Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

Lede too much like Campaign Info?

"After announcing his presidential campaign in February 2007, Obama emphasized withdrawing American troops from Iraq, energy independence, decreasing the influence of lobbyists, and promoting universal health care as top national priorities."

None of the other 3 candidates have a section which describes their campaign goals, So I have a few questions: 1. Is this type of language appropriate for Obama? 2. Would a sentence like this be appropriate for each of the other candidates? If not, why?LedRush (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, "no" and "no". Thanks for bringing this up. I've reworded slightly so that the campaign announcement is not in the same sentence as his campaign positions. Actually, McCain's and most politicians' bios do have their policy positions or areas of political interest - but not necessarily in connection with each election. McCain's interest in finance reform, which I think is worth including because it defines him as a politician, is mentioned in connection with his Senate career. If we go farther down the path to list politicians' current stated issues it's hard to know what to include - it requires editorial discretion in selecting which issues are the most relevant, biographically important, etc., which is hard given that there's an active fight and spin on these everyday. As an example, I took out Obama's lobbyist reform position from the lead - it seemed more of a routine promise every politician has to make than an actual distinction between Obama and anyone else. We'll see if that sticks.Wikidemon (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. If I understand you correctly, broad campaign promises/statements shouldn't be in the lede, but actual examples of their promises, pet projects, goals, etc. (for example, proposing a significant bill relted to the preceding), would be ok. I would agree with that reasoning.

However, while the lede is now closer to that idea, I'm not sure that the lede has completely addressed the issue. The statement "Among his campaign issues are withdrawing American troops from Iraq, energy independence, and promoting universal health care as top national priorities." is still just a list of campaign issues. In the other articles the issues are brought up through an actual action taken in the person's life, usually a bill or law. Could we find brief examples of how Obama's issues have been manifested in the past and include them in chronological order in the lede, rather than at the end as a list of issues? For example, "In 2007 Obama introduced/supported a bill to increase healthcare coverage for the uninsured".LedRush (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, and think it's worth doing, but I don't feel competent to summarize what Obama's few bullet-point level underlying issues are as a politician, and I didn't want to be too bold, which is why I kept the description of these as "campaign issues". I wouldn't object if someone went farther, or maybe we figure out on this page what 2-5 issues most define Obama as a politician.Wikidemon (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I am also neither bold nor competent enough to add the examples. Surely someone here must know examples of Obama's bills and initiatives...LedRush (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is one of the criticism of Obama is that he does not have much of a legislative record. He has taken positions on many things but has not authored many bills or even co-sponsored many bills. RonCram (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm beginning to understand where you're coming from now. There's actually a list of bills he sponsored, created specifically because that particular falsehood has gotten so much traction that reliable news sources had all sorts of stories refuting it for a while. I'm afraid you've been misinformed. --GoodDamon 18:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

GoodDamon, if you agree with Wikidemon and I above, would you be interested in boldly going where I fear to go and maybe insert the 2 or 3 biggest into the lede, while deleting that last sentence?LedRush (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hoo-boy... It's a relatively major edit, and it's to a section that's been stable for a while, so... Yes, I'll give it a shot. But I'll try to keep it as non-controversial as possible, I'll try to rely on news stories about his legislative priorities instead of trying to decipher that from the legislation list, and I'll propose the wording change here first. Since it's the lead we're talking about, let's take utmost care with it. --GoodDamon 19:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

GoodDamon, thank you for providing the link. This was pretty much exactly what I was expecting. When you read the list, it is mainly non-binding resolutions commending worthy individuals or offering emotional support to medical research efforts. The article claims that two of Obama's bills have become law. It is an interesting claim but not one I was able to confirm. The link did not support the claim. Can you do any better? RonCram (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)Nice change of subject. You stated: "He has taken positions on many things but has not authored many bills or even co-sponsored many bills." I have demonstrated this to be incorrect. This grows old, RonCram. But since you wanted a topic change, here are 71 bills he directly sponsored in 2007-2008. Here are 66 bills he directly sponsored in 2005-2006. If you think they are all fluff bills like the ones you describe, then you aren't bothering to look past the first page. Almost all of them, on both pages, are substantive. That not all have become law is perfectly normal; most of them are in committee right now. Again, you have been misinformed, and I'm sorry for that. But the argument that there's no substance to his time in the Senate is, quite simply, not true. --GoodDamon 20:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, we all knew that Obama didn't have a long history of legislating...he's only be in office for a little while. But just because his bill didn't become law doesn't mean that it doesn't demonstrate an interest in the cause. In fact, it could do the opposite. If he repeatedly sponsored bills for health care reform that didn't become law, it would show that that issues really is at the top of his list as he continually sponsors or co-sponsors them. This editing change should have nothing to do with "exposing Obama's lack of experience" or such other nonsense...it's merely about showing instead of telling. Thanks, GoodDamon, for taking up the surely controversial task.LedRush (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I also said he did not have much of a legislative record. Of the bills he is taking credit for, only two were passed. I am merely asking what those were. The link provided does not answer the question of which bills became law. That really is the point, right? To get something done. What did he accomplish? If you can answer this question, it will improve the article. RonCram (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, I'm literally begging you to think about this. Which party was in charge of both the House of Representatives and the Senate during the 2005-2006 legislative session? Which party had a member sitting in the Oval Office? After the 2006 election, how broad was the Democratic majority in the Senate? How likely was anyone's legislation to pass in that Senate? How likely was the President to sign it? The same government site used to source Obama's sponsorships also lists those of every other Senator. Take a look, see how much legislation got done by anybody. In that atmosphere, it's a wonder anything got done at all. And for the record, try following each link from the main list of bills he sponsored, and searching for the words "became public law", which seems to apply to several more than that reference you mentioned indicates. --GoodDamon 01:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

GoodDamon, I am only asking questions here. You provided a link List of bills sponsored by Barack Obama in the United States Senate that says "Obama has sponsored 136 bills since Jan 4, 2005. Two have become law.[2]" When you click on the [2], you go ultimately to a reference that does not support the claim that two bills became law. I'm asking - is the claim true? Did two of his bills become law? Which two? Can you provide a link? If so, it would improve the article.RonCram (talk) 04:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If I can find them, would they be important enough to include regardless of what they are? If it is the sum total of his senate career, I imagine that it would be. I just don't want to do the research and be directed to a bunch of policies like undue weight and what not.--Die4Dixie (talk) 05:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Die4Dixie, if you can find them then at least we could correct List of bills sponsored by Barack Obama in the United States Senate. Right now, the link does not support the claim. Whether it would get into this article or not is anybody's guess. RonCram (talk) 05:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a fair question and a relevant question: What two Obama bills became law? Hey, I'd sure like to know. Rharrykelly (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) If people want to know which Obama sponsored bills became law, go search for it. However, those two pieces of legislation are not necessarily more important to Obama than any of the bills he's sponsored. If he says that something is his priority, and he's sponsored bills to that end, regardless of whether or not Congress passed them, I think that deserves to be mentioned in the article. But if he doesn't indicate that the laws he sponsored were his priority, why would they meet the weight requirement in the article over his actual statements?LedRush (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a note: I've looked over the sources for the bills he's sponsored, and it looks like the correct number is five or six (I may have missed a few). In any event, the sourcing for the two bills in the current article appears to have changed, so we need a new source, preferably one that's up to date. I suppose we could use the government bill lists themselves; I don't think it would qualify as original research to just count them. --GoodDamon 16:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried to do a search on this myself and found sources to show which two bills he sponsored became law and the number of ones he's co-sponsored that became law (which really just means he didn't have the political juice to get his name on the top of the bill) is 13 (for a total of 15). While the sources may be helpful in tracking down the laws themselves, I doubt they will pass muster as reliable resourses (obamaaintjesus.blogspot...ugh).

