Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

college

When did he graduate college? --In Defense of the Artist (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

See "Early life and career". He got his BA from Columbia in 1983 and his JD from Harvard in 1991. johnpseudo 18:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Photograph

I, for one, would like to see a better picture of him for the top of the article. The current one reminds me of a bad driver's license photo. 75.16.248.253 (talk) 05:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

race

Where is the discussion of race on the talk page? Shouldn't he be labeled Multiracial instead of African American? He is not black or white. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The U.S. Senate Historical Office considers him to be African-American. (Formerly, this was attributed to that office rather than stated directly by Wikipedia itself; I'm not sure why that change was made, but presumably it's because of a lack of contention and a desire to keep the lead section simple.) He's considered African-American in addition to being multiracial because being an African-American is not conceived of as "all-or-nothing": it means that you are an American with recent African heritage, not that your ancestors have all been exclusively 100% African-American or black (a standard by which even Al Sharpton couldn't be considered African-American). If an American with 50% Kenyan ancestry is not African-American, than what about one with 75% Kenyan ancestry? 99%? Where do you draw the line? In any case, this seems to be the standard usage; our Halle Berry article, for example, lists her as "the first African-American woman to receive a Best Actress Academy Award", even though her mother was white. -Silence (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In the US it's based on self-identification, there is no line to draw. However I couldn't find a source for his self-identification. Personally, I think it's a very racist attitude to say that pure European ancestry is white, and any part African is black (aka African American). Clinton's article doesn't call her a European-American. Well if the Senate page says he's African American, then he is. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

First off, "black" is not a synonym for "African-American", as commonly used (especially in a text intended for international readers, like Wikipedia). That may be the main source of your problem: pretty much no one disputes that Obama is African-American, but there is more controversy over whether he is "black", because of the many complex connotations of that term in U.S. society. "African-American" and other heritage designators are not mutually exclusive, unlike "white" and "black": it is entirely possible to be both "African-American" and an "Asian-American", for example. (Indeed, we have Tiger Woods categorized under both Category:African American sportspeople and Category:Asian American sportspeople; whether he or Obama are "black" is something of a nonissue, and not for Wikipedia to unilaterally decide.) Clinton's article doesn't call her a European-American because third-party sources do not make note of that, whereas they regularly make note of Obama's heritage. -Silence (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I added the pronunciation of Barack in the opening section and it was removed (with the comment 'Why?'). Since I often hear people - even BBC news reporters - refer to him wrongly as [ˈbærək], I thought it was a useful addition to the article.--Sdoerr (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Changed it to English pronunciation. kwami (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Photo byline quoting estimate by campaign staff

The text below the picture says "Obama's campaign estimates 20,000 people attended this event", with a source of two separate news articles, both giving only Senator Obama and his campaign as sources of the attendance numbers. In the first instance, it specifically states the number is an estimate given by the campaign. In the second, Senator Obama is quoted as mentioning crowds of 20,000 in his stump speeches. Should what Senator Obama tells supporters during stump speeches or an estimate by his campaign be considered encyclopedic? Crowd estimates are notoriously skewed depending on who you ask, supporters or the opposition, on this I hope we all agree. I think the text below the picture would be better left as just the first sentence, "Supporters at a campaign rally in Austin, Texas, on 23 February 2007", which is factual and verifiable.

I removed "continues to draw large crowds" below the same picture not six months ago (large? larger than what?), though I guess someone really wants to quote those two news articles which repeat the campaign and Senator Obama mentioning crowds of 20,000. I'm sorry, I just don't think that either of them are an unbiased source for that information, nor, speaking towards the number being verifiable, do I trust the reporter (from one of the two sources) who repeatedly referred to a standing senator as "Mr.Obama". Revolen (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good call. I dislike a lot of extra information and/or opinions being put in picture captions anyway. Redddogg (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Condensed caption. --HailFire (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

A bit more family back ground please

For those of us who would be spared 3-5 hours of surfing if it is simply included here, let me suggest that some more info on this guy's father (a Senior Official in the Financial Section of the Government of Kenya with a Harvard Phd, which I guess means that he should be identified as Dr. Obama, best guess I have is that he is sort of notable and maybe should have his own biog). For the sake of simplicity somewhere (maybe just here in the discussion if it offends everybody's sensibilities) a very brief almost maybe just a statistical mention maybe just the names and numbers and dates for his mother's family slaves, (especially answering the question: did his mother's family still own their slave/s in 1863 ? I.e. at the time of Lincoln's Proclamation), Maybe it is irrelevant however if someone whose mother's family owned slaves(and his father's family--being East African Muslims of some wealth-- likely also owned slaves) is put forward as a great representative of the African American Equality movement despite being the descendant of their opressors, perhaps he or someone else needs to deal with the issues of him being a wolf in sheep's clothing sort of thing here. John5Russell3Finley 23:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Your rant is not all all relevent to this article (or the discussion of the article for that matter). Please see Wikipedia is not a soapbox for further explanation. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Loonymonkey: The issues raised by John5Russell3Finley are valid issues for discussion. The article is written as an advertisement for Obama. There is no criticism of him and inconvenient facts about him are completely left out of removed entirely. At one time, there was information about Obama attending a Muslim-centered elementary school when very young, but that information has been removed. This article does not have balance. It puts a halo on Obama's head. Now, I don't necessarily agree with everything that John5Russell has written, but your flippant dismissal of his comments is inappropriate.--InaMaka (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Except, InaMaka, that there is information about the false rumor regarding his attendance at a Muslim school as a child in Jakarta - read the Presidential campaign section. (And Loonymonkey is correct that the talk page is for constructive discussion of ways to edit the article, not a place to vent someone's own personal POV agenda as the previous commenter was doing.) Tvoz |talk 17:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not state that Obama attended a Muslim school. I stated that he attended a "Muslim-centered" school. According the outside article that is referenced in this article, Obama was listed as "Muslim" on his paperwork and child that were considered Muslim--whether they were or not--were encouraged to practice Islam. So, no, what you stated above is incorrect. I was not repeating the "false rumor." I am stating facts that are not in the article. Also, John5Russell3finley has a right to express his opinion whether you or Loonymonkey agrees with that opinion or not. Now, his comments can and should be worked into the article if John5 has outside reliable sources to back up his claims. And, once again, the comments of another editor should not be dismissed out of hand by Looneymonkey or any other editor. That is not in line with Wikipedia process.--InaMaka (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. He doesn't "have a right to express his opinion," at least not in a Wikipedia article. NPOV is one of the core prinicipals of Wikipedia as well as the fact that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. There are plenty of places out there on the internet in which one can rant to their heart's delight about whatever opinions and theories they patched together during "3-5 hours of surfing" but this isn't one of them. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Not true. You don't like what he stated, but that has nothing to do whether he has a right to express an opinion. He did suggest changes to the article. Now, you don't like those suggestions, but whether you agree with the suggestions or not does not negate his right to express opinion on those changes. Now, there are plenty of places out there on the Internet where you can go to express your dislike of his opinion, but that does not negate his right to express his opinion about changes to the article. You don't like his opinion, but that is not the criteria that Wikipedia is based upon. Also, Obama attended a school as a child that described Obama as "Muslim" and that school did encourage children that were classified as "Muslim" to practice Islam, whether they were really Muslim or not and those facts have been removed from the article. So, yes, the article does place a halo on his head. It does not touch on facts that might be considered by some to be negative and it does not provide substantive criticisms of his opinions and work, which almost all bios have--as long as those criticisms fall within the rules of BLP. So to sum up, John5 expressed his opinion on a substantive change to the article, which is his right, and then you stated that he is on a soapbox, which he was not, because apparently you did not like his suggestion. Now, we don't know if those changes are valid or should be implemented because he did not outline what he wanted the changes to and he did not provide reliable sources to back up his claims, but that is another issue. I'm not even sure that I agree with his premise, but we can't have people running around throwing out the soapbox claim without more evidence. That does not agree with the premise of Wikipedia.--InaMaka (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Really? What specific changes did he propose to the article? I've just re-read the rant that started this whole thread and I still can't figure out what he is actually proposing for the article. There's something about Obama being a "wolf in sheep's clothes" because his mother's ancestors may have owned slaves but that's just conjecture. There isn't any new (or credible) information given and there aren't any suggestions for how this opinion would be incorporated into the article. There's no point in going back and forth here. This talk page is for discussing proposed changes to the article. Complaining that ones own opinions aren't represented in the article isn't a proposed change, it's just a rant. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you are wrong.--InaMaka (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)That a great-great-great-great-grandfather on his mom's side owned two slaves and, based on some uncorroborated generalization based on his father's family's religion, geographical origin, and wealth, that a distant ancestor on his father's side may, or may not, have owned slaves. All in all, nothing to see here, best to let it drop and move on, Loonymonkey. You're just feeding the trolls. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No, Bobblehead, I'm not a troll. However, if you would like to get into a match where we call each names I don't think that is within the rules of Wikipedia. I have suggested a change to the article. Obama attended a public school that provided time for students to engage in religious activity. He was characterized as "Muslim" whether he really was or not. That information should be in the article.--InaMaka (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

1) Please add more info about Obama Sr and his family.

John5Russell3Finley (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

2) A statement that Sen. Obama comes from a Slaveholding family who were dispossed of some of their slaves under the emancipation proclamation seems to me justified given Oprah Winfrey's Performance on TV Today, which was really spread very thickly on the News especially 10 Dec 2007 PBS News Hour. I think this belongs in the Cultural and political imagesection. Its controvercial nature makes it more relevant and the man bites dog performance from Oprah Winfrey makes this very clear as of Today. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Point 2): I do not agree that anyone living today should have to suffer comments about the actions their ancestors 5 generations back. They are somewhat interesting anecdotes; that is all. They are pointless in (brief) encyclopedic articles that appear on Wikipedia, except, possibly, for someone who descended from royalty. Anecdotes about former slaveholding ancestors of current public figures are appropriate for "entertainment-news" stories on CNN, FoxNews, Oprah, and in book-length biographies - not here. (If you were interviewing for a job, do you think it is appropriate for a prospective employer to consider information about the actions of your maternal great-great-grandfather?) Charvex (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

First black president

I took this sentence out of the intro:

If elected, Obama would become the first black U.S. president.

I think that there are several problems with it. For one thing WP is not a crystal ball. This alone prevents us from making statements about what might happen in the future, if I understand the policy correctly. Secondly, although in the USA most people would consider Senator Obama "black", some people would not and in Africa and other parts of the world he would not be considered "black." The third reason is that probably some of the other presidents probably had black ancestors too, so they might be called "black" under the One drop rule. I have heard this said about President Buchanan, but couldn't find an online reference that said so. I think I read it in the book Before the Mayflower. I will also check out Senator Clinton's article and see if it says she will be the first female president. BTW someone pointed out the Secretary of State Rice might end up being president in 2008 if Bush and a couple of others die. That would beat 'em both. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 05:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hillary's campaign article says: "No woman has ever been nominated by a major party to run for President in the history of U.S. presidential elections." I went ahead and put the same kind of sentence here and in the campaign article. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I utterly disagree with this here and on the campaign article and have reinstated the text. This is not a crystal ball matter at all - I think you misunderstand the guideline. This is a true, sourced statement, not a prediction. Use common sense, please. The point about Obama not being black is not worthy of answering has been responded to many times on the talk pages of this article, and Wasted's point about Rice was facetious - and it would be Bush, Cheney, Pelosi and Byrd before we got to Rice: we'll worry about that when the time comes. Tvoz |talk 06:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

How is the point about Obama not being black "not worthy of answering"? His mother is white, his father is black.

Some would say that makes him black. Some would say it means he isn't. I can't say I care either way, but it's certainly inappropriate to dismiss it as an issue entirely.

Though I don't presume this was your intention, you certainly implied, "of course he's black. There's no way a reasonable person could ever believe anything else", which, of course, would be combative, uncooperative, and unprofessional. (Again, I don't presume this was your intention; merely how it looked.) 209.90.135.57 (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys. I see that the consensus is against me so I will not argue about this anymore. I still think a statement about what might happen in the future does not belong in an encyclopedia article. I also didn't mean to say that everybody who says Obama is not "black" is unreasonalbe. I am an American over 50, having grown up in segregated America, so to me he is certainly "black", or "negro" as we said back then. To younger people he might be "mixed race" however. Cheers to all. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"Combative, uncooperative and unprofessional"? In that case, I modified my intemperate comment above to remind Steve that the point has been discussed many times here, as I believe he might recall. I will change the sentence in the article to read "African American" in place of "black", although if you'll look at African American, you'll see in the first line that the terms, in America, are more or less interchangeable. And, in my opinion, this is a lot of smoke over a non-issue. Tvoz |talk 20:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Latin Language interwiki

Latin Wikipedia (i.e. Vicipaedia) now has an entry for Barack Obama. Please add the following interwiki to this page: [[la:Barack Obama]]. Thanks, 71.208.238.48 (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Added here. --HailFire (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Barack HUSSEIN Obama?

I doubt this is correct! Why should he have the same surname as Saddam Hussein (unless he is Saddams son of course)? Solomon Stein (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Hussein is Barack's middle name. By the way, Hussein is not Saddam's surname - Arabic naming conventions differ from Western conventions. Hussein was Saddam's father's name.--Rise Above The Vile 21:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

added drug specifics

added the part about how he said he used drugs to help him in his book.RYNORT 22:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the information you added was both factually and grammatically incorrect. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment on complaint about lack of criticism section, which was removed just before I hit "Save page"

I am a Republican who likes Senator Obama, but probably will not vote for him. I would much prefer to read an article telling the positive points about someone. Of course criticism should be mentioned but it shouldn't be the major thing. I would like to see the other articles more like this one rather than the other way around. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Political Positions?

As I assume most people would, I can here looking for an enumeration of his political positions. I find it beyond strange that there is none. The closest thing I could find is the statement that he took the opposing position to Alan Keys on a number of issues. Erikmartin (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

His positions are located at Political positions of Barack Obama. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Parity with Hillary Clinton Wikipedia site?

I'm not a political partisan but love presidential politics - particularly during incumbency change. In that light, I see a stark distinction between the Hillary Clinton website and the Obama Wiki site (as well as other candidate sites). So, I'm wondering if there is parity between the authorship agreements between all candidate sites. My impression is that the Clinton writers crafted her Wiki site to have no edges. This quality is not the same for the Obama Wiki site, for example (IMHO). Is it possible that Wiki editors are developing the Clinton Wiki to be superior to the Obama (Edwards, Romney, McCain, and Giuliani) Wiki(s)? If you review all of the comments in all the major candidate Wiki's - one can understand the general principle of this assertion. But then again, who has time to do that aside from junkies like me ... Oxford Den (151.197.127.231 (talk) 04:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)). (Oxfordden (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC))

• Well, there's no distinction between "writers" and "editors" here. What changes or improvements would you suggest? You can make them on your own, of course. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Jpgordon, many of the political Wiki sites have restrictions on editing. As I'm truly unfamiliar with the hierarchy of who can restrict the editing I just want to point out hte disparity. On some sites, my (well referenced) comments continue to be removed by the 'owner'. Perhaps I'll have to spend some time reading about how that works ... thanx .... OxfordDen (151.197.127.231 (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)) ... (Oxfordden (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC))

Wikipedia does not have "owners" of articles, it's actually prohibited here. However, this article is currently semi-protected, which means IP editors (such as yourself) and new users can not currently edit the article. You are more than welcome to post suggestions on the talk page, or if you have a specific edit that you'd like to make, just post it here with an explanation of where in the article you'd like it. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I would make a wild guess that there are more Obama supporters here on WP than those of any other candidate. Even if this article is not "owned" it is well defended against attacks by Republicans or fans of Hillary. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I just checked out Hillary Clinton article and it does seem to be better written. On the other hand, it contains far more negative information than this one. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, Hillary has been in the national public eye for a lot longer and accumulated a lot more negative things than Obama has. Not to worry, I'm sure Barack will start piling them up soon enough. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Then again, she is running on "experience" not "nice person-ness" :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 06:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW Alan Keyes, although a minor candidate, has a very nice WP article and Wikiquote page. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Barack Obama on The Today Show 12-21-07

On December 21, 2007 Barack Obama appeared on The Today Show.

