beginning of his career is utterly unnotable and even the reason you just gave for including it smacks of POV. No one but you has said that it should be in, or why. So, once more, I'm taking it out which brings us back to wording that reflects what has been on this page for a long time and is consistent with what other editors have included and excluded. If you want to make some kind of reasonable argument, and achieve consensus here, that's another conversation. As far as people not knowing what associate attorneys do, the wiki article that has been linked there -attorney - spells it out quite clearly, but I'll change the link to point directly at the section description if that helps you. And could you please try to remember to sign your talk page comments? Thank you. Tvoz | talk 19:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It smacks on original research when you expect people to read the jobs an attorney link and think that's what Obama did. Furthermore, the link is flawed because there is no evidence that Obama wrote wills, trusts, deeds, real estate closings, derived a solution, disbursement of settlement funds, or other things that the wikipedia link says.

Since you don't like the truth, i.e. that he did not participate in any trials, I think that can slide providing it's mentioned what he did...contracts, briefs, etc.

This is done in the spirit of compromise, i.e. ok, you can delete the phrase I put in this morning but don't delete other older stuff. In wikipedia, you're supposed to revise as oppose to delete, when possible. I can (and did) compromise, can you?Dereks1x 23:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

1984

Should we do a write-up on the "1984" ad produced by the Obama campaign? That must be the awesomest political ad ever. Ogeez 14:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Last I looked, the Obama campaign says they didn't produce it. Has something changed this morning? Anyway, I think it would fit better at Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No, they definitely didn't produce it. It should go in the campaign article, not Obama's biography. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 15:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If the Obama campaign didn't produce it, and it's just some guy's YouTube piece, I'd say placing it in his article (even his "campaign article") violates Undue Weight. Italiavivi 01:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's gotten a LOT of coverage in the past 2 weeks. Barack talked about it last night on Larry King. Hillary even responded to it personally today. I think it's notable enough to go in the campaign article. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

So, does it warrant its own article, then? Or identical mentions at both Obama's and Hillary's articles? Italiavivi 21:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important to place these things in perspective. I am a reasonably informed person, and first heard of the youtube ad on this talk page a few days ago. And I first saw it mentioned in the media today. At most this probably deserves one line in the campaign article.--Pharos 02:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be (and I agree) that if this is included at all, it be in the separate presidential election article, so I am removing it from the main article where it was placed today. Tvoz | talk 06:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The origin of Obama's first name is presumably...

...the Islamic/Sufi word "Barakah," which roughly means (according to the article) "spiritual wisdom and blessing transmitted from God," "divine presence," "grace," "charisma," etc. Since his father was a Muslim this makes sense, that his first name is an Arabic word/Muslim concept. Do you all think that this warrants a mention in the article? Mr. Obama is quite well known for his personal "charisma," I believe, so it's interesting that this is sort-of what his first name means. --WassermannNYC 01:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

His father was an atheist, not a Muslim. Italiavivi 21:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No more than the mention of the derivation of anyone else's first name belongs in their article (although where an individual has chosen their own name, I suppose it would make sense.)Shsilver 03:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, WassermannNYC, the meaning of his name is mentioned in the article here, and has been there for a long time. Tvoz | talk 03:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I believe his father was actually an atheist. --Ubiq 05:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes but his father came from a Muslim background, yes? --WassermannNYC 10:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Tell me how and why it is relevant. I come from a Christian background but I am not Christian. In an article about me, why would the mention of Christianity be important? It seems an emphasis on what I've done it my life might be what you'd focus on writing about. At the moment, your suggestions smell of POV pushing (attempting to label or affiliate him with being Muslim when he clearly is not). --Ubiq 21:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

While his name may be related to baruch, it's related by Semitic etymology, rather than by a direct connection: it's like the way in which Salam Pax's name is related to shalom. Regardless of whether his father was atheist or not, his name

does seem to have its roots in the Arabic barakah. --Saforrest 03:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No doubt true, Saforrest. We have "baruch" in the article, because it was a point that Obama made regarding his name. Tvoz | talk 04:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