http://quarkscrew.wordpress.com/2008/09/06/a-nicer-list-of-laws-obama-got-passed/ Bills that Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored that became law, and those that didn't.

http://obamaaintjesus.blogspot.com/2008/02/obamas-senate-accomplishments-two-bills.html The two that he was the original sponsor of that became law.LedRush (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Bleah... Those are no good. Better to see what their sources are and find out if those sources themselves can be used by Wikipedia. --GoodDamon 17:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said, these are no good for inclusion in the article, but should be good for tracking down more reliable sources. I've got some time so I'll take a crack at it.LedRush (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I am shocked at how hard it is to get a reliable third party source that talks about what bills Obama has sponsored or cosponsored. I have found some more that basically affirm what the ones above say, but they are no more trustworthy on their own. Should we just delete the last sentence of the lead as we are coming short of find a reliable source to give a good example of a sponsored or cosponsored bill?LedRush (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again I'm reverted

Can someone explain why I can't say he graduated without honors at Columbia but this article can talk about graduating Magna Cum Laude at Harvard? Why can't I add it? No reason was given for its deletion. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The edit summary I conflicted with Erik said "Not every graduate who does not achieve honors is announced as "graduating without honors." You include if they do gain honors, you do not include if they do not gain honors, as that's infered. It's common sense, really. Grsz^X 03:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so "common sense" is why I was threatened with being banned permanently. I'm not sure if I understand this wikipedia policy. I guess I thought since Barack is such a smart man, that he would've automatically graduated with honors, but I was shocked to find out he didn't even have minimal honors. My bad for trying to include this information. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No big deal, apology accepted. Grsz^X 03:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It is nice to have such an open-minded forum where people can freely discuss what they want without any fear of retribution. Thank you for accepting my apology Grsz11 - you are such a neutral, non-biased individual who can accept other people's viewpoints even if they differ from your own. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You can discuss, but you also have to present why the information needs included. Thus far, you've failed to do so. Grsz^X 03:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, since nearly all of Obama's early records haven't been released - his school records, medical records, birth certificate, state senate records then I thought that the little information we can find regarding this things would help to satisfy some people's curiosity. Most people, like myself, assume the best about Barack Obama, and think he did very well in school and to have that illusion shattered was frankly rather heart-breaking. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Of the thousands of Wikipedia bios that mention the subject's graduation, not a single one says "without honors" (search and see for yourself). That's because it's entirely not notable. ~ priyanath ^talk 03:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

---Ah I've been reverted again! Can I do nothing right?---

I thought it would be interesting to add the fact that Obama attended the Million Man March. I remember it at the time, and it was a pretty big deal back then and at least as important as "Project Vote." Can someone please explain how such information was considered "vandalism?" I do not understand why it is not allowed in this place that loves free thought and information. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Million Man March? Really? Of all the notable rallies and meetings and gatherings and other -ings Obama has attended, that one is the one trumps all the others for mention in his BLP, when all others have gone into sub-articles devoted to the nitpicky details? Really? --GoodDamon 04:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That rally was huge in the 90's and a big news story back then. Are you saying he attended other, more famous rallies before he became famous? TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't an important event in Obama's life and so is not appropriate for an encyclopedia biography which only covers important events in his life. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 04:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Not sure, actually. There have been so many, it's kind of hard to keep track of. For the record, I don't think adding it was vandalism. But it was inappropriate, and particularly so considering recent editing history. I think there's definitely a place for it in Early life and career of Barack Obama -- I wasn't aware he'd attended the march myself, actually -- but you'll notice there aren't any specific fundraisers, meetings, forums, gatherings, or anything else of that nature on the main article, short of the Democratic Convention where he accepted the nomination. But your source is, at least on first glance, a good one, and the fact of his attendance is notable. So I'm curious where you'll go with it. --GoodDamon 04:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the Chicago Reader as a WP:RS. Our article describes it as opinionated. Grsz^X 04:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it says nothing of the sort. It is simply a small local paper - the kind of paper you'd expect to run a piece on an unknown politician. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

"The Chicago Reader is an alternative newsweekly..." → "An alternative newspaper is a type of newspaper that eschews comprehensive coverage of general news in favor of opinionated reviews and columns." Grsz^X 04:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you said the wikipedia article said it was "opinionated" - it doesn't. In fact, it says it can have some pretty hard hitting journalism. This is a perfectly legitimate source, especially for a local unknown who wouldn't be in anything more famous at the time. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hard-hitting journalism "a la The New Yorker". I'll admit the article isn't bad, I'm just not sold on the publication. Grsz^X 04:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The New Yorker has some very good examples of journalism in it. Haven't you read it? TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

---Lo! My edit is gone! Curse these hands of mine!---

I guess the fact that Blair Hull's divorce records were unsealed, which destroyed Barack's democratic frontrunner-rival and paved the way for Barack to enter the US Senate is "too much detail." And yet, I guess when his republican rival's divorce records are unsealed, in that same race, that is just the right amount of detail to make it into the article. It must be like the Three Bears and their porridge. In retrospect, I can see how silly it was of me to try and include how Barack came to power in the Senate - it really is a trivial matter. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

He also made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa.

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

The introduction is supposed to be a summary of the article. However, when I go to the section on his Senate career, this is not mentioned. Why is it in the summary but not the actual article? Even if it was in the article, I'm not sure what makes it notable enough to include in the summary. What is the purpose of this sentence other than an attempt to bolster his foreign policy experience? 67.184.14.87 (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you're reading, but it's not this article or the sub-article on his Senate career, both of which in fact do make mention of his official trips in the body of the articles. Try reading rather than presenting your own biased view, and your insults to the editors here. Tvoz/talk 18:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see it under the Committees section. In any case, the rest of my post stands. Why is this in the lead? I'm not sure what makes it notable enough to include in the summary. What is the purpose of this sentence other than an attempt to bolster his foreign policy experience? This seems to violate NPOV.

Also, you should familiarize yourself with basic Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith and no personal attacks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPA 67.184.14.87 (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bias in the article

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

A number of Obama controversies have been kept out of the article by claims that there is no WP:RS. This claim is not true. Determining where these reports fit in the article would be the next order of business. But for now we need to discuss if there is some other reason to keep these out of the article. Here they are along with a RS.

• Was Obama raised as a Muslim? The Obama campaign claims he was never a Muslim but other evidence exists that he did have Muslim influence. [1]

• Born in the USA? This is currently the subject of a lawsuit filed by Philip Berg, a leader of the Democrat party in PA. Berg has his own website and the story has been carried by the media. [2] [3] [4]

• Obama and ACORN. The Obama campaign has tried to distance him from ACORN but a growing body of evidence indicates he has had multiple connections with ACORN and affiliated organizations over many years. [5]

• Obama’s CAC funded anti-American organizations, not learning. This article is a combination of investigative reporting and opinion, something along the lines of Jack Anderson. It is not a straight news story, but it is does break new ground in reporting on this issue. I do not think this story deserves a great deal of space in this article, but it should be mentioned that Obama's work on CAC has been criticized. The article on CAC should carry the detail. [6]RonCram (talk) 05:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to keep this information out of the article, given the use of reliable sources. How and where would you suggest incorporating it? »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we include these items in a subsection on "Political Controversies of the 2008 Campaign" or something similar. In that way, the article would not look like it was arguing with itself. And we could also include the Obama campaigns answer to each of these controversies so we provide readers with NPOV. That is my suggestion. RonCram (talk) 05:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if we could go so far as creating an independent subsection, but perhaps a paragraph appended to the end of the section on his presidential campaign with some of the content you described would be appropriate. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I like this idea, but I think we should take it one step further and have Obama defending each controversy, like when he said Bill Ayers was just a guy who lived in his neighborhood. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have many great sources for many of the items you have mentioned and have tried to incorporate some ACORN and CAC information without success. But my incompetant mind cannot seem to grasp the wonders of wikipedia policy and even my most inocuous edits are somehow merely a showcase for my ignorance! Alas, you have my full support to include his connections to ACORN, via its sister organization Project Vote, and his training of ACORN "leaders." I have references if you need some. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