That kind of thing is part of his job. However, his article can not mention everything he does. Only if he says something that other media comment on and it seems important. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Minor comment

Might be good to introduce Michelle Obama (when she's first mentioned in the text) as his wife. Something along the lines of "Obama met his future wife Michelle Robinson in 1988". I know it's in the caption, but some people might not read the caption. Also, could the caption be fleshed out a bit more? Where are they in that photo? 69.202.60.86 (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Good call. I went ahead and followed your first suggestion. I think it sounds a little more dignified for an encyclopedia article. I will check out the picture too. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this sentence really needed?

Of his early childhood, Obama writes: "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."[19]

I have the feeling that it was put in to introduce the fact that his mother was white and his father black. What Obama is saying here is the same as any child would feel. There is nothing remarkable or even interesting that it should take up space in the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that the consensus here is that this (to me anyway) weird sentence is better than just saying what "races" his parents were. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

About Race and Culture

Note to everyone - in particular Steve Dufour - I have repeatedly removed the classifications "white" and "black" from Obama's parents for several reasons. The first is that the portion of the article in question is discussing the cultural diversity that influenced Obama's surroundings while he grew up. Race and culture are separate things. Race is a false construct created by racists to justify categorizing people in ways that do not correspond to their biological or cultural identities. But that's another and longer conversation. The point is that by simply stating that Obama's mother is American and his father Kenyan, the point of his diverse cultural background is expressed without bringing the arbitrary construction of race into the picture. There IS a difference between race and ethnicity, and ethnicity is what is relevant here. Godheval (talk) 04:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that "race" is a false construct created by racists. However, in the world we live in it is considered an important thing. One of the things that Senator Obama is noted for is his background of mixed "race", not just mixed culture. People coming to this article, and some will come from outside of the USA and not know much about him, will want some information on his "racial" background. I think it is important that the article explain this right away. As I said in my edit summary (I will not edit this sentence again) the words "black" and "white" are not offensive to most people and are the simplest way to give them the information they want. Not all Kenyans are "black" (99% according to its article) and not all Americans are "white." Also, as I mentioned before I find it offensive when people say "American" and expect that to be understood as "white American." Merely saying that Senator Obama's mother was an American could create the impression that this is being said. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe the races should be retained and a single word for each parent is appropriate weight and prominence. To say race is invented by racists is silly - we also group people by hair colour, but few people are prejudice against redheads. It would be one thing if it were completely immaterial, but Obama's racial background is frequently commented on as a unique characteristic among nominees past and present. Whether or not a point ought to be made of it, this has a big impact on his campaign and is necessary to mention. Dcoetzee 19:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That is how I feel too. I am not going to put the words "black" and "white" back in the sentence since I have already done that 2 or 3 times. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment I have 3 basic objections to how the article deals with this topic now:

• It is offensive (to me anyway). It makes it look as if we are ashamed to say that his dad was black and his mom white, as if these were bad things to say.
• It doesn't serve the readers. Senator Obama is often noted for his mixed racial background. Readers, some of whom are not Americans and so are not following the news about the presidential campaign every day, want to know about this and it should be explained in a simple way, not that they have to read between the lines.
• It goes against Obama himself. He considers himself a black American, not a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural New Man.

If I am wrong please explain why to me. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007 drop in poll numbers

Are the end of December 2007 drop in poll numbers reported by the Concord Monitor and Des Moines register of importance. the Monitoe cites a percieved unwillngness to engage Mrs, clinton or Republican rivals.Will his lining up behind President Bush on the assisantion of Mrs Bhutto, rather than charging the administration's foreign policy as a part of this an example? CApitol3 (talk) 03:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

These newspapers have a right to express their opinions. However the result of the caucuses is what will be notable. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Majority-minority

For many years I have known that in Hawaii white people are in the minority and that is cool with me. However, I find the term "majority-minority" a bit offensive. Since this is said as if it was a good thing what is really being said is the white people are no good and society would be better off with fewer of them. (Side note to Obama supporters, others please skip White people make up most of the people who will be voting in the primaries in the next few weeks. Close side note) Thanks for your consideration of this point. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree on your basic point. Takes me back to undergrad sociology class. I don't find the term offensive but (in this context) a bit arrogant and out of place. I certainly have not seen the established relevance. We could also say the (Island of Hawaii) or (Tropical Hawaii) or even (the non-contiguous state of Hawaii). I don't see the relevance to Obama's introduction. Turtlescrubber (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Trying this. --HailFire (talk) 11:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Barack and Michelle Obama image

The caption that was used with this photo was inadequate. Where and when was the photo taken? How does it illustrate relevant material in the adjoining text? Perhaps more to the point: there is a hangdog quality to this image that makes it unlike any other photo of Obama and his wife that I have ever seen. That also makes it a curious addition to this article which seems otherwise well-illustrated. For these reasons, I've removed it. Please discuss here before reverting, stating reasons for its relevance and notability in illustrating the adjoining section text. Thanks. --HailFire (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the article should have a picture of Michelle Obama, since she is discussed in the text; and of course is very important to Senator Obama. I agree that this is not such a great picture. I will try to find a better one which is in the public domain. There were none on Senator Obama's site.Steve Dufour (talk) 10:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

BLP board

I've reported some of my concerns with this article on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Barack Obama and Michelle Obama. Steve Dufour (talk) 11:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Views on Israel

I believe that Obama's views on the USA's relationship with Israel should be mentioned. He has made a few comments, such as those detailed in this piece (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269112,00.html) that bring his support for Israel into question. Maybe under a "Controversies" section?69.212.65.64 (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Or even better.. How about in an article called Political positions of Barack Obama in a section called Arab-Israeli conflict. Oops, already done.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, the term "African American" usually refers to black people who are descendants of the slaves from Africa brought to North America centuries ago. Since Barack's father is from Africa, he is half African and not half African-American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.158.88 (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Authored?

I think this has been brought up before, however:

He has authored two bestselling books...

This makes it sound like he did not really write them. I would guess that Herman Melville's article says that he wrote Moby Dick, not that he authored it. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty widely-used wording on Wikipedia, Steve. Tvoz |talk 19:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sadly. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Warning: Tirade I really feel that Senator Obama, who wants to be seen as an ordinary American who is working for the best interests of everyone in the country, and the potential readers of this article, who want to find out some basic information about him, would be better served if it was written in the plain, simple English language which most of us use. Without words like "authored" and "majority-minority". Thanks. I feel better now. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Steve, is "authored" really a difficult word to understand? If you'll look back, you'll see you agreed in January that it was better than what we had previously as a heading, and it seems quite direct and clear to me, especially for a heading, but I myself don't have a problem with changing the first sentence in that section to "written", leaving "Books authored" as the header - but maybe others had a reason for that wording -we'll see. As for your other changes - I disagree as follows: we say (and properly wikilink) in the intro to just "Honolulu" because a few words later we say and link to Hawaii - your way is unnecessarily redundant; to say his father was "born into the Luo people" is very odd wording which doesn't seem preferable to referring to his father as Luo in context below as we have had it for a long time; "majority-minority" may not be instantly understood, but that's why it is wiki-linked, and it is an important concept that adds more valuable information than the tired "ethnically diverse" which doesn't add anything beyond the previous sentence's "culturally diverse" and is repetitive, too, with "multi-ethnic" a few words later in reference to Jakarta; similarly your removal of "describes his experiences growing up in his mother's middle class American family" leaving "Obama wrote about his experiences" takes away information that adds to our understanding and leaves a rather bland useless sentence - what else is a memoir other than writing about one's experiences?; taking out the reference to his father as "absent" removes important information and that's where the Luo mention makes sense. I just don't see that these changes improve the article at all, and in fact they seem to remove valuable information for no clear reason, so I've reinstated. Tvoz |talk 21:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No, "authored" is not hard to understand it just makes a person sound like a geek to use it. "Honolulu, Hawaii" reminds people that he was born an American citizen. "Majority-minority" I discussed below. "His mother's middle class American family" sounds like a coded message saying he is not really an African American. His father's absence is already explained so it doesn't have to be said again. Besides that how do we know that he didn't remember his father from 2 years old? My daughter has memories from her third birthday. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Unfortunately, encyclopedias are rarely written in simple English, but rather in an English that requires one to read the encyclopedia with a dictionary next to you. That's why there is a Simple English Wikipedia. Granted, many of the articles on the Simple English Wikipedia are lacking. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have the World Book Encyclopedia on my computer and it is written in ordinary English (although for younger readers). Some subjects are more technical and require technical language. However a discussion of Obama's personal life is something anyone can relate to and there is no need for any special jargon there.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought, on the ethnicity of his father perhaps it could be worked into the first sentence something like this "(a Luo born in Nyanza Province, Kenya)"? Waiting until later to use the term Luo is a bit confusing because it isn't clear which father the term is in reference to, so by clarifying that Obama, Sr. is the Luo that confusion is rectified. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know - Soetero isn't referred to as his father or even stepfather anywhere in the article - the only "father", his father, is Obama Sr. It says he talks about his "absent Luo father" which is wikilinked and is fully explained in the footnote (now 17) at the end of that sentence, so is it really needed again a paragraph above? I don't feel strongly about this, but don't really see the need. Tvoz |talk 21:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Do whatever you like. Hillary would probably make a better president anyway. (Said to blow off steam only. :-) ) Steve Dufour (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

But you changed it anyway. Tvoz |talk 02:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I changed my mind. Now I like Obama better. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 05:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Strange comments from someone who claims to be a Republican Paisan30 (talk) 05:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"Claim" is a "WP word to avoid." :-) If the Republicans decide to nominate someone I might vote for him. But realistically it looks like whoever wins the Democratic nomination will be the next president. (I am predicting it will be Hillary because from what I have seen here her supporters are really smart or else Obama's are really stupid. ;-) )Steve Dufour (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"His mother's American middle class family"?

I find something a little odd about this sentence:

In the memoir, Obama describes his experiences growing up in his mother's American middle class family.

In the first two years of his life his Kenyan father was in the home. Then for four years he and his mom lived in Indonesia with her Indonesian husband. Then he lived with his grandparents in Hawaii. Do you think the expression "his mother's American middle class family" is the right way to describe all this? Steve Dufour (talk) 10:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the expression, merging two sentences. I raised 2 kids and I know that a father has a great influence from the start. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Steve, that's your OR and irrelevant to this. No one came in to agree with this change that you've been pushing - you're missing the point of the section which talks about a particular aspect of his upbringing. There's de facto consensus on this because it has stood for a long time and you have no support, so please don't make changes that you have no agreement on, when there have been objections to them. If consensus changes there's time enough to make a change, but your saying it over and over doesn't equal consensus. And didn't we talk about this yesterday or the day before? Thank you. Tvoz |talk 02:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I have been the main one talking. :-) Once again, when we say "his mother's American middle class family" that sounds like his father had little or no influence on him as a child. I used myself as an example to explain one reason I think this is not so. I am sorry if that is considered OR. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Didn't mean to sound harsh Steve. The fact is, as he reports it, his father was absent and he learned about him from his mother's family. Read his book. The father was gone and didn't influence him - he was only two years old when he left. That is very young Steve. I have kids too, and of course a father has great influence but if he's gone by age 2 there is a very good chance that he's not remembered first hand at all. But we don't have to speculate - these are his own words. He should know.Tvoz |talk 06:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Find a quote where he says "my mother's middle class family." Steve Dufour (talk) 12:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[undent] Page 46, Dreams from My Father, 2004 edition. It isn't a precise quote of "my mother's middle class family" (Obama hyphenates "middle-class"), but the idea is the same. I'm not reproducing the text here because it's better read in context, with the rest of the book, or at least the other 126 pages of Part 1. Peace? --HailFire (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected on that. I still think his father and step father should not be excluded, even if they were not as important influences to him as his mother. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Chicago's Southside

The southern half of the city of Chicago, where Obama chose to live after living in Hawaii and California, is well known as being one of the largest African American communities in the United States. I personally think this is an important fact. Could it be mentioned in the article? Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am taking a break from editing the article itself for a while. But here is a quote from the National Review New Republic article cited about his move to Chicago. Could some of this information be included in the article?

After these itinerant years, he would finally be able to insinuate himself into a community--and not just any community, but, as he later put it, "the capital of the African American community in the country." Every strain of black political thought seemed to converge in Chicago in the 1980s. It was the intellectual center of black nationalism, the base both for Jesse Jackson's presidential campaigns and for Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam. Moreover, on the eve of Obama's arrival, Harold Washington had overthrown Richard J. Daley's white ethnic machine to become the city's first black mayor. It was, in short, an ideal place for an identity-starved Kenyan Kansan to immerse himself in a more typical black American experience.Steve Dufour (talk) 05:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What's an important fact - that he lives in a black neighborhood? I don't know about anyone else, but I am not at all comfortable with quoting from this National Review opinion piece - it does not read as a researched, neutral source should, which is not exactly surprising given their POV. "Insinuate himself"? Invoking Farrakhan and black nationalism? And your premise is not quite right anyway - he didn't go from Hawaii and California to Chicago - he lived in NY before moving to Chicago and if it were something we would consider including we would need sources that explained why he moved there, not a Conservative Republican publication's theory about it. Tvoz |talk 07:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

My bad. The article was in the New Republic not the National Review. I have lived in California and Chicago and have visited New York and Hawaii. My reason for contrasting Chicago with Hawaii and California was based on the places' climates, however New York in also usually considered a more desirable place to live than Chicago as well so it could be added to the list. I am not suggesting the article name a reason for his choosing to live in the Southside of Chicago, just mention the fact that it is an important African American community. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Steve, what is your fascination with mentioning that Obama is black at every opportunity? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That is something that is very important to him. If Senator Obama was here I am confident that he would agree with me. BTW. He will not get any white people to vote for him by denying that he is black. On the other hand he would lose lots of black votes, and that would give white liberals permission to not vote for him as well. That's how I see it anyway. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is denying he is black? Steve, you've been on this train for a year at least and it's time to get off. Please stop - you've made your point and it's not getting any traction, because it is wrong. Happy new year. Tvoz |talk 06:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Many people in the country at large are denying he is black, or African American. Some are mentioned in the article. Thanks for the Happy New Year. You as well. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Multi-ethnic Indonesian capital city?