HELLO! Hebrew and Arabic are closely related (both Semitic languages). "Baruch" and "Barakah" are obviously closely related terms, as both mean roughly "blessing" (and similar terms: grace, charisma, divine favor/presence, etc). Seeing as his father came from a Muslim background (and thus likely had at least some familiarity with Arabic), there's no doubt the root of Obama's name is from the Arabic word Barakah [NOTE: sometiems spelled differently], and NOT from the Hebrew word "Baruch" because his father was likely to have MUCH more familiarity with Arabic rather than Hebrew. Also, didn't Obama briefly study at a Muslim school in Indonesia? There we would no doubt have been learning ARABIC, and not Hebrew. --WassermannNYC 10:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

his name is closer to barakah than baruch, and i've heard thats where his name came from.--Lerdthenerd 10:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"blessing" in Hebrew is b^erakhah. barukh is "blessed". - NYC JD (interrogatories) 11:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

WassermannNYC: (1) I'm curious how wherever Barack Obama Junior went to school has any relevance to the name he was given when he was born, or did you have another reason to insert that in this conversation? (2) Since he is Junior, then I guess we're talking about his grandparents' choice of name for his father, aren't we, so whatever familiarity his father had with Arabic is rather irrelevant, seeing as the name was given to him at his birth - am I wrong? and (3) Obviously the name derives from Arabic - as we say, it's an East African name and there's not much chance that Hebrew was known in the village of Nyanza province where B.O. Senior was born. The article says: Speaking to an elderly Jewish audience during his 2004 campaign for U.S. Senate, Obama linked the linguistic roots of his East African first name Barack to the Hebrew word baruch, meaning "blessed." The Senator made a point, linking the linguistic roots to the Hebrew word baruch (barukh) which apparently you agree with as it is patently true and Linguistics 101. It appears to me that he was trying to create some common ground of understanding with his audience, not erroneously claim that his name was actually from Hebrew. So am I missing a point about the article that you're trying to make? Tvoz | talk 18:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the direction this article is taking. My inclusion of the Arabic spelling of Obama's name has come under a lot of fire that I find hard to understand. It occurs to me that the reason, perhaps, is that the powers that be in this article's editing are worried about the political consequences of including the name. I'm sure it's obvious why that worries me. I want to make it clear that this is not a political statement. I'm not especially political myself, and haven't looked too much into the 2008 election. At the same time, it's important to provide information to those seeking it. We have a responsibility to the readership to provide such information. If my content were false or irrelevant, it would make sense to remove it -- but it isn't. He is and American of African lineage, yes, but his name is, without question, of Arabic origin. I can attest to a potential reader's interest in the Arabic spelling because I myself was interested in it when I saw the article. When I ran across the article, I noticed that the Arabic spelling was missing, found it, and added it. I realize that there's not much I can do to keep the Arabic script in the article if people with much more time than I are constantly watching over it. I have neither the ability nor the interest in engaging in such an edit war. I'm asking that those who object to its inclusion consider their own reasons in light of the mission of Wikipedia. If they would only do this, I have no doubt that they would see why my contribution deserves mention in the article as it was. It's not political, and it's not irrelevant. I understand the wish to protect the article on the part of Obama's supporters, but it's downright irresponsible to withhold relevant information, regardless of what you assume the political consequences might be. Mikehoffman 00:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is we should only be giving names in other writing systems for people who have actually used their names in those writing systems.--Pharos 00:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless that's a Wikipedia rule, it seems to me that we ought to err on the side of more information rather than less. Sure, it doesn't make sense to include names in other writing systems randomly, but my feeling is that linguistic origin is as good of a reason as the person's usage of another system. Mikehoffman 01:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Then you would be adding the Greek spelling for Michael Dukakis and Spiro Agnew as well? They were the sons of Greeks, like Obama is the son of a Kenyan, of the Luo ethnicity (note: not an Arab). It would be no more appropriate on those articles than it is on this one. And please don't make assumptions about the motivations of people who edit this article regularly, some of whom also edit Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Edwards, George W. Bush, Nelson Rockefeller, and occasionally George Washington, among many others. Your supposition that not including the Arabic spelling here is politically motivated is wrong, and unsupported. As for not wanting to edit war, that's good to hear, but the repeated reversions today come perilously close. Tvoz | talk 02:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the belittling and inappropriate response, in blatant violation of Wikipedia guidelines -- though I admit I was afraid for a few lines there that your contribution was going to become constructive. As far as the "Michael Dukakis" defense -- I see no reason not to include those types of things. Our task is to provide information. Names are culturally relevant. Sure, there might not always be a dire need for alternate writing systems' spelling, but there's no harm done in including them, and there will often be enough interest in these spellings to say that including them will really improve the articles.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikehoffman (talk • contribs)