GoodLocust, please provide the links you have. The article should have the best links possible. It is always helpful to have options to look at. RonCram (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This article shows how Obama taught ACORN, I also have a web archive link, showing Project Vote and ACORN have the same address, but I'm sure that wouldn't meet the standards here. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see what in that source supported the claim you're making, but the URL looks like something that could be regularly replaced with different content. The second part sounds like it would fall under WP:SYN, though. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The source is fine, and it states:

"Another strong supporter of Obama's work--as an organizer, as a lawyer, and now as a candidate--is Madeline Talbott, lead organizer of the feisty ACORN community organization, a group that's a thorn in the side of most elected officials. "I can't repeat what most ACORN members think and say about politicians. But Barack has proven himself among our members. He is committed to organizing, to building a democracy. Above all else, he is a good listener, and we accept and respect him as a kindred spirit, a fellow organizer."

Obama continues his organizing work largely through classes for future leaders identified by ACORN and the Centers for New Horizons on the south side. Conducting a session in a New Horizons classroom, Obama, tall and thin, looks very much like an Ivy League graduate student. Dressed casually prep, his tie loosened and his top shirt button unfastened, he leads eight black women from the Grand Boulevard community through a discussion of "what folks should know" about who in Chicago has power and why they have it. It's one of his favorite topics, and the class bubbles with suggestions about how "they" got to be high and mighty."

Sounds to me like he is teaching ACORN leaders. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

We have some minor reliable sources, and it is pretty clear that Obama did teach community organizing classes for the group of people Project Vote was working with ACORN on. But that is not enough to meet WP:WEIGHT concerns. A single reliable source, or even fifty, to prove something is true does not establish that something is worth including in the article. There are 200 million google hits for Obama,[7] and 750,000 news hits.[8] Anything that is truly significant about his life will be covered in more than a few unbiased, neutral, respected publications, and to be worth including it has to logically fit here as opposed to the 2,200 articles that touch on him.[9] Regarding Obama's career, as of a few months ago I did a count to find we devoted 0.75 sentences to his work at Sidney & Austin (as a summer associate - 3 months), 0.25 to Hopkins & Sutter (again, 3 months), 1 sentence to Davis Miner (12 years), 1.5 sentences to Developing Communities project (3 years), 1 sentence to Gamaliel foundation, 1 to project vote (1/2 year), 1/2 to Woods Foundation (9 years on Board), 1/2 to Joyce Foundation (8 years), 1 to CAC (7 years), and 0.25 sentences each to Chicago lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, Center for Neighborhood Technology, and Lugenia Burns Hope Center. We gave 5.25 sentences to his Illinois Senate election and term, 1.5 to the House campaign, 65.5 to the Senate career, and 40 to the Presidential campaign. Under the circumstances the proper weight for teaching a series of weekend classes is somewhere between zero and 1/4 sentence, and that's if he was working for them. If he did that in his role with another position there's a strong argument to give it no weight at all - for example, we do not detail all of his law firm clients. If the only argument is that it has become a campaign issue, that weighs against adding it because of WP:COATRACK concenrs, and also suggests that if it's useful at all it belongs in a campaign article rather than the bio. Wikidemon (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

And yet my every attempt to add even a little insight to this article is rejected. I can't mention that the CAC was judged to be a failure by its own evaluation branch. I can't mention how his democratic rival for the Senate, who was beating Barack,was suddenly defeated when his divorce records were unsealed - just like what happened to Barack's republican rival Jack Ryan. I can't mention that he didn't really quit smoking despite his promise. I can't mention the fact that he attended the most famous black march in the 90's. It is funny how every time I try to put some information in here there it is either insignificant or too significant.TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

None of these things constitutes insight, more like tabloid gossip. This is an encyclopedia, not the yellow press. Read WP:NPOV before you embarrass yourself further here. --John (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

A word of caution regarding fringe material

Please do not insert, or repeatedly propose, fringe material for this article. Among the subjects that will not make it into the article are speculation that Obama is Muslim, not born in the US, ineligible for President, has a forged birth certificate, is not African-American, or is Arab. This entire discussion is borderline disruptive for promoting this stuff. Pushing this material after you have been cautioned to avoid it is likely to get you blocked or banned from editing Obama-related material due to disruption. Further, although not quite fringe, editors here have repeatedly rejected detailed coverage of partisan criticism like the accusations against CAC, or playing up Obama's association with various controversial groups (or the controveries about those groups). If you are going to propose it, please be orderly, respectful, start on the talk page rather than the article, and graceful enough to accept it if it is clear there is no consensus to add disputed material. Starting out a proposal by accusing editors of partisanship or bias is not a good way to earn consensus, and by the terms of article probation this page is for proposing article content, not complaining about other editors. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 05:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Personally I think that CAC and ACORN are the only points on which we should give focus, and then only through use of reliable sources - which it would seem we now have. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for being helpful wikidemon - you are always so fair and non-partisan. But can you answer me a question? Are you an administrator? I always seem to get confused, because you sound like one all the time since you are so authoritative and official sounding. I guess it must just be how knowledgable you sound. Anyway, thanks for not closing this conversation down, like you have with so many others (for our own good of course). Have a nice day!!! TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon, your claims that material is fringe even when RS is available is somewhat surprising to me. Since when can well-sourced material be called fringe? RonCram (talk) 05:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

We are not going to debate here that the Muslim/Arab/non-citizen, etc. stuff is fringe. You have both been cautioned here and on your talk page. Don't push it.Wikidemon (talk) 06:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

So hypothetically, at what point would such material not be fringe? I'm curious what standards you are using here. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE, fringe theories are "ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study", such as conspiracy theories. The notion that Obama is Muslim, for instance, is outside of the mainstream. All reliable sources agree he is Christian, and the sources of the rumors have been identified, chased down, and debunked.Wikidemon (talk) 06:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree Barack isn't a Muslim, he was just mispeaking recently - that is obvious. But is it "fringe" to make assertions about his past beliefs? After all, his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, was a Muslim according to this article. Is it fringe to talk about Percy Sutton's help in getting him into Harvard after Khalid al Mansour asked him to? TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Birth certificates, Muslim, non US born, not African-American and the like will not likely go into this article. As they should not, IMHO. There are things lacking in this article that do belong.If one argues passionately about the things I just mentioned, right or wrong, he will diminish his credibility in the eyes of the community here, making it far easier for other editors to dismiss valid ideas for additions. Perhaps you could offer ,Locust, 3 things that you would really like added, bearing in mind what others have said about the issues that I opened with.--Die4Dixie (talk) 06:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I already have - look at the thread above this. They were all shot down - they were either insignificant or too significant. I can't seem to find the right "balance" that is required by the obviously non-partisan editors like wikidemon. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Easy there. You might want to edit that and calm down . Take a small break. dig around my user page and talk page, and then my talkpage that's been blanked a couple of times. It will be fun.This is a frustrating project some times. You won't get what you want this way. I know. I look at the suggestions and we can examine them one at a time, ok?--Die4Dixie (talk) 07:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what Wikidemon said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfno7 (talk • contribs)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can someone please help me?