Infobox Provinces of Indonesia |name=Special Capital Territory of Jakarta
Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta Raya |country=Indonesia |logo= |motto= Jaya Raya
(Indonesian): "Prosperous and Great" |capital=Jakarta |population= 8389443 |population_as_of = 2000 |area_in_km2 = 661.52 |Time=WIB (UTC+7) |ethnicity = Javanese (35%), Betawi (28%), Sundanese (15%), Chinese (6%), Batak (4%), Minangkabau (3%) |religion = Islam (86%), Protestant (6%), Roman Catholic (4%), Buddhism (4%), Hindu |language = Indonesian, Betawi, Javanese, Sundanese |governor=Fauzi Bowo |site=www.jakarta.go.id

|map=

Jakarta

Jakarta (Indonesia)

I find this phrase in the introduction a bit odd: "multi-ethnic Indonesian capital city of Jakarta". Jakarta is one of the least diverse capitals in the world. Most Indonesians have never even seen a black person.

The only real ethnic minority in Indonesia is the Chinese. There has not been any other significant immigration to Indonesia over the years, just a few expats working for multinationals. 82.31.164.67 (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought it might be useful to bring a copy of the Jakarta infobox over here to help inform subsequent discussion. --HailFire (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That is 6% Chinese, 94% Indonesian. Not my definition of multi-ethnic.

You are of course encouraged to write a long essay on the differences between Batak [1], Sundanese [2], and Minangkabu [3], but for anyone reading this article, to imply that a black man is anything other than an extreme oddity in Indonesia is very misleading. Even white people (more common due to tourism and business) are liable to shouts of bulé (whitey) anywhere outside of the wealthiest areas. 82.31.164.67 (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I removed the expression. I don't know much about Indonesia and from the sentence I assumed Jakarta was a multi-national, cosmopolitan city. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to have been reverted, as a side-effect I think of another edit. 82.31.164.67 (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning it. I'm not editing the article right now. I expect that Barack will become the next president regardless of what WP says about the ethnic mix in Indonesia. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Languages

Does he still speak Indonesian? If so, then it should be mentioned that he is multi-languel. What about Hawaiian language? Chaldean (talk) 03:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion (not that that counts for much around here :-) ) that would be a good idea if a source could be found that gives the info. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes he does [source Parnohadiningrat Sudjadnan, Indonesian Ambassador to the US Time Magazine: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1695803,00.html]. He is quite popular with Indonesians. He went to a school where he was taught in Indonesian. [4]

I have added the ambassador's quote. Joshdboz (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"It gave me an enormous appreciation for the magnificent culture and history of Asia. It gave me a great love for the people of Asia". Obama describes Indonesia as "a charged and challenging place" where "my vision had been permanently altered". He writes of having needed less than half a year as a child to become acquainted with Indonesia's language, customs and legends. He lovingly describes the pleasures of his pet ape, his first exposure to the country's "monkey god" deity and his membership in an Indonesian boy scout troop. He also writes in Dreams From My Father of his introduction to the exotic delicacies of snake meat and roasted grasshopper.

He also mentioned eating dog meat, which is somewhat popular in Indonesia. His step-father was an Indonesian man who practised Abangan Islam (essentially a blend of traditional animism and Islam). Dogs are haram (forbidden) in Islam, to touch or to own, but a somewhat loose line is taken in traditional Javanese culture on such matters (also on alcohol, which is generally freely consumed). Modern Indonesia is becoming steadily more fundamentalist due to the power of wealthy Wahaabist Saudis and their media influence. In the 60s and 70s Indonesia was extremely liberal as their own interpretation of Islam had been developed over hundreds of years. See the Vespa Girls of the 70s. [5] compared to today. The influence of Christians in high finance and so on in Jakarta is also reduced compared to that era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.114.226.173 (talk) 13:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Cut down Keynote section

I would propose sharply cutting down on the size of the section on Obama's keynote address to the 2004 Democratic Convention. As it stands now there are 3 rather large block quotes which do not play much of a role. Certainly the speech is important enough in Obama's career trajectory to merit a section, but the size of this article is already pushing the limits, and there is plenty of non-critical/not-very-relevant information here. I think a concise summary can cover most of the speech with several sentences on its aftermath. Joshdboz (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this - seems to me it's a defining moment, similar perhaps in weight to the space section in JFK, although I do see your point. Let's se what others think. Tvoz |talk 20:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't at all want to minimize the importance of this event. But the first two block quotes really aren't that defining in terms of the aftermath -> political importance of the speech, whereas the last quote is. Joshdboz (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:SYN

Regarding this reversion, what is the "position C" that is being advanced by including both position A and position B in this article? WP:SYN says that "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C." Can't A and B be presented in this article without joining them together to advance position C?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I think the problem is fixed now to everyone's satisfaction. A single source is now used to support the statement in the text of the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

And thank you for showing why Wikipedia does not use unreliable sources in BLPs. The source you provided was an extremely edited version of an AP article and the editing failed to expand upon why Obama was critical of the need to filibuster Alito. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Bobblehead, I see that you don't want to include the USA Today reference that I had inserted. I don't understand why.

May I ask you to please remove the redundant links to the US Senate cloture vote on Alito in the footnotes?

Also, you have inserted the language, "While the filibuster was unseccessful, Obama had previously predicted that the tactic would fail and criticized Democrats for making filibustering necessary by failing to convince the American public of the dangers Alito to their civil rights.[60]"

Would you please kindly correct the spelling of the word "successful"? And, shouldn't there be some sort of verb after the word "Alito"? Additionally, you say that this material is supported by the first paragraph of the article. But I don't see anything in the first paragraph of the article that says a filibuster is needed or necessary. The first paragraph of the article says, "To better oppose Supreme Court nominees, Democrats need to convince the public 'their values are at stake' rather than use stalling tactics, said Sen. Barack Obama, who opposes Samuel Alito's confirmation." Thus, he said that convincing the public is needed, not that filibusters are needed.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Explained on your talkpage. [6] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not, but I invite you to explain, either here or at my talk page.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

But for further explanation, all three sources are edited versions of the same AP article, with the Sun-Times article seeming to do the better job of explaining what Obama is saying, including quotes from Obama that expand upon why he thinks the filibuster is necessary for Alito and why the need to filibuster Alito is a failure by the Democrats to explain why Alito is "A Bad Thing^TM". His comments about "winning elections" is a minor part of that explanation and is more an explanation of how Democrats can avoid filibustering SCOTUS nominations in the future. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you please correct the spelling and the subject-predicate disagreement, and delete the redundant link to the roll call vote? And where does the Sun-Times article say one word about a filibuster being "needed" or "necessary"? The first paragraph says that convincing the public is needed or necessary. It does not say that filibusters are needed or necessary. Quite the contrary: the article says Obama "agreed [with Biden] that it was not particularly wise" to conduct a filibuster.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making some of the corrections I suggested. I have taken the liberty of correcting the spelling. Where does the Sun-Times article say one word about a filibuster being "needed" or "necessary"? The first paragraph says that convincing the public is needed or necessary. It does not say that filibusters are needed or necessary. Quite the contrary: the article says Obama "agreed [with Biden] that it was not particularly wise" to conduct a filibuster.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Bobblehead, I see that you've reworded the thing again.[7] I appreciate that you're putting effort into this. Thanks. The material in the article now seems to be accurate. However, I think it's verbose, and it perhaps unintentionally is written in a POV way. Allow me to explain. First, I don’t know why you need both Obama quotes, when either of them gets the message across (the first being shorter), so it seems like verbosity could be considerably reduced here. Second, nothing that you’ve written includes any hint that Obama criticized the filibuster tactic (that criticism, after all, was the main message that USA Today got from the article). The Sun-Times version of the article (which you seem to prefer) says that Obama agreed with Biden that the filibuster was a “stalling tactic”, and “that it was not particularly wise,” but your sentences give no hint that Obama criticized the tactic. How come? Can't we say that he criticized the tactic?Ferrylodge (talk) 06:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Added that he criticized Dems for an over-reliance upon procedural maneuvers as requested. The reword with the second, more verbose quote was a result of your rephrasing[8] and an attempt to incorporate it into a more accurate explanation as to what Obama was saying, but if you no longer want to incorporate the "win elections" bit, I can remove that. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 07:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't keep the second, more verbose quote on my account.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph. I doubt the WP:SYN and WP:OR problems can be fixed in just two sentences, and Obama's position on a procedural tactic seems to be undue weight here. In a longer sub article about Obama's U.S. Senate career, inclusion of his views on notable confirmations and filibusters might be warranted. --HailFire (talk) 11:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. First of all, this was not merely a "notable confirmation." It was the confirmation of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, and Senator Obama supported a filibuster of that nomination. It's doubtful that a United States Senator can do anything more momentous than try to block a Senate majority from confirming a President's nominee to the highest court in the land. HailFire, you reverted here. I urge you to please reconsider. That paragraph was phrased by Bobblehead, who seems to be as sensitive to WP:SYN and WP:OR as anyone on Earth. If you want to say that the paragraph contained WP:SYN or WP:OR, then I think you should put together an argument to back up your assertion. Thanks in advance.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC) Apparently, there will be no response, so I have used strikethrough.Ferrylodge (talk) 13:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Absent the requested explanation, I plan to reinsert what Bobblehead wrote.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Trying this. Peace, Ferrylodge. --HailFire (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Iowa

Obama has won the Iowa caucus; is this too newsy, or should it go in the page somewhere? 71.191.37.246 (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It's in the presidential campaign section. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

He is the first African-American to win the first in the nation Iowa caucus. That is something significantly historic considering Iowa is 95% white that might be worthy of being placed in the beginning. (Saj29 (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC))

Pronunciation -- Audio

It would be nice if an American native would make a recording of the pronunciation of his name (like in Søren Kirkegaard), thanks. (Yes; I know there is a non-free recording here, but that's not Wikipedia's game) --Morten LJ (talk) 07:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do we even need a pronounciation? None of the other candidates have one (and it's not like there isn't opportunity to hear his name pronounced in the media). --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking a pronunciation would be a good thing. Relying upon the media to correctly pronounce an "unusual" name like Barack Obama will only get one in trouble. I watched too much news coverage of the Iowa caucuses last night and I heard his name pronounced three or four different ways. Not to mention this is an encyclopedia and we shouldn't be reliant upon the media to take care of content for us. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree, and could they spell it right too? --HailFire (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is the Obama Criticism section?

GO ahead, censor my post again, I'll just repost it. You wont stop me, unless you ban me. But why would you ban me? Because You will not include a section that other candidates have? BIAS! Wikipedia has a terrible reputation, and the hawks here are proof. I speak for A LOT of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.63.188 (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is the IP of RYNORT (talk · contribs), who has constantly been warned for POV pushing. See my [[{User_talk:Blaxthos#excuse_me|this thread]] and the one below it for more info. I will again issue words of caution to him. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Seconded, Obama has had his fair share of criticism from various quarters, just like every other well-known politician. This should be reflected in the article, just as it is in practically every other article regarding a politician. To not do so simply reflects a non-NPOV attitude at this point. --64.142.82.29 (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is total BS. Perhaps you guys should actually attemtp to take a look at some other presidential candidates, such as John McCain, Mike Huckabee, and Hillary Clinton. Do any have criticism sections? Uh no. --152.117.244.213 (talk) 06:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Gzkn responded well to the idea of a separate criticism section almost a year ago, saying: "think about whether a general 'praise' section would make sense". Critical commentary should be woven into the text, or the notes, or the subarticles as appropriate - and we do. Tvoz |talk 07:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"Absent Luo father"?

It seems kind of odd to introduce his dad's ethnic group in the sentence that says he was absent. I tried before to move the information to the first introduction of the dad. I guess my choice of wording wasn't so great and it was moved back. However, I really think that is where the info belongs, if it is needed at all. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to keep the discussion in one place rather than starting a new section every time the same point is made, as if it hadn't already been discussed in the last 2 days. Tvoz |talk 02:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Then please explain your reasons for putting "Luo" and "absent" next to each other rather than telling the readers what the father's ethnic group is when he is first introduced. If the word Luo is left out altogether I would not object, although it is somewhat interesting. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine. It denotes that the "absences" refers to his birth father, not to the Indonesian man who married his mother. Paisan30 (talk) 04:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

To me it sounds like "absent" is an insult and putting "Luo" next to it makes that sound like an insult too. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

His father was absent. He was Luo. The text and footnote explain it clearly. You're reading in things that aren't there. This is a non-issue. Tvoz |talk 05:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't imagine reading either or both of those words as an insult. Paisan30 (talk) 05:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I would consider being an absent father a bad thing. I have no opinion about a Luo father however. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

But he was absent! Tvoz |talk 06:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

But his being absent had nothing to do with his being Luo, unless you want the article to imply that it did. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

In that case, one could argue that his being absent had nothing to do with his being a father. How silly. Paisan30 (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's silly. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[undent] Better like this? --HailFire (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is much better. Thanks.Steve Dufour (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

As much the "Third" as the "Fifth", and Fifth is misleading

The United States has only elected three black Senators. More than a hundred years ago, two others were appointed (not elected) for less than one term each, both Reconstruction, northern occupation of southern states. Neither state would have done so voluntarilly. How it reads, we might assume we've actually elected five, or even appointed/elected five voluntarilly, but we have not. This is so different from the relevance (the degree to which America has or has not embraced black Senators and Obama's role in that) as to be unnecesarilly confusing. A better sentence would read:

"He is the third African American to be elected Senator in U.S. history, and the only African American currently serving in the U.S. Senate."

Can someone edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forwarder (talk • contribs) 22:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I added that he was the third popularly elected senator, but left that he was the fifth to serve. Regardless of how the first two African Americans made it into the Senate, they still count. Just like the first woman to serve in the Senate, Rebecca Latimer Felton, counts despite having been appointed and only serving two days. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Should we change the wording on all senators who served prior to 1913? Before that time, the senate was not popularly elected at all. It was selected by the state legislatures. Obama is the fifth African-American senator, nothing more and nothing less. Bellwether ^B_C 01:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course they count, if somebody were to phrase their question: "How many have served?" But people are just as likely to ask "How many African Americans have been elected to the Senate?" And I think, of the two ways, the sentence that does not count the forced appointments of Reconstruction (unless both are mentioned) is more to the point of how Obama's success reflects historical race relations and politics in the U.S.