Mike, my intention was not to belittle, and I apologize if it came across that way to you. However, I stand by the substance of my comment, and do not see how it was in any way inappropriate. (1) You said It occurs to me that the reason, perhaps, is that the powers that be in this article's editing are worried about the political consequences of including the name. and you said I understand the wish to protect the article on the part of Obama's supporters, but it's downright irresponsible to withhold relevant information, regardless of what you assume the political consequences might be.. Those comments impugn the motivation of the regular editors here. The regular editors here - and I am not talking about disruptive editors, I am talking about the numerous sincere, hard-working editors who have worked on this article - do not agree on everything, not by a long shot. Read this talk page and the archives and you'll see what I mean. But for the most part we reach consensus on the direction of the article - some do by surveying the group, others do it by attempting to persuade, but we don't edit with an agenda as you suggested. I pointed out to you the variety of articles that are edited by some of the regulars here, to indicate that any of us could just as easily be accused of being an Edwards or a Clinton supporter as an Obama supporter. (And the Rockefller, Bush, and Washington examples were not sarcastic - I for one have worked on all three.) (2) I think it would be odd to include the Greek spelling of Dukakis, and to me there is no difference between Dukakis and Obama on this. It wasn't a "defense", it was an observation. Our task is indeed to include information, but we make decisions all the time about which information to include. (3) The fact is that Barack Obama the man is not, to the best of our knowledge, of Arabic descent. So the fact that his name derives from Arabic is really irrelevant. (4) If my "editing war" comment was to you somehow out of line, I'm sorry, but again say that I'm glad that you don't want to edit war, because it would not be helpful. But reverting to your text three times in a day does come close. Finally, (5) As for whether any harm is done in including irrelevant information such as this, I'm sure you know that this article is a target for all kinds of vandalism, much of which has centered on Obama's supposed, but incorrect, Arab and/or Muslim background, ranging from the "Osamas" to the "madrassahs" and more. Adding his name in Arabic, since he is not of Arabic descent, might be giving mis-information, no matter how well-intentioned you are in suggesting it. So, since we try to proceed on this article by consensus, it appears you don't at present have it, since a few editors have removed your addition. This is not a shy bunch - if others disagree, I am sure we'll hear from them. Meanwhile, I think it best to leave the article as it is and discuss. Tvoz | talk 19:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

If your initial response wasn't intentionally belittling, then it was poorly-proofread. But point taken. As you can see, I haven't been adding the text back to the article, and it was never my intention to keep it there by force. That would be both irresponsible and uneffective, given the apparent convictions of those who moderate the article's content. I have every intention of addressing this omission through legitimate channels (i.e. this talk page), and as such, I expect that other editors will give my position the attention it deserves. I'd like to reiterate that I am NOT suggesting that the Arabic spelling belongs on the page because of his heritage. I'm well aware that there's little reason to believe that there is even a drop of Arab blood in Obama's veins. The name, however, is Arabic. It does not follow from Obama's non-Arab heritage that there is no reason to include the spelling of his name in the language from which it originates. We include the IPA pronunciation because the pronunciation might not be obvious to some readers. We don't include that information for every name. It seems to me that the same reasoning ought to apply to the spelling of names in their original languages. Neither necessarily has anything to do with the actual heritage of the individual, but each deserves mention. I'm more than willing to listen to the objections raised by those who oppose the Arabic text's inclusion. I would ask, though, that you would engage me (and, really, the topic) in a constructive way. Pharos, for instance, made his point in an appropriate fashion, and in doing so, he positively contributed to the conversation. Don't assume that new editors are any less intelligent or useful in the Wikipedia process than you are. Mikehoffman 21:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm. How do you spell "Barack" or "Hussein" in Luo? That's the only "original language" that would be relevant here, since Obama is neither Arabic nor has he (to my knowledge) any Arabic ancestry. We generally don't delve into the etymology of people's given names in articles about them; an article about me wouldn't need to mention that Joshua is יְהוֹשֻׁע in Hebrew. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC) ַ