This link from the Honolulu star says Barack was born in the Kapiolani medical center, while this link, used elsewhere in wikipedia, says he was born in the Queen's medical center. Can someone help me find out which hospital he was born in? I've confirmed through google maps that these are indeed two different places. Thanks in advance. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Bias?

I beleive that this article is begining to show a slightliberal bias. Please fix this soon. This is exactly the bias that Wikipedia is so often accused of having. We need to hold the same standards that any other refrence holds, even is this is a community project. 71.186.32.139 (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you give us an example of this alleged "bias" in the article, or is this just your vague "feeling"? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, example please. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is often accused of having a liberal bias because reality has a well-known liberal bias. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It's funny. The English Wikipedia has a pronounced American - and beyond that, sometimes British - bias. Most of the world, looking at some of the debates over how to characterize the negative campaigning over the election, must be scratching their heads and wondering why some of these issues come up at all. It is only in the front row of spectators to two well-oiled, and sometimes out of oil, political machines battling each other out over control of government that one could perceive that asking for weight of reliable sources, relevance, and avoidance blogs of tabloid news, is somehow a liberal bias. To those from overseas, the question of whether Obama did or did not do a thing that purportedly makes him unfit to lead, must seem as obscure as, say, a heated debate over whether or not François Fillon washes his tomatoes before cooking them.Wikidemon (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I jus wish things like Ayers, Troopergate etc wouldn't be added to the biography articles, until after the US prez election. Having them added during the campaign? creates tension. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

In general, I agree. There's no evidence either of the examples you mention will actually have long-term, notable impact on any of the people involved. We already know the Ayers thing is basically campaign bull-pucky, and while there's more of substance to Troopergate, there's no way to know whether it will actually result in any finding of criminal behavior in a court of law. Focusing on either of them is a matter of WP:RECENTISM, which is not a good practice for BLP articles. --GoodDamon 16:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion. You cannot say that Obama's relationship with Ayres will not have long-term impact--he has associated with him for over 20 years. Guddlegoo (talk) 01:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The Ayers thing is a Republican scam job. You say Obama has been "associating" with Ayers for 20 years. That's true, insofar as they serve on the same committee. But so do a handful of Republicans. And might I add that besides Ayers, who is a reformed extremist, all of those that serve on the committee have a squeaky clean record. It's not as if they're friends. They're not doing dinner dates and meeting one on one for coffee. Get your facts straight. Then you can one day maybe contribute to the conversation.

Anyone who believes that Wikipedia has a liberal bias has not been following Talk:Sarah Palin. Tvoz/talk 23:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Quitting Smoking

I have seen that some attempts to have references added to the "Family and personal life" section regarding Obama's admitting to "Bumming" cigarettes have been prevented. Personally I am not wholly convinced that the issue of whether or not he smokes is very note worthy in the first place, of course if his attempt is in fact "Highly publicized" as stated in the article I am more than willing to accept it. However if it is noteworthy than whether or not he has been successful seems to me to be equally as noteworthy. Also the fact that Obama himself openly and honestly stated he had bummed cigarettes during an interview with an established health magazine (Men's Health), and that has been quoted by many other online news outlets seems to indicated that reliable sources are readily available.

I am bringing this up here before making any edits because this is obviously an article that should not be edited lightly, and one in which edit wars and such are quite likely. Therefore I would like to get a feeling as to why these references have been removed before taking any action. So if anyone has opinions on this please let me know so we can achieve some level of consensus before adding, or deciding not to add the references. Thanks,(Edited to add signature) Colincbn (talk) 10:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I would not support adding a reference to bumming cigarettes unless you can show that reliable sources give that weight comparable to his quitting smoking. Most people who successfully quit smoking do it over time and/or have occasional lapses. One the face of it that does not seem significant at all to a biography.Wikidemon (talk) 10:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well as far as reliable sources go, he himself stated it in an interview and felt it was important enough to mention, also it has been covered by several online news sites so that is not a problem. As far as weight goes I would say that it carries as much weight as his attempt to quit in the first place. Also considering the quote "I've got an ironclad demand from my wife that in the stresses of the campaign I do not succumb" and since his statements in the Mens's Health article specifically state that it was during the campaign that he slipped and that "I figure, seeing as I'm running for president, I need to cut myself a little slack" (Personaly I agree with him). Although I would be more in favor of cutting out the smoking bit altogether as I dont se it as all that relavent. Most Bios dont seem to state whether the person in question smokes or is quitting unless it is an established part of said persons "Persona" and they are famous as being avid smokers, or if they had lung cancer or emphysema which was brought on by smoking. I just feel that if we are going to have something about it we should cover all the angles and give all the relevent information.Colincbn (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course we should add it. It is patently ridiculous to say he quit when he hasn't. In fact, him breaking his promise to his wife and endangering his health are just as "notable" as the fluff piece promoting him for being such a good role model for "quitting."TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. It's common as mud for people to struggle with quitting. It's an addiction. Almost everyone has the occasional relapse, even those who successfully quit for good. Has Obama started smoking again, or has he bummed a cigarette here and there? If it's the former, it's worth a mention. If it's the latter, it's not. I haven't seen any evidence indicating it's the former, and plenty indicating it's the latter, but if you've got a reliable source that indicates it's the former, I'm happy to look at it. --GoodDamon 03:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The only problem with this inclusion argument by thegoodlocust is that the article doesnt say Obama quit, it says he attempted to quit. Grsz^X 03:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Mark Twain said something like "It's very easy to quit smoking -- I've done it hundreds of times"... AnonMoos (talk) 08:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well personally I don't think his bumming cigarettes means he is not a good role model or whatever, but really that’s not the point. Whether he is a good person or role model or whether he would make a good president or any of that should really be left out of these discussions. We are not supposed to be worrying about anything but whether or not this is a good article and what things should be added/deleted/changed in order to make it better. I think that if the article is going to talk about his attempt to quit in reference to the stresses of the campaign then information regarding that attempt during the campaign should be added. I think if anything it shows how hard it is to quit smoking more than anything about his character, in fact I applaud him for openly discussing it. I've said before I think the issue is a bit trivial, but I am an inclusionist so if we have info that relates to the subject I feel we should add it. I am not suggesting he hasn’t quit or anything like that, I am only suggesting that due to the quote "I've got an ironclad demand from my wife that in the stresses of the campaign I do not succumb", and the fact that there is a reliable independent source that specifically covers this issue we should add the information. I don’t thing this is notable enough to call for more than a single sentence, or something like: "Obama told the Chicago Tribune. "I've quit periodically over the last several years. I've got an ironclad demand from my wife that in the stresses of the campaign I do not succumb." However afterwards Obama stated he has smoked on the campaign trail and "I figure, seeing as I'm running for president, I need to cut myself a little slack".[citation] Any more than something like this would be undue weight I think. Colincbn (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for Input

(I feel like Johnny Five) As I stated above I think the small bit on Obama's quitting smoking is not patrticularly notible in the first place and does not add much, if anything, to the article. However if we are going to mention it, especially in regards to "The stresses of the campaign", then I think fully covering the situation on the campaign trail with all information available from citable reliable sources should be included. So far one editor has graciously given his/her opinon on the matter (please see above) and I would like more people to chime-in. Thanks, Colincbn (talk) 05:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a stigma against those who smoke. Obama has tried to quit, but, perhaps had some lapses. I don't see a problem with saying that he quit at a certain time and never mention the issue again. Wikidemon is right that quitting is not a single-point in time experience for most people, and the value of adding all the uncertainty and details (was the last one he bummed really his last one?, did he bum it or buy it?) is so small and stigmatized that it's not worth delving into.LedRush (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. I still think that due to the quote about his wife's desire that he not succumb to the stresses of the campaign that any info about whether he smoked during the campaign is relevant. So I wonder if we can get rid of that quote, or even better just get rid of the whole smoking thing altogether as it seems to me that it is not particularly notable for this kind of bio (and kind of out of place where it is) in the first place.Colincbn (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Spurious Jack Ryan material

I just noticed (and removed) a digression into Jack Ryan's marriage/divorce that had been added to the article some time recently. Unfortunately, it appears to have been added more than a week ago, but I didn't notice at the time. This was all discussed and taken out because it's irrelevant months ago.