By the way, "popularly" is not necessary. The Reconstruction folks were appointed by state legislators, not an election, and we use "election" other places so we must be assuming people know that it generally means popularly elected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forwarder (talk • contribs)

Once again, I question this being the second sentence in the article. It's not really about Obama, but rather about the lack of other black Senators. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

middle name

If Hillary Rodham Clinton is the title of hillary's page why isn't Hussein in the title page of Barack's.RYNORT 04:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Because she uses "Hillary Rodham Clinton" as her name. That's why the page is "George W. Bush" not "George Walker Bush". And that's why this page is "Barack Obama". Tvoz |talk 05:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz got the answer right, but just something to point out: You do realize that Hillary's middle name isn't 'Rodham', right? That it's 'Diane'? And so the reason that Obama's middle name isn't in the article title is precisely the same as the reason that Hillary's isn't in her own article's title. (hence Hillary Rodham Clinton, not Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton) 209.90.135.57 (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No Tvoz is correct to assert that HRC's middle name is Rodham. Its common practice to for women to replace their middle names with their maiden names, when they take their husbands last name, which is what HRC did in 1982. thanks Astuishin (talk) 07:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that John Edwards' article isn't titled "John Reid Edwards", and John McCain's article isn't "John Sidney McCain". -75.73.200.200 (talk) 06:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

One more time. Hillary Rodham Clinton is the name she uses. Look at her official signature and read up on it. We're not arbitrarily including "Rodham" there. On the other hand, Barack Obama's middle name is included in the text for accuracy, but it is not the way he is known, is not his official signature, and is not the name of this article, per WP:NAME. Same is true for Edwards and McCain. Since I'm sure there's no reason other than accuracy that people raise this repeatedly, I hope this clarifies the matter, once again. Tvoz |talk 18:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Kenyan- or African-American?

I have a problem with the qualification of Obama as 'African-American' as put in the header of this article, with a white mother and a father from Africa he's just as much African-American as he is not. He should be qualified either as half-caucasian/half-African-American (both equal parts represented equally) or just as black (since that is the colour of his skin - which is what people are hinting at by saying 'African-American'). --194.81.255.25 (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever your personal views, Obama is African-American. What we may believe about him doesn't matter that much. All that really matters is what we can verify with reliable sources. Thus, the wording should stay. Bellwether ^B_C 21:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What we do know is that he was born in the United States as an American citizen, that his father was a black African, that he calls himself an African American, that the U.S. Senate calls him an African American; that sounds like an African American to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Dufour (talk • contribs) 00:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Again, it's not about what's true, but what's verifiable. He is referred to as an "African-American" in countless reliable sources, so that's how he is referred to in the article. The synthesizing of "we know X and thus Y" and all of that is original research, and does not belong in articles space. Bellwether ^B_C 01:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

He is Kenyan-American because unlike descendants of salves who don't know the country of origin of the ascencestor, Barack knows that it is Kenya. Pweople from Jamamacia are Jamacian-American. West Indies people are proud to point it out. The term black covers both Americans and Fioreignors. It's funny to hear of a British African American. We can either be correct and say either "Black" or Kenyan-American or say African American and conform with incorrect terms with everyone else. These are impossible choices for writers. :( Radio Guy (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not about "conforming" to anything other than WP standards. What is verifiable is that he is referred to as an African-American. Therefore, that's what he is referred to as in the article. Bellwether ^B_C 02:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Obama is african american because he has african ethnicity, though it would be more precise to say kenyan american, but he's not black since he has the same amount of "black" blood as "white", i believe he would be "two or more races". So people can say that he would be the first african american president because he is infact african just as i am greek even though im only half. They just cant refer to him as the first black president.71.174.200.210 (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of us are two or more "races". I think it all has to do with self-identification. Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

So Alex Rodriguez is an African American and we should change his article which lists Dominician.. because his pareantage is from the DR. n'est-ce pas? Radio Guy (talk) 07:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? Turtlescrubber (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Siblings

A good article on Obama's siblings from the Chicago Sun Times. Can this info be added? http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/familytree/545462,BSX-News-wotrees09.stng —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.144.65.152 (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

External Links - Press

The media has played a big role in shaping the campaigns of the 2008 presidential candidates. I'd like to propose that a "Press" heading be added to the External Links section. Here, readers will find links to articles written by and about Obama, such as the following in Reader's Digest: http://www.rd.com/content/is-barack-obama-ready-for-the-white-house/

Adding this section will keep readers updated on the latest developments in Obama's campaign as well as provide them with insight that this Wikipedia page doesn't necessarily cover. Thoughts on this proposal?

Thanks, TraceyLynn (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a good idea of course, but I'm not sure if it's appropriate for Wikipedia (especially within the realm of Wikipolitics). In general, it's best to avoid external links that do not specifically relate to the article but rather are simply related to its subject. Creating entire lists of such links is actively discouraged. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

biased statement on tax cuts

In the third paragraph of the political advocacy section, it states that he supports "repeal tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans..." I don't think there was any tax bill that explicitly cut taxes based on net worth as compared to the other 99% of Americans. Similarly, his bill won't say, "If you are among the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, your tax cuts are hereby repealed."

In fact, the federal tax system doesn't tax wealth at all, they tax income.

A better way to phrase this would be "repeal Bush's tax cuts on long term capital gains and dividend income" or "repeal Bush's 2003 income tax cuts" or even "repeal the Bush tax cuts"

Dougiec29 (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is no such thing as "tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans". 24.158.137.226 (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree too, and I work part-time for H&R Block :-) I changed it to "tax cuts said to help favor the wealthy." I think that is fair. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

His father

First of all, I believe Barack Obama, Sr. deserves an article of his own as his son has a very good chance of becoming the leader of the free world. Since currently there is no article about this man, the Barack Obama, Jr. article doesn't explain what happened to his father... that he died in a car accident. I believe his dad dying in a car accident is noteworthy and belongs in the article. I don't know where in the article it fits in best though.

Also shouldn't his full name be Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. instead of just Barack Hussein Obama. In its present form the article leaves out the Jr. --Tocino 21:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

On their own, neither Barack Obama, Sr., nor Ann Dunham are notable enough to have their own articles. If all one did was be the parent of a potential (or current) president, that's not notable enough to get an article. This article already covers the notable aspects of both of Obama's parents, including that his father died in a car accident, see footnote 12, the death of his step-father, see footnote 13, and the death of his mother, included in the main text. As far as including Jr. is concerned. Barack seems to be following the model of if the Senior dies, then you drop the Jr. from your name (or if you named a son the same, you become Senior and your son becomes Junior). There aren't any official references of his name with Jr. at the end. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well George W. Bush's great-great grandfather and also his great-great-great grandfather have articles. One was a priest and the other was a merchant. If those two are notable enough to have articles then, IMO, Barack Obama's father is notable enough too. --Tocino 05:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think that this article probably indicates that if Obama is elected, his mother and father will probably merit articles. Until then, though, probably not so much. Bellwether ^B_C 17:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a good reason to create an article about a non-notable person. The notability of the Bush family ends at Samuel P. Bush snd the Clinton family at Bill Clinton. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And in keeping with Othercrapexists, I've submitted Obadiah Newcomb Bush, James Smith Bush, and William Jefferson Blythe, Jr. for WP:AFD. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obadiah Newcomb Bush. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And those nominations are going down in flames particularly Clinton's dad who was also killed in a car accident. If you write the article (which I encourage) be sure you have multiple sources. Also be sure to read the nuthsell requirement in WP:BIO as you will need to invoke that argument when the deletionists go after you with an afd. Americasroof (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a ton of stuff out there including Obama's Grammy winning book about the relationship. Here's an extensive article which discusses his polygamy and the claim that Obama's charm came from his biological father (again much like Clinton). Notability is determined by third party references. It now doubt would be flagged for afd but I think it would survive and that's wikipedia should excel at. Americasroof (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• You do realize that OCE is just an essay, by a user, right? It's not policy, nor even a guideline. Thus, it has no bearing on whether or not Obama's father is notable. I pointed to the Blythe article to show simply that other fathers of presidents (in this case, a potential president) have been deemed notable enough for an article. People point to OCE far too often as if it were come kind of policy regarding notability. It's most definitely not. Bellwether ^B_C 16:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of appropriate categories

Categorizing Obama as both an African-American Senator, and an African-American member of congress is not "duplication." They are two separate categories, with some overlap. Please stop removing his article from this appropriate category. There's no pressing need to do so, and if someone happened upon the category "African-Americans in congress" they would certainly wonder why Obama's name was not there. The article belongs in both categories. Bellwether ^B_C 03:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added Category:African American Senators to Category:African Americans in the United States Congress to fix that confusion. All the people in the Senators cat are also in the other one. Please explain why the first is NOT a subcat of the other. He is a member of congress because he is a senator, no other reason, therefore since he is in one cat he (and the other 4 in both cats) should be removed from the other since it is duplication. - SimonLyall (talk) 08:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• My apologies. I was mistaken. Bellwether ^B_C 13:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I'll update this an the other articles. - SimonLyall (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Rezko resurrection

I removed the Rezko content that somebody had re-added. This already has proper weight because it isn't a story anymore. The news investigated it and found no wrong-doing. That's why it isn't getting anymore coverage and that's why they subsequently published articles acknowledging that it wasn't a big deal. See here or here. johnpseudo 22:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Concur with removal. Tvoz |talk 23:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. We discussed this extensively six months ago when it was just a minor story and it has faded significantly since then. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't agree. The whole matter will attract a lot more scrutiny if he becomes Democratic nominee. That much is certain. There's no suggestion of wrongdoing in what I added btw. Please don't remove unilaterally. Johnreginaldsmith (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Worth comparing this article with the one on Hillary Clinton. Her financial dealings - when controversial - are explained at some length, as is appropriate. Obama's need to be also. The sentence currently in the article describing his dealings is vague, awkwardly expressed, incomplete and appears more circumspect about the embarrassment of the Senator's business involvement with the accused fraudster than the Senator himself has been. I don't see the issue with including it. Everyone makes mistakes. Johnreginaldsmith (talk) 07:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with removal. No wrong-doing = not a story. Bellwether ^B_C 07:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The Senator disagrees, even acknowledging his business dealings with Rezko as "bone-headed". Am not sure why people are so keen to remove it.I suggest doing a Google news search on Rezko to see how big this story could get. Johnreginaldsmith (talk) 07:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• I suggest you abide by the developing consensus, and stop reinserting it. Bellwether ^B_C 07:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What if he'd asked Ken Lay to buy the block next door so he could expand his yard a little, in a land deal which was in effect a no interest loan favour for a friend? Johnreginaldsmith (talk) 07:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Those thinking about this issue should watch some of the news reports like [this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feature=related] and tell me then the transaction is not worth a reasonable exposition here. Johnreginaldsmith (talk) 08:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not taking any sides here (I am too far from the US to be knowledgeable here), but your last contrib really looked poorly worded, for a BLP (moreover someone involved in an election). -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• I had been assuming good faith of JRS up to this point. It's hard to do so after the last contrib you noted. What could be the possible point of changing a neutrally-worded statement to such an inflammatory version? Bellwether ^B_C 13:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I can’t be objective about this so-called story and whether to include it or not - because I like Sen. Obama. Also, because, I am tired of the politics of slash and burn and personal destruction. It should also be said, that there has been not one whit of actual factual impropriety, illegality, or unethical conduct shown with regard to Sen. Obama. However, we know that facts can be stretched and dragged along picking up “dirt” until they seem to imply many things for those who want to see or imagine them. We have also seen that front runners often find themselves loved one minute and targeted by a fickle media and public the next.

It is a story and it was out there in the media, mostly in 2006. However, it is still out there on certain sites from far leaning opposition groups.

I am pretty certain, based on the writings from these groups, that if Senator Obama becomes the Democratic ticket nominee that these same groups will raise these issues in a smear and run tactic. Perhaps a swift boat redux. Much harm can be done by innuendo and 30 second ads with well honed sound bite tactics are, sadly, effective.

I did not read the original articles that were posted on Wiki, how they read, why they were removed, nor even how they were written, to know if I agree with previous versions of this. Regardless, those have been, by consensus, removed.

My current question is: given that this story and other “non-story” innuendo’s are floating in the ether, and will surely surface if Sen. Obama’s is the candidate, the question remains: is it better to post the story, and “get out in front of it” or let sleeping dogs lie?

This is an editorial decision and like I said, I am not objective on this one.

Besides, I am certain that Senator Obama will be amply able to defend himself if and when the time comes.Buddydog21 (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Buddydog makes a compelling argument to include a more comprehensive account of BO's relationship with Tony Rezko. Johnreginaldsmith (talk) 13:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• He made no such case, and wasn't attempting to make one. He made that clear. Stop trying to force through your view of what should be in the article. There's no consensus for expanding on what's already there regarding this issue. Please stop. Bellwether ^B_C 13:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Something gone wrong with a template?

Near the foot of the page, below where it lists Illinois senators, there is the following: #if:Doug Stanhope#if:Wes Clark ·Howard Dean ·Al Gore ·John Kerry ·Ralph Nader ·Al Sharpton#if:Other 2008 elections: House ·Senate ·Gubernatorial The formatting looks odd, so I wonder if something has gone wrong somewhere.--217.43.162.213 (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There's indeed a glitch somewhere... I'll have a look, thanks. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently there are too many templates in the page, see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Template_bug_on_Barack_Obama. I let you guys handle it from here! -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I had noticed there's just an awful lot of stuff in the article.--217.43.162.213 (talk) 11:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem seems to have occurred after this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=182980070&oldid=182967116 Before that edit, the templates were working just fine. --Tocino 22:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the Further reading section since it seems to just be a collection of news stories. Although, if someone wants to take the time to go through and convert all of the cite templates into manual citations that's the only way to avoid this from happening in the future. My removal of the section didn't really buy that much in additional templates. See Wikipedia:Template limits for additional info about the limits in place for templates. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The leading candidate or a leading candidate

I am new to this talk section, so please forgive if I am in the wrong section. But this comes right after the name and middle name section.

Immediately after the name and middle name section and birth date a descriptor of Sen. Obama includes the words that he is the: “ the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination in the 2008 presidential election.[2][3]”

That seems biased, unsubstantiated, reflective of a personal POV during an open election and is not supported by the citations provided.

Sen. Obama may indeed be fairly called one of the leading candidates, or one of the top two candidates, but it is not certain that he is or will be “the” leading candidate.

Further, the citations provided do not support the point of view that Sen. Obama is the leading candidate.

The BBC citation [2] states that he and Sen. Hilary Clinton are leading the race for their parties’ nomination.

The second citation [3], from a pre-Iowa caucus piece, mentions the close Iowa race, which we know Sen. Obama won, but also mentions that Sen. Clinton is ahead by a wide lead nationally.

Also bundled in the third citation are a compilation of national polls the confirm that as of the date of that piece, Sen. Clinton was ahead nationally.

The Wiki piece should be non-biased and should state that Sen. Obama is one of the leading candidates, or even state, that he is one of the two leading candidates, however, the latter may not be fair to Sen. Edwards.