Hi, this is Halfsense. On the subject of spelling, don't forget that lots of people in the American heartland aren't use to a single 'r', so they write it as Barrack. Matter of fact, it even found its way into Wikipedia. I found some, will fix now. ALEX

There is an inherent contradiction in asserting the reason the name was removed was for political reasons, then asserting its insertion would not be of political relevance. There is no reason to include the Arabic spelling of the name. He is not Arab, he is not Muslim, he does not write his name in Arabic, he's not even from an Arabic country. There is as much reason to add the Arabic spelling of his name as there is to add the Greek, Japanese, Chinese, or Swahili. Just because the name originates from Arabic (which, you've not prevented any evidence to suggest that was indeed its origin, as I'd hesitate to wonder if it actually derived from names from another culture), does not mean it should be written in such. Any more than you should write my own name, Keith, in old English. Nor would you write my mother's name in Hebrew, or any number of Americans' names in the corresponding language of that name's origin. If you wish to, however, create an article for the -name- Barack and Obama, and not the -person-, in some or another context, feel free. Barack Obama is an American, writes his name in English, ~~the official~~ standard language of America. I don't have anything against Arabic. I do have something against people inserting a politically charged and illogically, unreasonably placed line in a political leader's article. AltonBrownFTW 06:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This will be my last contribution to this discussion, as my participation is clearly not yielding anything. I have a lot of respect for the Wikipedia project, but this experience has been disheartening. It's shown me, above all else, that Wikipedia is dominated by coders, not intellectuals, and in that spirit, has little regard for intellectual freedom. That is disappointing, and like I said, this will be my last post. I felt that I should at least defend myself against the last post, though even a marginally careful reading of any of my prior posts would discredit the personal attacks launched in the previous poster's comment. The Arabic text was, in no way, politically charged, and I saw no reason why it should have been seen as such. My remark regarding the objection to it on political lines had to do with the sentiments that clearly dominate the editing of this article. My inclusion was not political, but the ideologues that censor this article no doubt felt that the mention of the origin of Obama's first and middle names could be harmful to the campaign. That strikes me as more than a bit racist, but that's not my business. The rest of the attacks offered in the post are almost verbatim repetitions of those offered by others who chose to read my posts only superficially, so if you're interested in my response to them, check the other posts. I'm confident that this post, too will be met with the same half-attention and will result in perhaps even more angry responses through the walls of the posters' mothers' basements. Of course, you should feel free to give these responses, but it's only fair that you know that I won't see them. Ideology has triumphed over intellectual freedom, so those of you who had hoped to shield Wikipedia readers from this information should be proud -- you've won. Again, feel free to gloat, complain, and dismiss to your heart's desire. I won't be reading this discussion page any more, but I'm sure your online girlfriend will be very impressed by your bravado! Mikehoffman 17:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't live in a basement. Are you saying that new users shouldn't even give Wikipedia a whirl? I made some fixes on Barack Obama spellings yesterday. Maybe it's not much, but someone's gotta start somewhere! Hope you'll reconsider leaving. There's room for everyone in this world. ALEX —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Halfsense (talk • contribs) 19:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

There is also the Hebrew word "Berakhah" which is of course very similar to both "Barakah" (Arabic) and "Baruch" (Hebrew). --172.132.140.158 08:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. That, added to the fact that Hebrew and Arabic are languages so deeply tied, in -so- many ways, is why I think that including the Arabic of his name, on this page, is trivial and irrelevant to him, better belonging to a page that discusses this very -complex- subject.AltonBrownFTW 17:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Move article to Barack Hussein Obama

I think this article should be moved to Barack Hussein Obama Bluppiblu 23:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The naming conventions say otherwise. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Making Obama - The Media Spin of "Mis-information"