Two things: Does anyone know who added this silliness back in? Second, please keep an eye to make sure it doesn't come back. This is an article on Obama, not on Ryan. Stating his initial opponent in the Senate race is fine, but beyond Ryan's withdrawal from the race, his biography is irrelevant to Obama's biography (I'm sure it belongs in Ryan's bio, but that's a different article). LotLE×talk 21:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I dug it up: [10]. What were you thinking, Bobblehead?! Not a good thing to add back this irrelevant nonsense (I didn't expect it from such an otherwise excellent and productive editor here). LotLE×talk 21:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who added it but it is very relevant to Obama's life because Obama would very likely not be in the Senate if it wasn't for the fact that both of his opponents, who were beating Barack, had their divorce recorded unsealed, and the subsequent scandals destroyed their chances in the Senate race. His life would be very different if Barack had not been so lucky. To be clear, I SUPPORT the inclusion of this information in the article. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I also SUPPORT the inclusion of this information in the article. Maybe someone should be bold and add it? Digital^Ninja 21:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No. It's only peripherally related to Obama, and there's zero evidence Obama himself was in any way associated with it. It should stay gone. --GoodDamon 21:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then what about ACORN? There is plenty of evidence Obama himself was associated with it. Digital^Ninja 21:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then what about reading the rest of the talk page, such as where this has been dealt with repeatedly? As stated below, I'm tired of repeating myself. --GoodDamon 21:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Great! Then we agree that you've had to repeat your stated opinion continuously and you still have editors disagreeing with you. Sounds like a job for the Neutrality tag. Digital^Ninja 22:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion page consensus proposal

As may have become obvious, I no longer have a tolerance for the refusal of any editor to accept that opinion blogs and editorials are not reliable sources and cannot be used in a BLP to support statements of fact, whether it is Obama's or John McCain's. It is disruptive to continuously bring them back up, or bring up new ones, or complain here because of the wording of WP:RS and WP:BLP, and frustrating for other editors when they have to repeat themselves. Therefore, I make the following proposal:

1. We will summarily delete continued efforts by established single-purpose accounts to introduce such sources to the article.
2. On the second such attempt -- they will undoubtedly revert -- we will report their efforts immediately to the reliable sources noticeboard for administrative assistance.
3. We will create an entry on the FAQ laying that out in no uncertain terms.
4. We will inform new editors who make this mistake of the entry on the FAQ, as well as all applicable sections of WP:BLP and WP:RS, but we will not bite them.

At this point, I don't think there's any other way. It's time for this to stop.

• Support - As the one proposing this, of course. --GoodDamon 21:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Enough of these tabloid games. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - As I've been editing for well over a year, I'm obviously not a single purpose account. So, that being said, please stop deleting my valid points of discussion, that would be really nice. Digital^Ninja 21:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I am also tired of these spurious discussions.LedRush (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

And on another note, can someone fix the font size??? Digital^Ninja 21:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

GoodDamon, question about your proposal: why RSN and not ANI or ARV? My perception is that continued claims of birth certificate/citizenship issues, muslim canards, etc. when there is reliably sourced stuff in the article and pages and pages of archived discussions on each of these topics in the archives is WP:Disruptive editing. I also think your idea above should apply to this talkpage per WP:BLP as "poorly sourced contentious materials" --guyzero | talk 22:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Specifically to build case history. I don't support immediately moving to an incident or vandalism report. I would rather establish a baseline of what is and is not an acceptable source for a very high profile BLP article, such as this one. With RSN history behind us, we can summarily smack fringe stuff down without difficulty, citing admin decisions on what qualifies. I imagine that some things would certainly qualify as such blatant vandalism or attacks that they would go straight to ANI or ARV in this scenario. --GoodDamon 00:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah gotcha! Agreed that RSN is the place to go with regards to editorials and blog sourcing. thank you! --guyzero | talk 18:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

So I'm seeing all support, and no objections. I'll go ahead and reorganize the FAQ into logical groups and add this to it. The FAQ is getting kind of big, so any assistance in trimming/consolidating would be appreciated. --GoodDamon 18:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

He also made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa 2

The introduction is supposed to be a summary of the article. However, when I go to the section on his Senate career, it's hardly even mentioned. I do not understand why this is notable enough to be in the summary when the article itself hardly discusses it. When I read the summary, the impression I get is that this is an attempt to bolster his foreign policy experience. Can anyone explain why this is notable enough to be in the summary but not notable enough to be discussed at any length in the article itself? 12.10.248.51 (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel the same way regarding the intro bolsters his foreign policy experience. However, I just think more should be added to his senate experience in the article rather than clipping sourced information that is relevant. Digital^Ninja 13:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. If it's notable, the article should explain why it's notable. As a point of comparison, take a look at the article on Nixon. It doesn't just say Nixon make a trip to China. It explains why the trip was important. Based on this article, I have no idea why Obama's trips are important. 12.10.248.51 (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't have any problem with either solution. We should decide how much weight those trips abroad carry for the BLP and either expand on them a little in the body, or remove them from the lead. --GoodDamon 14:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, however I would prefer to see them expanded upon in the article. It's a nice informative piece of information, highlighting the scope his professional career that people abroad especially might be interested in. Not to mention it's well sourced. 68.143.88.2 (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going to stop attempting to sign in, because it's useless until I'm at home. I'm User:DigitalNinja if anyone wonders. 68.143.88.2 (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to expand the article, I think the line in the lead should also be changed to explain why it's notable. If you read it the way it is now, it sounds out of place. One of these days I'll create a user account, I just need to decide on a good name, LOL. 12.10.248.51 (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Definition of Junior Senator

In the opening of the article Obama is called a junior United States Senator. I was wondering if anyone had a reliable definition of "Junior Senator". Also I'm just going to capitalize "Junior" in the article for the time being, based on the fact that it is part of his proper title, and should be capatalized.Spartan123209 (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not a title. It just means of the two senators from Illinois, he's been serving a shorter amount of time. Grsz^X 22:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's a more complete explanation. Looking at that article, it seems like maybe it should be capitalized after all. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope, not capitalized. See the articles on the other 49 junior Senators for guidance. LotLE×talk 00:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag

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

Archiving as unlikely to achieve changes to the article. --GoodDamon 02:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe (obviously as well as other people as seen here) and other references, that this article in not presented in a neutral fashion. Especially in light of the upcoming election, this article seems to be maintained and monitored by a group of liberal editors protecting the article and it's subject from any negative light, regardless of WP:RS WP:SOURCE WP:WEIGHT, often hiding behind those policies by the letter instead of the spirit.

It is also my understanding that when a significant number of editors feels the neutrality of the article is unbalanced, that the neutrality tag is added. We need to have a discussion regarding this matter, which I'll start.