Citations: [2]^ a b "Obama Launches Presidential Bid", BBC News, February 10, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-12-26. Video at Brightcove.com. [3] ^ Saine, Cindy. "Economy, Health Care Are Top Domestic Issues for US Voters", Voice of America News, December 21, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-12-26. For national polling data, see: "White House 2008: Democratic Nomination", Polling Report. Retrieved on 2007-12-26. "2008 National Democratic Presidential Primary", Pollster.com. Retrieved on 2007-12-26. Buddydog21 (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed "the" to "a". Since I have been criticized here for making too extreme and dramatic statements I feel fairly safe in following your advice and making this one more moderate, and fitting for an encyclopedia article. Even "a leading" candidate is clearly above the level of the average candidate, and doesn't exclude him from being "the" leading one. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

After one state, I don't think we should call any candidate "leading". It is a subjective value judgment. There are many candidates. Paisan30 (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to calling him, Clinton, and Edwards "leading" to distinguish them from the other Democrats running. On the other hand, maybe it is better to let the readers make up their own minds. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Steve, the change seems to say it well. I agree, it does seem that it has come down to these three (Sen.'s Clinton, Obama and Edwards) as the front runners and only time will tell what will happen, as there is still NH, and Michigan and Super Tuesday to go. However, things change so fast, a few weeks ago the pundits were saying Sen. Clinton is a sure deal. I must admit, Sen. Obama sure seems to have the momentum and the message. It's been a pretty exciting race to watch.Buddydog21 (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

He's Irish!

And sure aren't we all when running for President! http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0315/obamab.html ; http://youtube.com/watch?v=h9GPU3g7VSM; http://paddyanglican.blogspot.com/2007/05/all-politics-is-localbarack-obama-for.html ; http://www.thechancer.ie/; http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0619/obamab.html (last June)

So what? Paisan30 (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

and "THE" leading candidate for the Democratic nomination in the 2008 presidential election.

After his victory in the Iowa caucus,wouldn't be more accurate to change from calling him a mere leading candidate to "THE" leading candidate for the Democratic nomination in the 2008 presidential election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kigabo (talk • contribs) 15:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• No. This has been discussed at length above. Bellwether ^B_C 15:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Reversions without edit summaries

Good faith edits should not be reverted without an appropriate edit summary. Such reversions should be used only when the edit is simply vandalism. Bellwether ^B_C 18:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a user trying to remove "leading" from the lede of both major candidates

He's doing the same thing at Clinton's article. Could someone help me keep an eye on him? Bellwether ^B_C 13:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There was a user apparently using wikipedia as a propoganda tool

Fortunately, it would appear a status quo has been reached on format, and explicit bias has been refrained from. Lets try and establish some authority in wikipedia. Ricxster (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Now you're just being disruptive. Bellwether ^B_C 14:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I am correcting an injustice that an authority such as wikipedia should reflect fact and not opinion. You very clearly removed "leading" from Clintons page, but when i removed "leading" from Obama's (to prove a point) - you immediately changed it. Now they are both correctly displayed as being both leaders in the field - thats how it should stay - but it would appear that the hate clinton crowd is alive and stong and i doubt people will be able to refrain. Ricxster (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• I made it clear I was attempting to correct your disruptive edits and made a mistake. I never intended to remove "leading" from her article. You removed it, and attempted to use that as evidence to get it removed from Obama's article. Please stop with the nonsense. Bellwether ^B_C 15:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at the history of clintons bio - I added the suggestion that she should be recognised as a front runner, before it was deleted and then i undid that reversion - perhaps a look over the mythomania article may help you in coming to terms with your apparent confusion. Are you not going to add to my debate item below? You shouted and screamed enough before, why not now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricxster (talk • contribs) 16:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, 'leading' should be removed from the Clinton & Obama articles, the Democrats have been through only 'two' contests. Perhaps we're jumping the gun folks, let's wait until after February 5th, before declaring anybody 'leading'. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to say "leading" for the candidates that RS's think might have a real chance of winning the nomination. That would distinguish them from the many others who are just running for fun or to make a point (I guess that's what they are doing). Steve Dufour (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

But in declaring Clinton & Obama as leading candidates? it suggestes one or the other will get the nomination. That's crystal balling. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• No, it's not. It's declaring the current state of affairs, which shows those two as clearly "leading." Every poll, and both contests thus far show the same thing. Bellwether ^B_C 17:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, as there's 48 Democratic primaries/caucuses yet to be held. But I've no intentions of editing out leading, only wanted to get my say on the matter. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, are you disagreeing with the completely uncontroversial observation that Clinton and Obama are "leading" as it now stands? That seems a bit odd to me, as that's just a fact. Bellwether ^B_C 18:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as they've more delegates then Edwards, Biden etc, I concede the argument (PS- what's their current delegate count). GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This biased page is changing election results

The lack of a "Controversires" section on this page has really helped Obama coast through the primaries with no criticism. He is now the favorite to win the nomination. Hilary's page mentions her numerous scandals. Does this strike anyone else as unfair? Ogeez (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia helped Obama win? That's a new one. It's not true, but it's certainly a novel criticism of the article. Bellwether ^B_C 05:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting analysis, Ogeez. So, can we assume that Republican voters in Iowa don't read Wikipedia, leading them to vote for Mike Huckabee whose page contains a bunch of negative stuff? Tvoz |talk 05:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't imagine a Wikipedia editor allowing his or her preferences for the outcome of a political campaign to influence his or her editing of a Wikipedia article. ;-) Steve Dufour (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

While we are on the topic of WP's temendous social influence....I just invested some money in the stock market; could someone edit the article to mention Senator Obama's sensible, moderate views on economic policy? Thanks. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Our influence on American politics looms over the people (to paraphrase Chris Matthews). Paisan30 (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)I guess the Obama campaign didn't get this page viewed often enough in New Hampshire. Paisan30 (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Raila Odinga

Can we integrate this interesting story stemming from this morning's BBC interview with Raila Odinga? I would just do it, but in article this sensitive I wanted to pre-emptively discuss. Needless to say, such a claim would have a direct effect on the perception of him in East Africa. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering - has Odinga's claim been verified anywhere? I haven't had a chance to research it. Tvoz |talk 17:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It has not. BBC is reporting it as a claim. So should we, see my edit to Odinga. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm- well, then to me it makes sense to have it on Odinga's page - as the person making the claim - but maybe hold off on adding it here until it's confirmed. I saw reports that Obama spoke with Odinga a few days ago about the situation in Kenya, but they didn't say anything about the claim of a familial tie. Tvoz |talk 09:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Dreams From My Father

Is there an obligation to report a candidates failings and negatives? The Polarizing, devisive, cold automaton pretty much sums up the clinton page attacks on her character - should the quote from Obamas book ("maybe a little blow" i.e. coke) be included on his bio? He is one of the leaders, and no doubt the GOP will attack him from this angle, is it our duty to report the pros and cons of someone for the benefit and information of all. Discussion? Ricxster (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• There's no "there" there. This is widely known, and no one cares. What debate is there to be had? We don't make additions to articles based on what the GOP might do if Sen. Obama happens to win the nomination. Bellwether ^B_C 16:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

My arguement is with the fact that Sen Clinton's faults are paraded in the preamble of her lede when there is not the slightest whiff of negativity in obamas opening - when clearly, he has failings. Both require balance as the lop side (negative for clinton, positive for Obama) is clearly unconsensual and driven by opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricxster (talk • contribs) 16:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I kind of think it might be useful for each candidate to have a section on the criticisms that have been made about them. I'm not sure what WP policy would say about this. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There isn't a hard and fast policy/guideline on the use of criticism sections, but is is discouraged and could be considered an article structure that can imply a point of view, which should be avoided. This has been fairly well beat into the ground on this talk page and the talk pages of many of the other politician articles I have on my watchlist, but general consensus/majority view seems to be that criticism/controversy sections are "A Bad Thing"^TM and that it is better to integrate criticism/controversies into the existing prose of the article and/or a sub-article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I say if the criticism is about the politicians political career(the reason they are famous and most likely on wikipedia) then it should be in the article, if it's a personal criticism, leave it out.--rhoffer21 03:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.52.244 (talk)

Wedding date incorrect

The article incorrectly says "October 18th", but the note (129) correctly says it is October 3rd. Family6Pac (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Where does the article say any specific date? I see our article saying they were married in "October 1992" without specifying the date and the note doesn't say anything about a date. The newspaper piece it points to does indicate that the date was October 3. Tvoz |talk 09:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I do see that Michelle's article had October 18 but with a citation to back it up - I've changed that article to match this one and not state a specific day. Tvoz |talk 09:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama's Muslim origins section

I have listed a short recap of this topic. The material is mostly from Barack's own statements in his books and interviews. This should be added in its own section in the article as many Wikipedia readers may be curious about this aspect of Barack's life.--CltFn (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Barack was born of a Muslim father and Christian mother.

Barack's family on his father's side is predominantly Muslim, father( Baracka Obama snr) , grandfather (Hussein Onyango Obama) were Muslims, brother Abongo (Roy) Obama is Muslim.

Barack Obama 's name is a shortening of Baracka which means the blessed one in Arabic.

Barack Obana's middle name is Hussein ,an Arabic Muslim name which means "beautiful" or "handsome". It is commonly given to Muslim males after the name of the grandson of the Islamic prophet Muhammad , Ali, the fouth Islamic Caliph in Islamic history.

Father Baracka Obama died in 1982, Barack described his father Baracka as a non practicing Muslim though he got a Muslim burial at Barack's family's request.

Stepfather Lolo Soetoro was a Muslim from Indonesia

Barack enrolled in Catholic school in Indonesia as a Muslim student,

When Obama attended 4th grade in 1971 in a Muslim school, Muslim children spent two hours a week studying Islam and Christian children spent those two hours learning about the Christian religion. Barack studied Islam.

Barack attended at least some friday Mosque prayers with his step father Lolo Soetoro .

By Barack own statemens he is currently a practicing Christian and his Muslim origins have little to do with anything.

First black president?

is it too early to speculate? But i think the occasion warrants reporting - he is the first black person in US with a chance at the nomination and therefore the presidency. People is the US used to kill over race lest we forget, and considering Clinton is cited as being the first woman - i think both historic possiblities should be reported. Is there consensus? Ricxster (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Jesse Jackson considered a serious candidate for the presidency when he first started running? I'm not opposed to a section like this, though, as he's certainly the closest to the nomination that any African-American has come. Bellwether ^B_C 18:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

May I point out, Obama isn't fully African American. Also, let's wait & see if he gets the Democratic presidential nomination first. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• You can "point out" whatever you like. If he self-identifies as African-American, and reliable sources call him this, that's what he's called for purposes of the article. Bellwether ^B_C 19:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Identity is one thing, his actual parentage is another. Both are relevant and both are factual. Both should be mentioned given the significance of race in America. It is unencyclopedic to do otherwise. Whole truths, not half-truths. Tmangray (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Both are mentioned. Tvoz |talk 21:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at the top in the passage about his parentage. It was, momentarily, before you deleted it. Tmangray (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Are we really agreeing not to mention this fact? Has anyone forgot the lynch mobs? He is doing very well in the south - this is momentous and historic. It should be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricxster (talk • contribs) 19:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we please wait until somebody wins the Democratic presidential nomination, before we add in the historical details? GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Early childhood religious background

Some uncontested facts:

Barack was born of a Muslim father and Christian mother.

Father died at early age

Stepfather was Muslim

Barack enrolled in Catholic school in Indonesia as a Muslim student

Barack attended at least some friday Mosque prayers with his step father.

Barack is currently a practicing Christian

Barack described his father as non practicing.

There is no judgement connected to these facts, this is simply part of his biography and part of the section of his early life. Nothing to hide or be ashamed of, just part of the Barack Obama's life story.--CltFn (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Notable and sourced parts of this are already covered in the article text and notes in the appropriate places as per previously reached consensus. The addition that has been removed by two editors was giving too much weight to the details and some of it was redundant. Tvoz |talk 07:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There is only one mention that his father was Muslim at the personal life section the article. However his schooling as a Muslim , the fact of his step father being Muslim , his enrollment as a Muslim student in Catholic school is not mentioned. Nor is any mention of his attending some friday prayers with his father at the Mosque. The disclosure of these facts ,fully cited and not contested by Barack Obama do not bring undue weight to the article, however the omission of these things raises questions about the veracity of the content.--CltFn (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As Obama explains in Audacity of Hope, his being enrolled as "Muslim" was due to Indonesian law. He was never a practicing Muslim. And if his step-father practiced no religion, why is his religion notable? johnpseudo 15:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the Washington Post the registration document requires registration as either of 5 religions (Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Catholic or Protestant) The Los Angeles times reports that his step father is reported to be a practicing Muslim in that he would go to Friday prayers at the Mosque and take Obama with him. This is also confirmed by Obama's younger sister as well.

Re-adding this material to the article when it has been removed by more than one editor and is clearly being discussed here with no consensus for it is really not a good idea. I just removed it again. Tvoz |talk 09:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are you removing this material? Most of it is straight from Barack himself. Are you implying this material should be hidden , are you suggesting that a Muslim origin is shameful and should not be disclosed? Is it Ok to mention church attendance but Mosque attendance is not?--CltFn (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This information is only notable in reference to the rumors that have been spread since 2004 claiming that he is Muslim. This is adequate covered in the sub-article Barack Obama background whisper campaign and media controversy. johnpseudo 16:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Including a significant portion of his life history only in the 'whisper campaign' section seems a clear attempt to discredit the references, even though the facts are derived from his biography and his family. The problem is clear: His supporters are working very hard to suppress his Muslim origins and his detractors are trying very hard to reveal the same. Unfortunately for his supporters, Wikipedia is intended to show the facts...not hide the facts that are inconvenient truths. I am sure Mitt Romney would love to have avoided talking about religion, but that's not possible in American politics. In Obama's case, the Muslim connection is real and its admitted. The only fair approach would be to include the background information in matter-of-fact form...then follow it with something from Obama's biography that speaks to multi-cultural balance. I suspect that even Obama's bio, as would be the case with any politician, should not be considered a trusted source as these biographies are obviously self-serving...but at least the biography reference would alert Wiki readers to digest with caution. I know there's a lot at stake here for his supporters, which is why the article has such a light reference to Muslim connections, but the Wiki rules must prevail...the content cannot be manipulated for political purposes...the Muslim references have to be included...his detractors just need not be greedy and have to be prepared to accept something less than their desires.Jtextor (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

OK...I read the 'whisper campaign' article. The sub-article has SERIOUS neutrality issues. I also believe that ANY suggestion that Obama's early childhood influences should be dealt with in this sub-article should also be questioned. The 'Whisper' article paints legitimate discussion as being part of a smear campaign. The article too easily inserts the word 'false' (or 'falsely') before the word claim, without ever discussing the merits of the claim. Even the use of the word 'claim' already paints an assertion as questionable. The title of the article ('Whisper Campaign') is even intended to cast the entire discussion as inappropriate. This article is heavily influenced by a political agenda. It's seriously inappropriate within Wikipedia. Regarding the issue of his religious influences, it is also obvious that supporters of Obama are sitting on the Muslim references and hitting the Revert button at any appearance of the word. I tried to insert a balanced reference as an attempt to propose a solution to an obvious dispute, only to have a high school kid from Indiana Undo my comment without discussion. Another 'editor' even labeled my comment as 'vandalism'. Fact is, I am an independent-minded voter that likes Obama a great deal. I am also a well-known Chairman of the Board of two nationally known companies. If I am not able to engage in edits and discussion on a Wikipedia page, without being able to overcome the instant edits of people that have clearly stated their lack of independence, then this entire page (not just the sub-article) has SERIOUS neutrality issues. I don't see how I can avoid placing a Neutrality warning on this article.Jtextor (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Slapping a "neutrality" tag on a FA is a VERY big deal. You should not do so simply because you're having a content dispute with multiple other editors. Neutrality tags aren't weapons of warfare, and you apparently won't agree to removal until the information you want is shoehorned into the article. So unless you're willing to slap a neutrality tag on all the other candidate articles that don't include all the whispers about them, I'd strongly suggest you discuss here for more than 11 hours before adding a neutrality tag to this featured article. Bellwether ^B_C 15:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Race