Let's get the facts straight about Mr. Obama. He is a Freshman Senator, not a Junior Senator as you have clearly written, with hyper-text, in the first sentence of your facts paragraph. Do not make this man out for more than he is, he has next to zero national political experience yet all you people want is to make him President. Two years and two months, please he hasn't even been in office a full term, nor has he even run a state, let alone the United States. Why is it too, that the media does not talk about his Islamic up-bringing or is that to sensitive. I'm sure the Obamaites will whip-up some sort of spin to keep selling a poor bill of goods, but I wouldn't expect anything less.Chrispb-72 18:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Um. Every state that does not have a vacancy has a Senior Senator and a Junior Senator. The one who has been there the longest is Senior. The other one is Junior. That's all there is to it. You can be a Jr Senator and have been in the Senate for decades (see, for example, John Kerry and John McCain, both Jr Senators with more than 20 years service); and you can be a Sr Senator and in your very first term (Dianne Feinstein became Senator after a special election to fill a vacancy and took office on Nov. 10, 1992; Barbara Boxer was elected to a full term the same day, but didn't take office until the following January.) As far as his "Islamic up-bringing", well, he didn't have one. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

He most certainly DID have an islamic upbringing. In Indonesia he was registered as a "Muslim" in two of his Islamic schools, prayed regularly in mosques and every one of his names is Arabic. Not only "Hussein", but "Obama" and "Barak" are also known Arabic names. --The preceding unsigned comment was made by 68.161.101.218

- That's nothing. I hear the government is using Arabic numerals now. Eugenitor 17:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Funny Eugenitor. It's all a lot of laughs until you have a president who sympathizes with America's Muslim terrorist enemies. --The preceding unsigned comment was made by 68.161.101.218

He actually went to a secular school. The Fox News and Insight Magazine reports were debunked and FNC admitted their mistake. Not that it actually matters what his religion is. --Ubiq 05:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"The Fox News and Insight Magazine reports were debunked and FNC admitted their mistake." -I believe the claim here is that he was REGISTERED as a muslim in two of his elementary schools, regardless of the nature of the school itself. Has this claim been debunked and if so please cite a source.129.98.225.131 15:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not cite your source? You're the one making the claim. --Ubiq 22:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, it wouldn't matter much what he was registered (and I still dispute this) as an elementary school student. He affiliates with the United Church of Christ as an adult. That's a bit more recent don't you think? --Ubiq 22:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is more recent, but it is also closer to his policitical career which might make his current affiliation with the Christian religion suspect as a means to cover up his alleged Muslim background as polls show that would hurt him greatly in his political life. 68.161.55.96 18:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This statement is the biggest load of POV-pushing spinster crap I've read in ages. You're off your rocker if you think phrases like "his current affiliation with the Christian religion is suspect" will appear in this article. There is no "his current affiliation with the Christian religion" (laughable weasel wording) -- he is Christian, the end. Italiavivi 21:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course it will not appear because you and the rest of the Obama crew fascists won't allow anything in the article that doesn't scream "Obama in '08". This article is nothing more than a campaigning tool, anything else is deleted immediately.

I will do some research for you this weekend and have a source for you about his registration as an elementary school student this coming Monday.68.161.55.96 18:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It's me from the last comment on another computer Here is the source I promised: The following is a link to a Los Angeles Times story dated March 15, 2007. The LA Times is a known pro-Obama newspaper. Here's the article: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obama15mar15,0,5315525,full.story

Here is a quote from the article: "His former Roman Catholic and Muslim teachers, along with two people who were identified by Obama's grade-school teacher as childhood friends, say Obama was registered by his family as a Muslim at both of the schools he attended."

Barack was called Barry in Indonesia. And here's what someone who knew him told the LA Times

"His mother often went to the church, but Barry was Muslim. He went to the mosque," Adi said. "I remember him wearing a sarong." This is a valid source and this story should be mentioned in the article. It is very noteworthy as to the canditade's childhood background as this likely shapes his world-view as an adult. The previous unsigned commment was added by User: 69.125.108.189 at 01:56, 2 April 2007