• I for one support adding the tag until a reasonable amount of sourced, relevant, and weighted material has balanced the article. Digital^Ninja 21:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me be sure I understand. You feel that the article is biased and violates WP:WEIGHT because we don't cite a press release from ConservativeHQ.com, and we don't describe Obama as a "socialist"? That's what I'm taking away from your post one thread up. This is a high-profile featured article. The fact that it doesn't prominently feature the Republican attack line of the day is a point in its favor, as this is an encyclopedic biography, not a political blog. How about making a serious attempt to find an acceptable, reliable-source-based, WP:BLP-appropriate compromise, rather than careening from "Obama's a socialist!" to "This article is censored and needs to be tag-bombed"? MastCell ^Talk 21:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, let me answer your questions: First, your statement "Let me be sure I understand. You feel that the article is biased and violates WP:WEIGHT because we don't cite a press release from ConservativeHQ.com" is putting words in my mouth. I don't care about that. Sure, I concede that WP:WEIGHT takes care of that one. I'm speaking about ACORN, and as a whole the huge number of editors who disagree with the way this article is being maintained by certain editors. Secondly, That paragraph I wrote was more out of frustration than anything. No, Obama isn't a socialist and that wasn't the most reliable source ever. Does that help? Digital^Ninja 21:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I just received an e-mail from another concerned editor that they also support this proposal. How they obtained my e-mail, I'm not really sure, nevertheless I received one. Digital^Ninja 21:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Could it be a certain blocked editor who has been blocked for continuous attempts to add POV fringe theories, edit warring, and attacking others? Grsz^X 22:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It would help to focus on reliable sources and encyclopedic content. This isn't the kind of forum where the person who shouts the loudest wins. ACORN may be notable enough to include here or it may be more appropriate for the campaign article. I have no opinion and I'll leave it to the page regulars to work out, but the chances of including material on ACORN will be highest if you bring good sources to the table and present their content accurately and neutrally. Reasonable sources might include the LA Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the New York Times, the Associated Press, and the USA Today. MastCell ^Talk 22:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Grsz11, I'm sorry I can't answer that per WP:PLEA THE 5th. Try again later. MastCell, thank you for your helpful points. Although, I have to admit it's the page "regulars" that pose the problem in this case, I will find every reliable source I can, list them on this talk page, and state my argument as clearly as possible regarding why they should be included. Digital^Ninja 22:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) If I spend the amount of time I plan to gathering and organizing a proposal for this information and it's completely ignored (e.g. discussion prematurely closed) I'll seek enough established editors to weigh in on a neutrality tag. It's dreadfully apparent this article has some serious problems IMO. Digital^Ninja 22:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

[ec] That sounds an awful lot like a threat to canvass for support. Surely you didn't mean that, or that we should actually take seriously - and give weight to - your claim that you've received email from a "concerned editor" in support of your position. And please tread carefully before trashing the page regulars, many of whom have worked very hard for a very long time to keep this article neutral, fair, accurate, reliably sourced, and of high quality, against sometimes overwhelming odds when partisan attackers descend and disrupt which they do constantly. As I'm sure you've seen. This is not a campaign propaganda vehicle pro or con Obama - this is a biography of a notable individual's whole life, not the latest smear or other kerfuffle that crops up in a contentious election season. Please try to take a longer view, beyond November 4. Tvoz/talk 22:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This biography should not be used to document the latest smear campaigns dreamed up by the right, particularly when (as with ACORN) they are based on false information, inaccurate reporting, and the ravings of the lunatic fringe. As multiple reliable sources have stated, there is no evidence that Obama is associated with voter registration fraud. It's not biographical, it's an example of recentism, mentioning it here would give it undue weight, and attempts to shoehorn this into the article should be met with vigorous defense. The back-and-forth of these smear campaigns belongs in the campaign-related article, if anywhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's first establish why you even think this article is "non-neutral". Because there's no mention of the controversy that people claim he may be a "secret Muslim"? Or is it because it doesn't discuss the off-the-wall belief that he wasn't born in the United States? Because if those are the reasons, you're going to have to make a hell of an argument as to why they deserve any mention in this article. Grsz^X 22:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be very clear in my wording here. I mean no disrespect to long time editors who are working to make this article better. I do have a problem if someone is pro or con Obama, even if they are a long time editor, whos bias influence is shaping the article. Additionally, I'm not going to tell you what I think; what I think is irrelevant. However, this is what I know. Obama has been accused of associations with ACORN, Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers, and others. These claims have of course been disputed. I am not asking to pick a side one way or another. I'm simply stating that these highly public arguments are completely overlooked in this article. This isn't recentism; the situation with Bill Ayers as been said to go back to the early 1980's. What I'm saying is it is simply irresponsible to leave these arguments out of the article, simply because some editors simply don't want them there. The arguments should be entered into their own section with references to both the argument itself, and any relevant information that disputes or supports such arguments. This is a perfectly acceptable request and quite frankly, should had been considered a long time ago. It's painfully obvious that the regular editors have had to play article-police with right-wing fanatics and SPA's, and in the process have failed to keep the article current as new sources of information have become available due to the highly public nature of the individual the bio belongs to. It's not the substance of the controversies we need to give weight to; but simply the fact that the controversies exist and are not covered in the article when they very well should be. Digital^Ninja 00:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll chime back in on this issue tomorrow. In the mean time, it would be nice to have some feedback regarding my last paragraph. Digital^Ninja 01:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Lastly, this remark by Grsz11, "Let's first establish why you even think this article is "non-neutral"" is uncalled for. If you could refrain from telling me what I think, and stick to what you think, that would be great. I'll think for myself, thanks. Digital^Ninja 01:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your objection. I was asking why you think this article is not neutral. Grsz^X 01:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason why I object is because you asked me a question, "why I think the article is non-neutral", and then you proceeded to answer the question for me through projected questions, thus rendering my thoughts moot. I can answer for myself, and I simply ask and would appreciate it if I'm not accused of inserting "Obama is a secret Muslim" into the article, which I certainly am not. Thanks. Digital^Ninja 02:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, Digital, that you seem to be loosing sight of this article's purpose. The whole Ayers thing as well as Acorn might have a place in a discussion exclusively about the 2008 election or an article that was exclusively about Obama's candidacy for president. In the context of his biography Ayers and ACORN are quite clearly non stories. In the case of the former the two belonged to the same professional organization (both being Chicago professors) and the two were on the same board along with many other people, both conservative and liberal. Beyond that Ayers held a fundraiser for Obama once. The two didn't really seem to know each other all that well, and they didn't even know each other at all until decades after Ayers was even slightly relevant. The figure himself as well as the connection quite simply isn't significant enough to be so much as a line in his bio. Had the relationship been close, had Obama been seriously accused of committing a crime in connection with Ayers or something noteworthy along those lines I could see adding it. I could see putting in Obama's work for the Annenberg Challenge and working with inner city schools in Chicago (I'm not sure whether or not that is in there currently). There just needs to be something more significant to be in a bio rather than a blog or an article exclusively about the election.