What gives with the omission of Obama's racial origins? Isn't this a highly significant fact in the context of American race relations, especially with respect to interracial marriage and racial identity? Tmangray (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I recommend you actually read the article and notes, and look through the archives for many discussions of this. For starters from the article: ""I've got relatives who look like Bernie Mac, and I've got relatives who look like Margaret Thatcher. We've got it all." or how about "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.". Not enough? he is referred to as multi-racial as well as saying he is African American and black, his self-identification. The subject is amply covered. Tvoz |talk 20:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact is relevant at the top where you deleted the mention of race where his parentage is mentioned. It is arguably MORE significant to mention the racial aspect than the nationality of his parents in the context of race in America. Besides, there are white Kenyans and black Americans, so it isn't even implied by the reference to his parents' nationalities. The fact that you feel it necessary to DELETE mention of race indicates strongly that it is in fact significant, even to you. You say there's already a consensus on this. I challenge that, and re-raise the issue, and propose to add the race of his parents. Tmangray (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"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.". Tvoz |talk 21:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that in the intro about his parentage? What is significant about that statement except in the context of race in America? Obama acknowledges this, evidently, by making that statement. Tmangray (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If the racial orgins of the other candidate are shown on their articles, then Obama's should be shown here. If not? then the Obama page shouldn't be given special treatment. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Side note to Obama's supporters, all others please skip I just brought up this very question. In my opinion the regulars on this article are sincere and are not against Obama's campaign. However by not clearly stating that he is of biracial ancestry and that he identifies with the African American community they are harming his chances, slightly since not everyone reads WP. Here is my thinking on this: (1) No racist white person is going to vote for him if his "blackness" is played down. (2) Some black people will be offended if this is done and might not turn out to vote or might vote for Clinton or Edwards. End side note Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

NH Results modification

So that my revision does not get immediately reverted, I would like to change the following:
"Obama came in second with 36% of the vote to Hillary Rodham Clinton's 39% and John Edwards' 17%."
to
"Obama came in second with 36% of the popular vote to Hillary Rodham Clinton's 39% and John Edwards' 17%. Obama and Clinton ended up each receiving 9 delegates from the state negating Clinton's apparent win."

I believe this more accurately represents the outcome of the NH primary. If there are no major objections, I will make the adjustment. --Mattarata (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. It's a more accurate description. Note, though, that in the final tally Obama just barely squeaked past 36.5% so it rounds to 37% (seemingly unfair to some, probably, but we have to be consistent). --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't agree to this change - unless we are also willing to point out that despite Obama's receiving 8 percentage points more than Edwards in Iowa, he only got 1 more delegate, thus severly reducing Obama's win, or words to that effect. In other words, I think this reads like spin and is not neutral. there will be plenty of time to tally up the delegates as they start to become significant - right now they hardly are, and it sounds like OR to me, with a touch of POV. Also, as long as we're talking about the numbers - I think this rounding is an issue (although a minor one): how is it that the New York Times final numbers show Obama with 36.5% in NH which CNN translates to 37% while the NYT shows Clinton with 29.5% in Iowa which CNN translates to 29? I don't think you can have it both ways - either we round up or down or not at all, and I'd opt for not at all - let the real numbers and percentages stand for themselves. I guess this is why there have been discrepancies in the NH Obama percentage points. Thoughts? Tvoz |talk 04:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The entire purpose of the election is to assign delegates to candidates so I don't see how anyone can argue that those delegate totals should be excluded from the article. It's the result of the election and we have to accurately reflect the outcome. This was a primary, not a general election, so "winner take all" doesn't apply. As for vote percentages, the final tally put Obama at just over 36.5% (which, when reported as rounded figures is 37%). See my talk page for a discussion with links. If Clinton's totals in Iowa are inaccurate, we should change them. The important thing is that we are consistent. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with listing delegate counts — as long as they come from reliable sources, which obviously shouldn't be a problem considering how much media coverage the Presidential nomination process gets. What we cannot do is to draw conclusions from these sources, like saying that the closeness of the delegate count "negates" someone's win. That would be original research, and is prohibited on Wikipedia. Just state the verifiable facts. "Obama came in second with 36% of the popular vote; Hillary Rodham Clinton led with 39%, and John Edwards took third place with 17%. Both Obama and Clinton received nine delegates each." *** Crotalus *** 03:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't at all clear above. What Crotalus said is what I meant. I do not think we should avoid listing actual delegate counts, I think we should avoid spinning them with phrases like "negating Clinton's apparent win.". And I think we should go with the actual percentages and decimals rather than having 29.5 round to 29 while 36.5 mysteriously rounds to 37 Tvoz |talk 05:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality warning at opening

After a thorough review of the article and related discussion, and a brief attempt to introduce a neutral approach regarding religious influences in Obama's life, it is obvious that this article has far too many editors that are hawkishly focused on maintaining this piece with a political agenda. There is truly a battle between Obama's supporters and detractors that has moved the article outside of the typical edit-discussion balance that makes Wikipedia effective. Reverts and Undos are executed without discussion...valid attempts to edit are labeled as vandalism by editors that freely admit their bias without concern. One issue that will never be decided without arbitration is the issue of Muslim influences in Obama's early childhood, or influences that exist within his family today. (By the way, there is nothing wrong with Muslim influences...only, I guess, if you are running for office). There is simply no way too insert a complete, balanced discussion of this topic into this article without immediate Reverts. It is not even possible to insert this discussion into the article using only Obama and his family as sources. I, for one, believe his biography handles the issue fairly well...but some of this language could not even make it into this article because 'Muslim' is tantamount to political profanity The following language was excerpted from a comment I made in a different section of this discussion page:

OK...I read the 'whisper campaign' article. The sub-article has SERIOUS neutrality issues. I also believe that ANY suggestion that Obama's early childhood influences should be dealt with in this sub-article should also be questioned. The 'Whisper' article paints legitimate discussion as being part of a smear campaign. The article too easily inserts the word 'false' (or 'falsely') before the word claim, without ever discussing the merits of the claim. Even the use of the word 'claim' already paints an assertion as questionable. The title of the article ('Whisper Campaign') is even intended to cast the entire discussion as inappropriate. This article is heavily influenced by a political agenda. It's seriously inappropriate within Wikipedia. Regarding the issue of his religious influences, it is also obvious that supporters of Obama are sitting on the Muslim references and hitting the Revert button at any appearance of the word. I tried to insert a balanced reference as an attempt to propose a solution to an obvious dispute, only to have a high school kid from Indiana Undo my comment without discussion. Another 'editor' even labeled my comment as 'vandalism'. Fact is, I am an independent-minded voter that likes Obama a great deal. I am also a well-known Chairman of the Board of two nationally known companies. If I am not able to engage in edits and discussion on a Wikipedia page, without being able to overcome the instant edits of people that have clearly stated their lack of independence, then this entire page (not just the sub-article) has SERIOUS neutrality issues. I don't see how I can avoid placing a Neutrality warning on this article.Jtextor (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Consider leaving the Neutrality Warning in place through the end of the election. This page is just too abused by agendas.Jtextor (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• It won't happen. You're using the tag as a weapon in a content dispute. This is unacceptable. Please stop. Bellwether ^B_C 15:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Its time to bring this article to the neural point of view as this article has become a one sided advertisement from the Obama presidential campaign.--CltFn (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, after removing your POV flag, I intended to forge a compromise that might include better coverage of Obama's sampling of religions in Indonesia. After looking at your "Religion (childhood): Muslim" edit however, I doubt you would be reasonable enough to agree to a neutral change to the article. All this rhetorical conspiracy theorizing gets us nowhere. Make suggestions and we will debate the suggestions on their merits. johnpseudo 15:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• I completely concur. His attempt to add a "fact" about Obama's "childhood religion" that is not supported by reliable sources convinced me that there's no compromising with him. You can't "compromise" on infobox material that will be the first thing read, and thus lend undue weight to the whisper campaigns about Obama. Bellwether ^B_C 15:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems CltFn has radically altered the Barack Obama media controversy about Islamic origins article to emphasize every last tidbit of Islam-related trivia and changed the article to remove any reference to the spreading of the false rumor that Obama is Muslim, which is what the entire point of the article was. johnpseudo 16:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This is simply ridiculous. By trying to force an unsourced religion into an infobox the user himself is not being neutral. Why would you want to include anything but his CURRENT religion. Imagine if someone had 4 different religions throughout their life, would you want to include all 4 in the infobox? This forcing of another religion into the infobox is just a way to make a POV. What purpose does having 2 religions in the infobox, considering he does not practice the Muslim religion it makes it irrelevant. HoosierState 16:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Gents, I am completely reasonable. I am also a fan of Obama. I am strongly considering voting for him...AS A REPUBLICAN. I just don't think it's likely to go the entire campaign before the issue becomes a major issue. I think the best course would be to allow the obvious course to play out - Include the Matter-of-Fact approach in a section called Early Childhood Influences and make sure it's balanced. Then included Obama's discussion of the reading material balance that was available in the house and encouraged by his mother. Then speak to the media coverage (and the Internet campaign) without using extreme bias. Lay it all out and the facts should be obvious and the conjecture will likely be discarded. That's the Wiki way.

As for Neutrality, I am happy to drop the whole Muslim Influences topic...seriously. I really don't care that much about it. I was just really surprised at how it was handled. Maybe I underestimated the importance of the InfoBox, but it seemed like the Christian label was a little heavy-handed...almost used to trump any discussion. If he has made so many statements that appear agnostic, why is the Religion/Christian label in the box? If it is standard to have religion in a politician's InfoBox, then I'll be happy to stand-down on that issue.

Back to Neutrality - I am concerned that you guys are showing your colors a bit too much in suggesting that you think this article represents a proper editing environment. I really think we should leave the Neutral baner up for a bit and see what the discussion yields. How else will the topic get discussed?Jtextor (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• You can self-identify as considering voting for Obama all you like. That's your right. Attempting to use the NPOV tag to shoehorn information into the article that is specifically contradicted by several reliable sources, and the subject of the article himself, violates the WP policy on biographies of living persons. As I said, I'll leave up the pov-check tag for 10 hours, to allow for time for others to look it over. After that point, I (or someone else) will remove it. Bellwether ^B_C 16:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop taking shots at me. I explained how I came to the Neutrality issue already. I did not try to shoe-horn anything. It seems like their is still a debate about the facts on the issue. At this point I do not care. As I said, I'll drop the WHOLE issue of religion in favor of the issue of Neutrality...but I am not going to allow you to cast all of my comments into an improper light. As it seems obvious to me that you have far more bias on the issue of Obama than do I, and you may disagree with that assumption, why don't we just call a truce. The issue of Neutrality in a political article seems like an opportunity to have a balanced discussion.Jtextor (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually there are plenty of reliable sources to support the childhood religion being Islam , most of which are from Obama himself and sourced in 3 party reliable publications:

Barack Obama's own biographies and interviews disclose his early Islamic origins.

• Barack was born Muslim , of a Muslim father and Christian mother.
• Barack's family on his father's side is predominantly Muslim, father( Baracka Obama snr) , grandfather (Hussein Onyango Obama) were Muslims, brother Abongo (Roy) Obama is Muslim.
• Barack Obama 's name is a shortening of Baracka which means the blessed one in Arabic.
• Barack Obana's middle name is Hussein ,an Arabic Muslim name which means "beautiful" or "handsome". It is commonly given to Muslim males after the name of the grandson of the Islamic prophet Muhammad , Ali, the fouth Islamic Caliph in Islamic history.
• Father Baracka Obama died in 1982, Barack described his father Baracka as a non practicing Muslim though he got a Muslim burial at Barack's family's request.
• Stepfather Lolo Soetoro was a Muslim from Indonesia.
• Barack enrolled in Catholic school in Indonesia as a Muslim student.
• When Obama attended 4th grade in 1971 in a Muslim school , Muslim children spent two hours a week studying Islam and Christian children spent those two hours learning about the Christian religion. Barack studied Islam.
• Barack attended at least some friday Mosque prayers with his step father Lolo Soetoro .

Cultural and political image

This section, presenting "Obama as cipher", is pure opinion. It may be based on a collection of different sourced opinions but one could just as easily put together a different set of "sources" that would argue the opposite. This section doesn't belong in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.209.220 (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...Interesting point. At one time his multi-racial/multi-cultural background was the thing most talked about. That will certainly change. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

True. But that said, Obama's heterogeneous background marks a sea change in American politics comparable to Clinton's being the first Baby Boomer president. In a sense Obama is in his person the first globalized presidential candidate, and how various sectors of the (polled and cited) electorate take that is certainly legitimate material for Wikipedia. How he is perceived speaks to campaign strategy, etc. kencf0618 (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

pov-check tag added

I've added a temporary tag to check for POV in the article. Not including "Childhood Religion: Islam" does not count as POV. If no violations of NPOV are detected by uninvolved editors after 10 hours, I will remove the tag. Bellwether ^B_C 16:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Bellwether - I am fine with the POV tag you added. I am seriously not that interested in the Muslim issue. My Childhood tag was an attempt to reference it without having to include a large controversial section of text that invited more nonsense. Given the importance you place on the InfoBox, I understand your point. Frankly, I thought a Childhood reference would render it nearly meaningless. Childhood affiliatons are lightly regarded at best. Anyway, consistent with my committment, I will not discuss the Muslim issue again on this board. I will, instead, focus all of my efforts (if any) on the issue of Neutrality. That is truly my greatest concern. This is my first view of a political campaign-related Wiki page...and it's a bit shocking. We'll see what comes from the discussion. By the way, who 'checks for neutrality'?Jtextor (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Other editors not related to the discussion thus far. And as for your being "shocked", that you find this article (a featured article) "shocking" belies your claims to only be interested in neutrality. There's nothing "shocking" about this article in the least. Bellwether ^B_C 16:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Would you like to make specific points to were this article is not neutral because I do not see it. There is almost 1 source to every line in the article. Maybe you do not see it as neutral but by Wiki standards it is. HoosierState 16:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You are misreading my 'shocking' comment. I was shocked by how quickly a well-intended comment could be Reverted and labeled as vandalism by a high school kid in Indiana. It gave me a sense for how politically charged this article seemed to be. It made me wonder how Wikipedia could ever establish a proper editing forum during a hotly contested political campaign. If this is a semi-protected article, with the Feature Article balance that you suggest, how can an editor (HoosierState) listed as a "High School Student, Liberal Democrat and Obama Supporter" have such authority. I know the answer, but it's a little disappointing for those of us that would like to see Wikipedia evolve.Jtextor (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Because I have been around long enough to know what you can and cannot do on Wiki, trust me I learned the hard way around here. What does where I live, who I am, and what I support have to do with anything on Wiki because I do not see the connection. Everyone has an equal chance on here to make edits so just because I am a Democrat (Obama Supporter) or a High School student does not make me "ineligible" to make contributions to Barack Obama. Also sorry to say you also avoided my question and if you know the answer why don't you share it with the rest of us. HoosierState 16:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is not neutral because it deliberately omits information about Obama's childhood Muslim history which is controversial due to his run for the US presidency. Evidently some editors are determnined to remove any references to that part of Obama's life.--CltFn (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That small part does not count as POV. Also Jtextor already said he dropped that. HoosierState 17:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• The 10-hour period has passed and no POV points have been pointed out. The tag should be removed. HoosierState 03:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for removing it. I got busy with some RL issues, and was just coming online to check about it when I noticed it had been removed. Bellwether ^B_C 06:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Disappointing Article

I came to this article to get some basic information on this candidate in my preparation to vote in the primaries. I found this very hard to do.