Your representation of that article is disingenuous at best. Every source I'm reading in that article affirms what's already known, and no one in the article alleges that Obama was "a practicing Muslim." Quite contrary: The childhood friends say Obama sometimes went to Friday prayers at the local mosque. "We prayed but not really seriously, just following actions done by older people in the mosque. But as kids, we loved to meet our friends and went to the mosque together and played," said Zulfin Adi, who describes himself as among Obama's closest childhood friends. I'm reverting your POV-pushing characterization, and would note that anything else mentioned in the LA Times article you link has already been covered in the article. Italiavivi 22:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with these points, also concur with Bbatsell on edit summary - the post was an interpretation not supported by the source or by this talk page discussion as claimed. Tvoz |talk 22:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you Obama campaigners are quite a team. Quite a team indeed. If anyone had any doubt that Obama doesn't have a full time staff monitering this article. All doubt should be erased now. What a joke -I challenge ANYONE HERE to read this LA Times article and tell me I'm misrepresenting it. Either these people are stupid or fascits. You choose. Read it and then see if you think these fascists are correct when they say that "Everything" in the article is already covered on the wiki page. If this we'ren't such as scandal it would be a laugh. -but of course I assume good faith, as you guys do too, reverting cited sources in not time flat! Unbeleivable.

You misrepresented the article as having called Obama a "practicing Muslim," the very antithesis of what Obama's childhood friends describe in the L.A. Times piece. This has nothing to do with support for/opposition to Sen. Obama, and everything to do with your distortion, not to mention your now-obvious political agenda. Also, cease your personal attacks (I'm a "fascit"?). Italiavivi 23:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The "ever-present Obama" article.

I've been trying to word this tidbit in a fair manner, but the more I look at its source (a blog post from RealClearPolitics [23]), the more I have a problem with its reliability. The author, Nathan Gonzales, paraphrases all of Sen. Obama's responses to his questions.

When I asked the Obama campaign about those votes, they explained that in some cases, the Senator was uncomfortable with only certain parts of the bill, while in other cases, the bills were attempts by Republicans simply to score points.

I had mistakenly placed the phrases "uncomfortable with only certain parts of the bill" and "attempts by Republicans to score points" within quotation marks, assuming them to have been Sen. Obama's responses, but now realize that Mr. Gonzales has provided no directly quoted responses from Sen. Obama in his blog post. Due to its origin (a conservative blog), and the fact that it provides none of Sen. Obama's actual responses, I question its reliability as a source for this article. In previous Talk discussion, there was a fairly solid consensus (including from anti-Obama-POV editors) that Obama's past "present" votes were neither extraordinary nor notable. Should this become an issue covered by reliable sources, we can re-visit it later. Italiavivi 22:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. However, with the full context it sounds reasonably accurate, though I don't think it is super notable, many politicians do this, both the gotcha side and the avoiding the vote side. Augustz 01:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure focusing on the abortion bills represents undue weight as both sides were represented in the paragraph. Undue weight doesn't necessarily mean focusing on one topic, but rather focusing unnecessarily on one viewpoint or in excess of what the topic is worth. This is particularly true when the only "present" votes that are really drawing attention is his votes on the pro-life bills. That being said, I'm not strictly opposed to the "present" issue being removed as the only source that's calling the present votes an issue is Gonzales's op-ed piece. However, his votes against the partial birth and the "Born alive" bills (either as a "no" or a "present") being an issue has been mentioned in a number of reliable sources.[24][25] So I don't see a reason why those votes can't be included in a sparsely covered state legislature section. --Bobblehead 01:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Describing "Present" votes as "votes against" is POV. Italiavivi 15:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Smoking