The ACORN thing is even more ridiculous. As I understand it he represented ACORN, joined by the U.S. Department of Justice (I'm not sure if they participated beyond the level of filing an amicus brief), in a case concerning enforcement of the so-called "Motor Voter" law. He never worked for them, when he was a community organizer he was working with a faith based group not with ACORN. His voter registration drives never involved ACORN. I have not yet seen a single shred of reputable information that says otherwise. I don't even mean that it has to be a major newspaper, I mean anything beyond pure unsubstantiated gossip and conjecture. If the article doesn't talk about the 'Motor Voter' case, perhaps it should, but beyond that there is nothing that ties Obama to ACORN which even comes close to being worthy of mention in his biography. Again this accusation could be put into an article about the election or Obama's campaign but it simply isn't significant enough to warrant mention in an article about his life. The only reason that any of this seems relevant to anyone is because of the current election, that's what is meant by recentism. If the people pushing this were as vocal, specific and well organized as say the swiftboaters then maybe it could be discussed as the swiftboat people ended up playing a role of significance in Kerry's life because they are probably at least one prime reason that he lost the election. Gary Hart cheating on his wife would as well retain that level of significance as would accusations of sexual harassment concerning Clinton. There needs to be a level of significance and substantialness that simply isn't there with the 'controversies' you've mentioned. If there are others that are more significant, then by all means bring them up, but something that is merely kicked around by pundits, discussed on blogs and merely given a dismissive reference by major news outlets, without anyone presenting something with more weight or consequence, is simply not important enough to put in the man's biography. If Obama loses and exit polls were to show that perceptions of Obama's relationship to either ACORN or AYERS caused a decent percentage of people to not vote for him or if the story somehow develops into something more noteworthy feel free to argue for it then. You just seem to lose sight of the fact that this is an article about the man's overall life, and a few insignificant details that only seem relevant because they are gossip and conjecture during an election is simply not important to mention as being part of his life story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlund (talk • contribs) 06:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I too am concerned about the neutrality of this article. Yesterday, when I asked why "He also made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa" was in the summary, instead of answering my question, one of the editors launched a personal attack on me. So far, it's still in the lead and nobody has been able to explain why this is notable enough to be in the summary when the article itself hardly discusses it. 12.10.248.51 (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that he served on an education board with Bill Ayers (a notable person) for 7 years, is in my opinion bio worthy. To say it isn't, is simply appalling. Like I said, we should state Obama's position on the fact, covering the criticism from both angles, giving a birds eye view of the entire situation. (Forgot to sign in...again!) Digital^Ninja 13:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you on your way now to edit the BLP articles of everyone else who was on the board to ensure it also significantly mentions Bill Ayers? Or to Leonore Annenberg's article to mention in great detail that the foundation she currently operates once had Bill Ayers as a member? How about to Walter Annenberg's article? After all, he's the one who hired Bill Ayers in the first place. What does it say about the character of all the Republicans who were willing to sit on the same board as Bill Ayers? These are all notable people, and it's simply appalling that we haven't tied every notable person to every other notable person in their BLP articles, since they were, at one time or another, physically in each other's presences.

Obviously, I'm being sarcastic. I don't really want Walter Annenberg's article to become a coatrack for attacks on him related to Bill Ayers. I hope you see my point on this now. If Bill Ayers is notable enough to mention in Barack Obama's article, he's notable enough for a mention in the articles on everyone who sat on the same board at the same time. --GoodDamon 14:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, something isn't connecting. The fact that Bill Ayers is notable isn't what makes it notable to the Obama article. What makes it notable is the debate itself surrounding the Bill-Obama connection, the accusations directly affecting Obamas character, Obama's responses to such accusations. The reason why this is notable to Obama, and not everyone else associated with Ayers, is because Obama is running for president which is well within the scope of something being notable in ones life. I don't know how I can make this any clearly. Bill Ayers and ACORN are not the issues, the issue is there is no mention about the DEBATE going on at a national level with tons of reliable sources weighing in on the topic, and absolutely no mention of it in the bio of the man at the center of the entire thing. Does that help? 68.143.88.2 (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Redact the personal attack now. To answer the meat of your comment, there is no debate. There are right-wing opinion pieces and blogs, and mainstream newspapers saying there's nothing to this. That's it. End of story. Case closed. That the blogs and opinion pieces have so vigorously yelled about a connection is itself notable, yes; there's even an article devoted to it. But Ayers is no more notable to Obama's life than he is to the lives of anyone else from the Annenberg foundation. His presence there says nothing about Obama's character. And trying to insert political, character issues into Obama's biography simply because a lot of fringe noise has been made on the topic is POV-pushing. Don't bother to reply to this, because this issue is closed, has been closed, and will continue to be closed. This article is not, has not been, and will not be an extension of a political campaign. Stop now. --GoodDamon 15:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me get one of your twisted facts straight: Obama and Ayers were on the Woods Fund board for 3 years together, not 7. Grsz^X 15:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

As the IP said above, the reason why this material (the disputed content about ACORN, Ayers, etc) is notable to Obama is because Obama is running for president. Accusations and allegations against Obama have been made in political ads funded by the McCain campaign. What's notable, right now, is the "debate going on at a national level" - in other words, the presidential campaign. It seems to me that every argument for notability is also an argument that such material is better suited to the article about the presidential campaign than to the one about Obama's life. Editors wishing to see material given weight in this article should try to demonstrate that such material is important in this scope. (More info can be found at Wikipedia:Summary style.) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, Digital, can you come up with an argument that is at least stronger than just saying it's appalling not to? How is it appalling? Why is it this specific page's responsibility to include every bit of gossip, conjecture or personal attack on a politician regardless of its weight? How is it significant to this man's life story? Were the two close? Did they have a long, personal relationship outside of being on the same board together with countless other people who don't have Ayers mentioned in their respective bios? What makes it significant? You're using the same logic that Intelligence Design people use. Come up with a theory, and no matter how unsubstantiated that theory happens to be it should be apart of the overall discourse. Put the Ayers or ACORN thing in an article about the election sure, but you have failed to articulate a single reason why it is important for it to be in Obama's biography.

Do you really want to put in every piece of gossip that floats around about a politician? Obama didn't do anything illegal, he wasn't remotely involved in any of the respective controversies (Ayers setting bombs, ACORN allegedly turning in fraudulent voter registrations), and these 'connections' are only ever discussed as some sort of vague question of his judgment. It simply isn't significant. Stop calling it an appalling view point and say why it is significant. Why? What did Obama and Ayers do together that matters beyond a talking point during an election? What did Obama do for ACORN that matters beyond gossip or blog fodder? Watergate was a scandal. Whitewater was a scandal. Monica Lewinski was a scandal. Swiftboat Vetrans for Truth was a personal attack that became a significant part of John Kerry's life story. Ayers and ACORN is...nothing. I'm sorry, but unless someone is making a documentary about the Weathermen Bill Ayers isn't an important figure anymore. He's a slight figure in public education issues in Chicago, but certainly not worth mentioning in someone's bio with nothing more than the two knew each other. I mean what you're wanting is for an article to be like seven degrees with Kevin Bacon. So and so knew so and so and worked with so and so and at one time had dinner with so and so. ACORN is the really laughable news story because he represented them once in a case. That's really it. There's no story. None of it is relevant or significant beyond pundit conjecture and tabloid journalism. Just answer me this without calling me or my opinions appalling or saying I'm being partisan or stupid or whatever, in the grand scheme of his life, not just the election but Obama's overall life, what significance does Ayers or ACORN really have?