• The opening section is full of selective highlighting of positive traits.
• The article talks very little about what he did between graduating from Harvard Law School and entering the Illinois State Senate. During those several years when he wasn't a civil rights lawyer, was his primary occupation that of a lecturer at UC Law?
• His place of residence is not elaborated on in the body of the text. What part of Chicago does he live in? Does he reside there often? How accessible was he to his constitutency when he was representing that South Side district in the State Senate?
• A vague reference is made to his parents being "middle class". However, this reference comes straight from his book, and the parent's occupations are never given. Information on the grandparents and their economic status is also lacking, as are the dad's post-U.S. activities.
• The section on Obama's political views is disorganized (unrelated issues in the same paragraph), flows poorly, and again seems to highlight information that his campaign wants to play up on. Things that have historically not been a problem or issue in the United States, such as "net neutrality", are highlighted and emphasized to appeal to that demographic of voters.
• A concise summary of his main issues seems to be lacking. I see one paragraph listing a couple key issues at the end of the introduction, and I see a whole lot of detail in the "political advocacy" section, but a medium-depth, concise overview of his main political agenda seems to be absent.

As a tertiary source, Wikipedia should be an excellent place to get a CONCISE and OBJECTIVE overview of a politician and their political positions. I don't feel that this article does a good job of this. As a former editor, I know a lot of work goes into featured articles, so my apologies in advance for my hopefully constructive criticism. 72.130.68.127 (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Obama is not a polyglot, barely even bilingual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.6.30 (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Masonic Election

Some claim that Back Obama was elected by the head Mason as the next President of the USA. And as such, has the backing of all Masons globally.

This has difficulties as the Mormon's also claim Mason connections and so you have the head Mormom / prophet (Gordon B. Hinckley) electing Romney as the next President with Hinckley's Mason "brothers" electing Obama as the next president ...

Which (Mormon's or Masons) will win out and so who will rule the USA , behind the scenes ??

See Discover special (channel 278)... about Masons, 13 Jan 2008

Also via his mom, Obama descends from the Davidic Jesus line back to Jesus AND also, back to Mohammed, his father's Muslim religion founder.

All these conflicted intersects bring out the real nature of many candidates in this election, being unknown entirely; and so the key to understanding Obama or any of them, is, who they are ?

Can someone get the Masons/ Head Mason/ Grand Master (Donald Berg) up in New Hampshire to comment on the Mason connection , backing , electing of Obama as next President. ?

footnote ? Note also new leader "loved by all" is the nature of the beast identifed as the A.C./antichrist.

note also Romney & McCain both desc from Jesus & Mohammed > who wins when competing Grail candidates ... this also occurred with Kerry & Bush43 etc...

subfootnote ? abom over temple wing jan,08 or earlier ? recent proposal-splitting of Holy land into pieces and recall, "goat" gives power to "beast"

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.179.179 (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please supply references for all of those allegations. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

further ref: the Lord -GM/ PS, cmp

The Notes Section looks bad bad bad

Someone needs to wikify the notes. I can't find out where the mistake is. --Sevvvy (talk) 12:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. --HailFire (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Content Mediation

At what point does Wiki intervene when content disputes seem hopeless? Does anyone ever really believe it's possible for a politician's biography to be accurately represented in an open/anonymous editing environment during an open election? Is this not the first presidential election since Wiki became a really big deal (and apparently now a political tool)? Face it, opposing sides of this campaign will never agree on the truth...whatever that may be. Just an independent perspective...one of the few on this board.76.108.82.49 (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia rarely steps in on it's own accord to initiate dispute resolution, it is generally up to the participants of a dispute to request outside opinions via the dispute resolution process. The first step of this process is to try and talk it out on the talk page, if that fails, then third opinions can be sought, or a request for comment can be requested if a larger pool of opinions is wanted. In the case of this content dispute, an RFC is probably the best route as adding one more editor's opinion is not likely to resolve the issue. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

How many times do we have say that this has nothing do with any campaign? 76.108..., you actually have no idea who the individual editors are supporting in this election, if anyone. You may think you do, but I assure you, you don't. This article is edited by people who also edit other politicians' articles, and some of us have been accused of working on their campaigns as often and as vehemently as we're accused of working on this one. Sometimes in the same day. You say you are one of the few independents here - but in fact you have no way of knowing that, and I for one would appreciate it if people wouldn't make unwarranted assumptions. Tvoz |talk 04:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

My personal favorite was when I was informed that the only reason I wanted something included in an article was because I was a Democrat one day and then several days later I was informed the only reason I wanted something removed from the same article was because I was a Republican. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I was seperately accused of working for the Obama campaign and the Huckabee campaign on the same day! Quick accusations of "working for" a candidate are nothing more than assumptions of bad faith. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't mind putting my political affiliations out there. I'm an independent-minded Democrat. I've had the right to vote since 1992, and have been a registered Democrat since. I voted for, in this order: Clinton; Dole (I'm from Kansas); Bush (hated Gore); Bush (hated Kerry); and now I'll support Obama or McCain if they're put forward. If both are put forward, I'll have a tough call. If neither are put forward, I'll have just as tough a call. The only candidate I will not vote for, no matter what, is Romney. Too much like Kerry and Gore for my tastes. Bellwether ^B_C 15:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully, whichever candidate gets the Democratic nomination, his/her article won't get too bloated. That's what happen to the John Kerry article, during the 2004 election. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this quote sums up situations like these pretty well: "This is a search for the truth." / "The truth must be won. I'll see you on the battlefield." Thompsontough (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion debate for Barack Obama media controversy

Editors may wish to be aware that Barack Obama media controversy has been nominated for deletion - please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama media controversy. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Critisism of Obama

Just throwing it out there, Most major politicions here have a critisism section. What makes Obama differant? KingsOfHearts (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, none of the presidential candidates have a criticism section and with good reason. Use of a criticism sections is very poor encyclopedic style and usually just become a POV-fork or a troll magnet. It is much better (albeit harder) to weave the criticism into the relevant sections of the article than to simply provide a "list" of negative comments that other people have made. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right, I thought I saw that section in a lot of articles but I guess they were removed or I was wrong. Oh well. KingsOfHearts (talk) 01:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

In most cases those sections in politician's bios were just renamed but are really still criticism sections. Check out the extensive criticism section of John McCain (now labeled "Cultural and political image") or the "Criticism and public perception" section on George W. Bush. The standard on this in Wikipedia is all over the map. For example, the criticism section on Al Gore was moved to a separate article and then at some point deleted; the argument being that the criticisms would be integrated into the article (which never happened). I understand the argument against criticism sections as they seem to ignite flame wars and NPOV arguments, but I'd also note that a lot of articles on political candidates on Wikipedia read more like upbeat press releases than neutral overviews of the subject's life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.231.129 (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Save Darfur rally image

I restored the Save Darfur image that was recently removed from the political advocacy section without an edit summary. This biography article already has three images from Obama's 2008 presidential campaign. The Save Darfur rally photo dating from April 2006 and uploaded to Wikimedia by the photographer illustrates the adjoining text and adds useful content. Open to hearing other views. --HailFire (talk) 07:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I noticed that last week but was too busy to bring it up. The Save Darfur photo is unique and relates to the section while ordinary campaign photos are a dime a dozen. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

healthcare

Baraka Obama does not intend to provide an universal healthcare plan anymore but just an extended one (Reference: his own ads on CNN and his own statement on a public debate: CNN, 01/21/08)Japbnc (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Rezko article becoming a POV fork of this article.

Although ostensibly about Tony Rezko, that article is quickly becoming a POV dumping ground for all things Obama. When I looked at it this morning, the section on Obama was twice as long as the section on Rezko (whom the article is actually supposed to be about). There seems to be an attempt to add any attack of Obama, as long as it mentions Rezko's name, regardless of whether it is based on new information, or that which has already been covered. Additionally, an anonymous editor is actually trying to claim that Obama is "under investigation by the Feds." The article is exhibiting all of the problems which led to the consensus for dismantling all the "Criticism of..." articles. Rezko is notable of course, but the article needs serious work and the attention of good editors. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

African American?

The claim that Barack Obama is the only African American currently serving in the United States Senate is wrong and clearly contradicts the section on his parents. His mother is white and his father is black and thus he can only be half African American. I think it is disgraceful and racist to claim that he is African American when clearly his heritage is BOTH Caucasian AND African. This section of the article should be changed for clarity, consistence, and correctness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LocalMoth (talk • contribs) 07:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This has already been discussed here a hundred times or more. He, himself, identifies himself as an African American. One does not have to be 100% "black" or of African ancestry to be one. Steve Dufour (talk) 11:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is the intro to African American:

African Americans or black Americans are citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.[1] In the United States the term is generally used for Americans with sub-Saharan African ancestry. Most African Americans are the descendants of captive Africans who survived slavery within the boundaries of the present United States, although some are—or are descended from—voluntary immigrants from Africa, the Caribbean, South America, or elsewhere.[2]

It sounds to me that that includes Barack since he "has origins" and "ancestry" from the "black racial groups" of "sub-Saharan Africa." Steve Dufour (talk) 12:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

And actually, LocalMoth, in any case he wouldn't be 'Caucasian', as that is a very specific ethnic classification for people from the Caucasus mountain region, not applicable to all so-called 'white' people (which itself is a spurious classification). Only in the United States do we use that term - and true to form we use it in utter ignorance to its actual meaning.Godheval (talk) 04:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

... and the WP page on Caucasian race (Oxfordden (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

If his race is worth mentioning at all - which, unfortunately, only seems to be the case with non-white folks - then it is worth being accurate about. Obama is not "African American" any more than he is "European American." He is either both or neither. He's not someone with one little branch, generations back, of a different culture. He has deep, personal life experiences in both communities - mother and father, the grandparents who raised him, not to mention his professional life in the mostly-white US government vs activism in Afro-American politics. You can cherry-pick identities for your own political / social purposes, and "passing" (as a member only of one community or the other) is often a strategy for coping with racism from both directions and thus defense against isolation. But to label him simply "African American" plays all kinds of political cards, is not NPOV, certainly it is LESS NPOV than the more specific, encyclopedic fact that he is of mixed origins. Much of the article, further down, deals with this issue but the simple, apparently-settled label "African American" up top is definitely a political label with a POV. It's a sensitive question but NPOV dictates accuracy and inclusiveness, not choosing sides.Flickharrison (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Speak for yourself; my father was Nigerian and I my mother family is American. I do not consider myself an African American. I consider myself a Nigerian American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.139.136 (talk) 04:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"Oh well"..You can't get mad, upset and cry, just because Barak mostly acknowledges his african ancestry, not everyone wants to be considered mixed race like you, even if they are. If Barak wasnt as popular as he is, you probably would have not brought this up.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.194.146 (talk • contribs)

It's written somewhere that if an american has even the slightest bit of african heritage they are african american. I was sceptical of this as well, until I considered that if you had to be one hundred percent black to be considered black, every african-american in this country would be white, or almost every. Still, like it or not, it's a fact, and Barack Obama is african-american...and seeing as how there's nothing wrong with that, it isn't racist to call him such. I'll acknowledge that it isn't constructive to simply insult whoever posted this paragraph above me, however, and I think people should really just not bother with Wikipedia if they only want to argue over nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.134.22 (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are talking about the One-drop rule.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"Still, like it or not, it's a fact, and Barack Obama is african-american[...]" This is not a fact. The entire statement is riddled with paradoxes a mile wide, still if someone wants to identify themselves in a certain way, so be it. Nevertheless, identifying yourself with two large land-masses does not somehow automatically make it factual to suggest "I am [X]." It is factual, however, to suggest "I identify myself as [X]." --64.142.82.29 (talk) 01:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

How about, "the senate, newspapers, television stations, and vast majority of Americans identify me as African American, myself included." Turtlescrubber (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh heh... "the senate, newspapers, TV stations, and the vast majority of Americans." God help us if that's the list of philosophical authorities. Or encyclopedic authorities for that matter.Flickharrison (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well im half greek and i can say that i definetly talk about that more than my being french, irish, canadian, english and mikmac native american. Obama is african american because he has african ethnicity, but he's not black since he has the same amount of "black" blood as "white", i believe he would be "two or more races". So people can say that he would be the first african american president, just not the first black president.71.174.200.210 (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

A European American (Euro-American) is a person who resides in the United States and is either the descendant of European immigrants or from Europe him/herself.[1] -Wikipedia

African Americans or black Americans are citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.[1] - Wikipedia

Barack Handily fits under both of these categories... consequently he is: Euro-Afro American.

As a biological fact, Obama is black and white both, and therefore also mixed. Therefore, he is African American (in the broadest sense of the term; in the stricter sense, he is not since he is not a descendant of slaves brought to America; strictly-speaking, he is Kenyan American). And European American. There is no contradiction. In the US, the racist-originated one-drop-rule usually still adhered to by racist-inclined people undoubtedly means he is regarded as "black" or African American. No one, however, is required to follow this in how they see him. I personally regard him as mixed, of African American and European American parentage. How others choose to see him, or even how he may choose to see himself is an issue of identity, not biological fact.

As a matter of culture, he was mostly raised in a white middle class family, and entirely outside any predominantly African American community, so it would be false to conclude that he is culturally African American, anymore than any American who is not African American is. Even as an adult, he has moved in integrated circles. He certainly does have the experience of being regarded as black which non-blacks do not share. Tmangray (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Many African Americans in this country who have descended from slavery have both African and European ancestry, given the fact that many slave masters had sex with their slaves. As a biological fact, many blacks today have ancestors in African, Native American, and European communities. But it's unnecessary and cumbersome to consider the greater African American population in this country "Euro-Afro American," and there is no need to give Obama this identification. In the discussion of race, identity has always trumped biological fact, since dark skin hue and certain physical features have historically given an individual the identification of "black" in this world, no matter what continent we are talking about. It must also be noted that many African Americans today grow up in predominately white middle-class suburbs, thus "outside any predominantly African American community;" yet they might still identify as culturally African American if they attend predominantly black churches or have parents in black (fraternal or sorority) social organizations (or, it could simply depend on with whom they associate). Obama didn't grow up in these communities, but certainly spent his post-college time working in African American neighborhoods. And given his marriage to Michelle Obama and his membership in the undeniably African American-oriented Trinity UCC church, we can accept that he is culturally African American. It's not as if the man's an enigmatic outcast in his own family and community, and it doesn't make sense to split hairs over our acceptance of his African American cultural or racial identity. 7:47, 12 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.103.135.53 (talk)

This and similar sections should be removed, since the questioning of his race because he has mixed racial heritage is fundamentally racist.