Would the fascists who control this article allow some mention of his smoking habit? This been discussed quite a bit in the media and could become a campaign issue. Of course, if we want the article to remain an Obama advertisement, we might want to sweep his nicotine addiction under the rug. Ogeez 19:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not very civil. A better way to describe it would be this: "Obama's cigarette smoking is getting increased press coverage lately and I think it merits mention in this article. I believe there was a poll out recently (the standard "Would you vote for a qualified _____ for president?" poll) which showed that a large percentage of people would not. I think this merits mention in the article." I would agree that it should go on his campaign page, but not here. The fact that Senator Obama smokes is not notable. The fact that it may affect his campaign, and that his campaign has responded with a "Quit Smoking With Barack" program, is. But not here. Lots of people smoke. Mykll42 20:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So basically the answer is, "No, but we can stick it in an article that no one will ever read." Out of curiosity, does the Obama campaign have a full time staff of volunteers devoted to running this article? There's nothing to prevent that from happening. Given the way any mildly negative information gets suppressed, it wouldn't surprise me. The ironic thing is I think Obama would be better served by un unbiased account of his potential strengths and flaws. But I guess you would rather make this into a second Obama campaign web site. Maybe we should put up a link where people can make donations. Ogeez 22:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't think his being a smoker is negative information and I think his attempt to quit will strike a positive chord with the electorate. My problems with it are not the NPOV issues but the notability issue. About 25% of Americans smoke. I do agree that the election page could be more prominent. Oh, and I don't work for the Obama campaign. Please be civil. Mykll42 22:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil Ogeez and assume good faith of other editors. Referring to editors as "fascists" or accusing editors of working for Obama is not a good way to go about improving this article or any articles on Wikipedia. This article is NPOV and well referenced. It was even a featured article at one point. The Obama smoking issue is not relevant to his notability, per BLP. I understand he has recently quit (or is still currently trying to quit), and this fact may be relevant given that it's generated the note that it has (do a google search for Obama quit smoking if you must), but since he's decided to quit and there's not been any proof of him smoking since, calling him a smoker in this article would qualify as original research, which is not allowed. I know it may appear this article is biased in favor of him, but it has been strictly upheld and maintained per wikipedia policies. Obama just happens to not have generated a lot of negative note, (real) criticism, or (real) controversy.

It might help not to look at articles like "We need to have a balanced amount of positive and negative information in this article". Rather, look at it like "We need to use NPOV language/wording, and include relevant, notable information about this person/thing/place/idea in order to represent accurately the person/thing/place/idea we are writing an article about." --Ubiq 23:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Just look back at the rest of this talk page. Every time something negative comes up, it is deemed "not notable." Yet the article includes shameless puffery such as: "The Washington Post noted his ability to work effectively with both Democrats and Republicans, and to build bipartisan coalitions." Is there any other politician who gets this type of treatment? I make no apologies for referring to the editors of this article as fascists, nor for accusing them of working for Obama. Just because they use polite language and come up with excuses like "undue weight" for rejecting negative information does not justify the ridiculous pro-Obama bias of this article. It's not like you're fooling anyone. People will come here looking for answers to questions like "Does he smoke?" or "Is he Muslim?" and instead see this puff-piece that refuses even to acknowledge these issues. Ogeez 00:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because he isn't Muslim. It is clearly indicated in its own section that he joined the United Church of Christ in his 20s. The only issue I have is that more should be explained about how his mom disliked organized religion and his step-father was somewhat secular also. That would finally clear up the whole Muslim thing. But this is completely offtopic. As for on topic stuff, WP:SMOKERS clearly says quitting or smoking does not matter unless it plays an integral part of his life. Sure there are "multiple available citations" but that "does not mean it is notable for inclusion in a Wikipedia article." Gdo01 00:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop right there. WP:SMOKERS is an essay I assembled, one looking for consensus concerning article subjects who are smokers. It is not in any way official policy. I myself am actually of the opinion that Obama's public effort to quit smoking is notable enough for inclusion in the article. Italiavivi 02:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

My mistake but I still don't think quitting smoking is important until he makes it important. He only seriously addressed it once and has not seemed to address it again. Gdo01 00:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. You win. According to official Wikipedia policy, we are not allowed to mention the smoking habits of a guy who wants to be president of the United States and a role model for children. You guys certainly know Wikipedia policy better than I do. I'll give you that much. Maybe we could start a new policy on WP:How_his_parents_met that would say statements like this are not notable: "His parents met while both were attending the East-West Center of the University of Hawaii at Manoa, where his father was enrolled as a foreign student." Or is that more important that his smoking? Ogeez 00:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to ask you again to not call me a fascist. The object here is to create an encyclopedia article. Between 15-25% of Americans smoke. Barack Obama the Senator smoking is not notable. As an aspect of his political campaign, it is. I note you haven't added anything to the (unprotected, btw) campaign page, or its discussion page for that matter. If we were truly trying to remove negative information, don't you think his past cocaine use would be the first to go? Mykll42 00:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

His smoking might not be notable, but his very public effort to quit smoking is. The Obamas have been very open about it, with countless reliable sources available. Italiavivi 02:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Winston Churchill smoked and drank regularly. Hitler did neither. The point being, smoking has nothing to do with leadership capacity and quality. 205.202.240.101 16:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above point.

Ogeez, the article is not "ridiculously pro-Obama biased". You're not doing anything to contribute to this article or wikipedia. You came to the wrong place if you were looking to smear a presidential candidate you don't like. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to include relevant, representative information about something. That's what this article does, and it's a fine example of a good article. The problem with including a lot of the "negative" information you want to be included is, none of it is notable. Read the policy. If he were to say something blatantly racist and there was a public reaction/outcry, such that it generated plenty of note, it would be included in this article, regardless of the political affiliations of the editors. But somehow I don't see him doing something like that, so people who see him as a threat will continue coming here to find out why his article is so "biased". --Ubiq 02:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I wish every political figure had as good an article as this. Steve Dufour 19:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be rad to include a fully contextualized discussion of Obama's smoking including the fact that individuals with lower incomes (working-class) are more likely to smoke than those with higher incomes. Also, why doesn't GWB's page list his cocaine use? Probably it's controlled by "fascists" as well. -- Autumninjersey 18:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Smokin' Obama ! Consider the moment when we first learned that Obama smoked. Did it skewer, however briefly, previous thoughts we held of him, whether yea or nay? Probably. Ok, certainly. Now, after becoming aware of such, did our opinions of him become sufficiently altered that our perception of the man took a new form? Probably, not. If we liked him, we continued to like him. If we didn't, then we continued to not. Net effect of all of this is that the smoking issue is, well, just that, an issue for each of us personally. But, is it an issue of encyclopedic proportion. History says no. Current events say yes. If we decide yes, given the current free-flowing content of Wikipedia, then logic guides to mention, for all public figures, their smoking habits [John Brown, smoker; Jane Brown, non-smoker]. Because if the smoking habit of one is sufficient for encyclopedic entry, then the non-smoking habit of another becomes equally necessary. Since no one is prepared to do that, I vote we leave it out [though it bothers me, personally, that he smokes]. --Free4It 23:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that including it would be an example of recentism. I don't agree that if it's included in one article, it should be included for all articles — notability of a specific event or characteristic should be determined on an article-by-article basis. I'm certainly sympathetic to the argument that it should be included since the media made a (relatively) big deal out of it a few weeks ago — this has entirely died down, though. If it comes up again in a big way in the campaign, then it should probably be included, at the very least in his 2008 campaign article as a campaign-related issue. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It bears pointing out for the sake of newer users that WP:RECENT is an opinion essay, not a Wikipedia guideline or Wikipedia policy. It is a concise expression of opinion, and does not carry inherent weight in determining article content. I am also personally of the opinion that WP:RECENT directly contradicts WP:NOTABILITY, which is a guideline, in that the notability policy specifically states that notability is generally permanent. Italiavivi 17:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: On Larry King Live, March 19, 2007, Barack re-affirmed he is still an ex-smoker - now even more on a non-issue. There is no need to note all the ex-smokers in bios! Samatva 09:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Except when they bring it up on every interview they give... Obama's made his quitting notable. --Bobblehead 04:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the fact that he, and the media, keep making it public issue,that he is quitting smoking is certainly worthwhile to put on here Vegeta206 22:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps in the meantime someone can edit the article? as it stands, the line about Obama's former smoking habits sounds like an advertisment for nicorette gum. I dont think it's relevant to include what brand of gum he used, or even if he used it at all. 198.186.64.22 00:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I still don't know that this paragraph is the best place for the smoking mention. I like the way the sentence is written now, but does it belong in a section on his early life, right next to talk of pot and blow? Italiavivi 05:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree - I changed "family and religious life" to "Personal and religious life" and moved it there. That seems to work - do you agree? Tvoz |talk 05:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"Personal life" is definitely an ideal place for mention of smoking. Italiavivi 16:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

^ http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/03/more_ancestry_n.html

[1] ttp://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/03/more_ancestry_n.html

[1]