Sean7phil (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's racist to list his race at all. Race is imaginary, for one thing. Clearly American politics contains a race element, which would be nice to get rid of, but ignoring it, according to some, means letting racism stand unchallenged.

I agree. HE IS NOT an African-American! He is half white American(!) and half AFRICAN. He has nothing at all to do with African-Americans. I never heard him make this claim, only whites call him that. Anytime they call him an AA, he remains silent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.91.23 (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

People who argue that he is indeed African American are indeed missing the point. Just because he's an African American doesn't mean he should be LISTED as so. Would you list Champ Bailey, for example, as playing in the National Football league under the Redskins? Of course not, you would say he played for the Redskins AND the Bronco's. Similarly, calling Barack Obama African-American is only correct if you list that he is ALSO of Caucasian (white) ancestry. I can see making prominence of the fact that he does indeed prefer is African heritage and actively reffers to himself as African American, but it should be listed (prefferebly in the opening paragraph) as him being of mixed Caucasion and African ancestry. 67.180.11.77 (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Placement of only African American Senator fact

The second sentence of the article now reads:

He is the fifth African American Senator in U.S. history, and the only African American currently serving in the U.S. Senate.

Is this really important enough to be the second sentence in the article. The first sentence already told us that he is a Senator. How about moving this sentence down the page to the section on his election to the Senate?

Another point is that, in my opinion anyway, the introduction to an article should, if possible, only contain statements that no one could disagree with. That way you project a feeling of neutrality and avoid getting people hostile. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would disagree that he's the fifth African-American and the only one serving currently. These facts have been in the intro since his election to the Senate, so I think it's OK. Paisan30 (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is my idea (and please note that I am no longer making changes to the article itself):

Barack Hussein Obama (pronounced /bəˈrɑːk huːˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/[1]) (born August 4, 1961) is the junior United States Senator from Illinois and a leading candidate for the Democratic nomination in the 2008 presidential election.[2][3] He is the fifth African American Senator in U.S. history, and the only African American currently serving in the U.S. Senate.[4]

Born in Honolulu to a black Kenyan father and a white American mother, Obama considers himself an African American. He grew up in culturally diverse surroundings....

No one would disagree with these statements and his racial background is explained as well as his African American-ness introduced. The statement about his being the first African American Senator could be put back right after his election victory in the Senate race is mentioned. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the current construct. Steve's proposal seems oddly worded to me and seems to be creating an issue of his "African-Americanness" that is really only supported by small percentage of people. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Bobblehead. Tvoz |talk 00:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if there was any misunderstanding. I think the article as it is is a good Wikipedia article. Thanks to the regulars for their hard work on it. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• I went ahead and wikified this phrase in the intro, because there appeared to be no other link from this article to the African_Americans_in_the_United_States_Congress article (which a reader might like to look at after reading about Obama). I didn't seek consensus here first because it's just an internal link. Bry9000 (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree completely with Steve Dufour, above. His rewording sounds much more correct and much less controversial. Instead of just delaring Obama as "African Amercian" as if it is some automatic fact, it describes his actual half black/half white heritage and his *choice* to be considered "African Amercian"--Crxssi (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

To say that someone cannot self-identify as an African American and should instead be said to 'consider themselves African American' is offensive and racist. 65.60.137.13 (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"Present" Votes

The section on Obama in the Illinois State Senate currently states that he voted "Present" on abortion-related legislation, and that this is seen as controversial, but does not provide the context of the votes. Obama voted "Present" along with a number of other pro-choice Democrats as a tactical move at the request of pro-choice groups like Planned Parenthood. A good write-up of the issue (written during the 2004 Illinois Senate Primary, but recently reprinted), can be found here: http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2007/12/disparagement-o.html. It would be great if someone could include this information, as I have been seeing this argument a lot lately. 8.11.254.188 (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that source, added here. --HailFire (talk) 07:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not understand the edit summary that went with this edit. I've restored the previous phrasing pending further discussion here. --HailFire (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove unneeded bias

"In a move considered exceptional for a first-term incoming senator" This is personal opinion of the author. This is a conclusion the author is making and should not be made for the reader. Let the reader decide if the move was exceptional or not. If you cite someone saying it was "exceptional" please cite someone else saying it wasn't. Better yet, delete this statement altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 05:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It cites the Washington Post. (And that's not the only time the Post has mentioned the exceptional nature of the move, either, by the way. See, e.g., [9] ("Clinton and Obama were unusual senators from the start. They hired established, high-level staffers such as Pete Rouse...")). Don't know what more you could want there, frankly. --TheOtherBob 06:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Because a single newspaper (was it the editorial?) says its exceptional, does that equivocate to "considered exceptional" objectively? No Bob. And you know better. How about this: "One newspaper considered the move exceptional". You don't know what more I could want? I want neutrality. But you apparantly do not. I dont like article authors making up my mind for me. Cite the source, and dont word a statement as if its some kind of widely considered objective truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 08:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Who cares, it doesn't matter. Bob's personal Obama election page here on Wikipedia won't matter in the end as Hillary keeps winning. Good try on your candidate Bob. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, what a stinging attack. Seriously, though, I vote libertarian, and usually end up siding with the Republicans. (Not that it matters, but since you seem to think everyone on the board but you is a political operative...) But I do like to see Wikipedia's rules followed - and it's painfully clear that you're not interested in following them. You've got an agenda that you want to push, everyone has helpfully pointed out that you can't push it on here, you don't really have anything resembling a decent response to that, and so now you're lashing out with a little personal attack. I'd suggest doing something more productive, but, hey, you've got to live your life, man. --TheOtherBob 22:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

NO Bob, you have it wrong (again). I have no agenda. Zero. "In a move considered exceptional for a first-term incoming senator" is poor writing for NPOV. It just is Bobby. This is terrible writing. This is making a judgment and a conclusion. Bob, you are a grown man, right? You are smarter than this. You know what is a conclusion and what is not. This is a conclusion. You could write it more neutrally, such as "According to the Washington Post" or "According to "...etc, but do you do this? Of course not, Bob. You want it to be an objective conclusion. Yes, the Washington Post makes a conclusion....well heck guys! It must be THE conclusion to make. Well when the conclusion suits you, I guess, right Bob? All I asked...*all I asked* in this section was to reword this. I hate it when articles make up my mind for me, and you are endorsing something that is not NPOV, and no amount of your string of unyielding fallacies will change it. You can hide behind your facade of "wikipedia rules" to make it sound like your little pov insert is NPOV, but it wont work. Wikipedia is widely known for being biased and defending poor writing. Its not difficult to insert POV on this site, and I can get a lot more sources to back that widely known fact up Bob. This exact conversation is a microcosm of the wider problem that plagues wiki. You defend subtle POV phrases in an article (like this one)...mask it as NPOV, and then pawn it off with various twists of logic. But really, Bob, are you convincing anyone? This statement is poor writing. Bob, I have my own mind, thank you. I dont need you or anyone else, including your selective sources, to tell me what is "exceptional" and what is not concerning a politician. Tell me that John Smith calls it exceptional, tell me that the Washington Post calls it exceptional, but dont you dare tell me it *IS* exceptional. I'm smarter than that Bob, and so are you. But we know what you are doing here. This is what wiki is known for. And why Knol is needed. Sorry, Bob, you lost again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If you think I'm reading all of that, then you're crazier than the above ranting would suggest. Peace, dude.--TheOtherBob 00:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The Washington Post, man, the Washington Post (and follow the link to find out if it was an editorial - it wasn't). If we needed a reliable source for something related to Washington politics, we couldn't ask for a better one than the Washington Post. On Wikipedia we operate on the basic principle of reliable sources - and this is as reliable as it gets. If you really think that the Washington Post is insufficient to establish this basic fact, or not a reliable source for Washington politics, well then you're a tiny, tiny minority -- and I don't think there's much to say beyond that. --TheOtherBob 22:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"basic fact" So its now just a basic fact that the decision of a politician is exceptional? No bob, this is not a fact. A fact is something that is measurable. You would make a terrible lawyer. THis is a fact: "Barak Obama is a senator". Now bob, this is not a fact: "Barak Obama is an exceptional Senator". Bob.....how can you be an honest author here and not comprehend such a mediocre concept? Quit establishing as fact, the moral judgments of someone else, including a single newspaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The Washington Post is not making a moral (do you know what that word means?) judgment about Obama - it's noting that this action was not typical. It's not us, it's the Post - that's how Wikipedia works. This is not controversial. You disagree with the Post's characterization of a basic fact...ok, I guess I'm happy for you. --TheOtherBob 00:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Bob, you are smart enough to comprehend that the word "exceptional" is not a neutral word, but connotates praise. Yes, Bob, Obama is being praised. "In a move worthy of praise, Obama...." You are playing a little game here Bob. The same game that authors play on wiki all the time....the subtle "lets insert POV and pose it as NPOV" game. If you had used a more neutral term that was not synoymous with positive praise, (such as the word 'unusual') then I would have no issue. But you want to pour out the praise on the Great Obama. No, Bob, your little game doesn't work with me. People are too smart for that Bob, they see right through it. This is why Wikipedia is suffering in its reputation because intelligent people know what you are doing. Maybe you fool some people, but you wont fool everyone. If you were neutral, you would not select words that are obvious promotions (or demotions) of a candidate. The sentence is poor Bob. It is extremely poor. You know what you are doing here Bob...we all do.

The word "exceptional" is not in the Washington Post article. In fact, the emphasis in the article is between the outsider status of Obama and the insider status of Rouse. I think the term "exceptional" should be removed. Your second citation is for an article that notes that Clinton and Obama were both unusual from the start in hiring high-level insider staffers. How can Obama's hire be "exceptional" when it was similar to Clinton's?(Since I've posted twice in the Obama talkback in what might be interpreted as un-Obama-friendly ways I'll freely admit that as a registered Democrat I would prefer to see Obama as the Democratic nominee. Nonetheless, I came here looking for more information and I'd prefer the Obama article to be more accurate).Nathanael101 (talk) 09:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The entire Post article is about how this is exceptional, extraordinary, different, etc. We could say "unusual," "atypical," "out of the ordinary" - I don't think it really matters. The point is that we're not going to cut out citable, neutral facts to appease POV warriors. By the way, I've just got to ask - you joined Wikipedia and immediately jumped into this fray...have you edited here before? --TheOtherBob 16:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I haven't. If I do it will probably be the article on Degas. My point about your reference still holds. The entire article you cite is about the contrast between Obama and Rouse, the inexperienced and the experienced, the young and the old, the outsider and the insider. These are the tropes being used -- they are used in the headline, in the opening paragraph and throughout the article. The article is about Obama being a "hot" new senator but seeking the advice of a "cool" experienced hand, with his future ambitions implied. "Exceptional" doesn't not convey the sense of the article accurately. I'm no POV warrior. I have no intention of editing this article but I figured joining the backroom melee was a decent way to learn the ropes.Nathanael101 (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Bob, the POV marauder is you. You have the wiki system nailed down. The wiki system, when manipulated correctly, allows for authors to spin and subtly apply POV to articles, as you have done. Again, it is no secret that Wikipedia suffers a reputation of bias, I only find it humorous that you cannot see yourself as part of the problem. In your mind you think you are actually protecting articles from POV insertion, but are unable to see that you yourself, Bob, are contributing to the problem. You make conclusions for your readers, and mask it as POV. You do a dis-service to everything wikipedia stands for. You, Bob, are part of the reason why even the founders of this site had to create a new one. You, Bob, are part of the reason why Knol is on the way. Thank God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I shot your mother and kicked your dog - don't leave those out. Seriously, dude, get a grip - I know you feel deeply and personally insulted by the word choices in this article, that you can't sleep at night because of it, but...have you considered the possibility that this is just a website? Or that the editors who disagree with you aren't satan worshipers looking to steal your soul, but rather people working on an encyclopedia who just don't want to collaborate with you because of the way you act? That you could be...wrong? Just a thought, dude. Anyways, I've got a lot better things to do than trade internet insults with you, so you have yourself a nice day. --TheOtherBob 01:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL the true Bob has surfaced. Now we are finally seeing how easily you resort to fallacy. Its nice to see that beneath all the "NPOV" lingo you push out, there is a serious agenda. I have already stated bobby that if you used the word "atypical" I would have no issue. This is all about you bobby, and how you defend the word "Exceptional"...adamantly refusing any other word. Tell me, Bobby, if the term "exceptional" is supposed to mean "atypical" then why not use "atypical?" Well, let me answer that for you Bobster. YOu wont use "atypical" because you are hoping that some people will take the word "exceptional" to mean praise. And the way the sentence is worded, that is a completely viable interpretation. I have an idea Bobbaroll...how about we write clearly, and remove the possibility of a reasonable misinterpretation? Lets use the word "unusual" or "atypical" and that would make the sentence much more resistant to misinterpretation. Sound good Bob? Or are you going to continue on your little pilgrimage of manipulating Wiki using covert methods to defend POV where it suits you? Remember Bobby, once you substitute the word "atypical" instead of "exceptional", I have no issue anymore. Will you do it Bobber? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• I see no problem with TOB's behavior. Resisting POV-pushers does not make him a POV-pusher. -- Bellwether ^B_C 01:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• This whole argument seems to come down to the anonymous editor's misunderstanding of the multiple meanings of the word "exceptional" The secondary meaning of the word is often used as a synonym for "excellent" but that is not the meaning in the context of this paragraph (or the sources cited). In this context it is clearly the primary meaning of the word which is "unusual or not typical." We could easily replace exceptional with "atypical", but I wonder if that would quell the angry accusations. That said, the initiator of this discussion seems to simply be trolling at this point and trolls should not be fed. It has gone way past the point of assuming bad faith. --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey loony, how about choosing words that would be less open to reasonable misinterpretation? I have a good idea, Loon....lets write more clearly and choose words better so that wikipedia's reputation of bias can be improved upon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The edit has already been made and the word "exceptional" is no longer being used. So why are you still posting angry missives and making personal attacks against other editors? It would seem this discussion is concluded unless there is another edit you would like to discuss. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well thank you Loon. I'm happy now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Because his goal isn't to achieve any change in the article (if it were, he'd know he's shooting himself in the foot by acting like this). Although he's pushing a POV, I don't think that's the goal either. As I see it, the goal is to disrupt - the angry missives and personal attacks are the purpose. No one's taking these rants seriously, so let's just ignore him and get back to the encyclopedia. --TheOtherBob 03:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)I hope no one thinks that violates WP:AGF - but it's Assume Good Faith, not Ignore Bad Faith.

Be that as it may, it would make sense to replace "exceptional" with "unusual", for the very reason that it has multiple meanings and can lead to confusion. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Better? --HailFire (talk) 07:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well...did I miss it? I don't see anything in the sources saying his action was unusual -- just notable. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Trying again. --HailFire (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)