Is it just a frivolous character attack that is forgotten the second an election is over or is there something of more significance? If you have something that is more significant, then by all means, but you have yet to articulate anything of credible importance. Rezko I could almost see. There's at least the possibility of unethical behavior there. Ayers and ACORN are both non stories. Leave the whole 'the American people have a right to know' nonsense concerning commonplace character attacks to pundits and blogs. It isn't necessary for inclusion here, it doesn't fit this page's purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlund (talk • contribs) 19:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If I could just weigh in here regarding the Ayers issue as an editor who doesn't edit this page. If we do mention him sitting on the board, we must mention every person who sat on the board and focus only on the board and not Ayers. Wikipedia isn't a place to continue attacks of a presidential campaign regardless of whether they are true or not (the McCain campaign and Obama campaign are not reliable secondary sources). But we'd need reliable sources to state that Obama sitting on this board is relevant to his biography. It could be, I don't really know enough to know for sure. WP:RECENT is somewhat being violated here given the 'issue' about Obama serving on the same board as Ayers was only brought up for the first time several months ago (nationally, at least) despite it happening over a decade ago. NcSchu_(Talk) 20:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Jdlund, to answer you question (and by the way I never called anyone "stupid", nor will I), this is the reason why it is relevant. I'll point it out very clearly: A major part of Obama's life is his presidential campaign and possible election (if/when he's elected). Those are obviously going to be included. A major part of his presidential campaign are the stories/accusations/defenses that go along with that. The majority need to go into the campaign article, but a small mention in the campaign subjection on the bio page is perfectly acceptable and should be included. Simple as that. You can't have the election (a major part of his life), and not have the significant details of his election (which, obviously, has to be a major part of his life as well). This is exactly why I said this article needs the Neutrality tag added until editors neutral to the situation can weigh in. So far, the only people to weigh in who are neutral simply have 'no opinion'. 68.143.88.2 (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell, Jdlund, Tvoz, Scjessey, Grsz, SHEFFIELDSTEEL, and GoodDamon—run of the mill election talking points and attacks do not belong in this bio, but instead should be in the article about the election itself. These things (Ayers, acorn) are just not relevant enough to the life of Barack Obama to be in his Wikipedia biography. If he lost the election because of these attacks, then they would be notable, within the context of the attacks themselves. Until then, this is a textbook example of recentism. ~ priyanath ^talk 02:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Can we archive this monster of a discussion yet?LedRush (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Done! --GoodDamon 02:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

World Series Delay

Last time a presidential candidate purchased airtime similar to this was in 1992 by Ross Perot(a third party candidate). If anyone wants to expand on this topic or discuss what precedence this might set for future elections?

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-worldseries-obama&prov=ap&type=lgns]

This isn't notable to the biography and I doubt it even has any relevance as a campaign issue. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Nixon did in 1952 when he was running as Vice President with Eisenhower to defend "Checkers". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.164.115.210 (talk) 03:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out that the delay of the World Series was for FOX's benefit, rather than Obama's. They wanted Obama's cash. From the Hollywood Reporter (source):

"Fox will accommodate Senator Obama's desire to communicate with voters in this longform format," Fox Sports said in a statement. "We are pleased that Major League Baseball has agreed to delay the first pitch of World Series Game 6 for a few minutes in order for Fox to carry his program on Oct. 29. If requested, the network would be willing to make similar time available to Senator McCain's campaign."

The blessing from MLB clears the way for Fox to air the promo and collect upward of $1 million in ad revenue for the half hour, more than what either CBS or NBC was charging.

Of course all of this is moot, because the Phillies will not need a Game 6 to win the World Series! -- Scjessey (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Also worth noting: The opening game of the NFL was delayed for McCain's acceptance speech (see the source above). It would seem, therefore, that no precedent is being set and this story isn't at all notable. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting News Report on B-Cast

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

(Closing as disruptive per the FAQ. Don't like it? I'll be happy to take this "source" to WP:RSN per the FAQ, where it will be utterly demolished, you will be warned to stop, and administrators will agree with my decision. Or... You could just stop doing this, and focus on finding reliably sourced information from now on.) --GoodDamon 16:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

In a webcast titled "B-Cast: Is Obama Being Truthful About His Involvement With ACORN?" internet news reporters Liz Stephans and Scott Baker check the factual accuracy of Obama's statements in the final debate. They show a clip from FOX News and also look at original documents and point out errors on www.fightthesmears.com. The article in its current state misleads readers into thinking there are no controversies around Obama's statements about his associations. This needs to be corrected because the article does not conform to Wikipedia's NPOV standard. RonCram (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That's great. Now either...

1. take it to the campaign article, according to the consensus above; or
2. provide a compelling argument that this information is important in the context of Obama's life, rather than his presidential campaign; or
3. risk being sanctioned (e.g. block, topic ban) per the terms of the article probation, to prevent disruption to this page.

Any of these would be fine with me. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment that a concensus was reached.Could you please clarify?--Die4Dixie (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Most people agreed that the "back-and-forth" of a political campaign does not belong in a biography. There is a dedicated campaign article for documenting that sort of thing. This is actually a reaffirmation of the existing policy reached by consensus on multiple occasions since the beginning of the election cycle. For additional clarification, please search the discussion archive. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Consensus is not the point. Whether or not you agree that a consensus exists, all editors are still bound by policy and behavioural guidelines such as WP:TALK, WP:N and so on. User:Priyanath summed up the majority opinions very nicely in this post. And as I pointed out in this post, the arguments for notability are also arguments that the material belongs in the presidential campaign article, not in the biographical article. That is, after all, why these issues are being discussed now. If you have arguments that this information belongs in this article (ideally backed by an assessment of such from reliable sources) then please present them for discussion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ron, what would it take to get you to stop running here to post every unreliably-sourced negative blog entry about Obama? Can I ask you to perform an internal audit before posting here? Ask yourself a) whether the source in question meets our basic reliability criteria, and b) whether it meets the heightened requirements discussed in WP:BLP. I can tell you right away that "Internet reporting" from breitbart.com, if that's what you're on about this time, is not appropriate for a BLP. But you know this. So please stop. This is an article talk page, not a platform or megaphone for you to spam the latest partisan talking point every day. In my opinion, you've abused this page more than enough to warrant a topic ban through the election. MastCell ^Talk 16:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reminder to editors

I just wanted to remind editors of the following guidelines:-

• Talk:Barack_Obama/Article_probation#How_to_avoid_being_subject_to_remedies

Following these should help to ensure that discussions here stay brief, to the point, and productive. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Baptism

Though his baptism is taken for granted by the average reader, there are many who are not sure what his religious beliefs are. For their sake it is necessary to specifically state he was baptized into the Trinity United Church of Christ. So I have added the reference to his baptism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SahirShah (talk • contribs) 12:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that, but you put it in the middle of some quoted text. I've moved it out and added a {{fact}} tag to it, since it's unreferenced at the moment. Do you have a reference for the date? --GoodDamon 14:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed this mention. It seems perfectly plausible (but I have no idea whether it is true), and I have no objection to including the sentence if it has a citation. However, given the number of spurious claims that have come and gone in this article, I don't think it is appropriate to add an uncited and posibly contentious claim without evidence. LotLE×talk 00:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The International Herald Tribune states that Obama was baptized at trinity in 1988 here: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2 about two thirds down page 2. Will that qualify as a good enough citation? If so please add it. 131.107.0.73 (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The source provided indicates when Obama was baptized, but does not indicate where. Trinity is certainly a plausible location, but we would need a source for that. LotLE×talk 22:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

ACORN Scandal

This is going on, and two (possible) sources claim that Barack Obama is connected to ACORN and that org is involved in a voter related scandal. See the ACORN talk page.

Can this article be protected? All hell will break loose here, just as it has on the ACORN article. Two sources link him to the ACORN mess. Powerzilla (talk) 06:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is semi-protected, and on article probation, so we expect that people will discuss changes, not cause hell to break loose. Of course we're not always successful, so thanks for the heads-up. Tvoz/talk 06:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If only people would wait (until after the US prez election), to begin looking to add controversial stuff to this article (and the Joe Biden, John McCain, Sarah Palin articles). GoodDay (talk) 12:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, it is looking like many years ago, Obama did some volunteer leadership training for ACORN. As mentioned before, reliable sources are a bit slim at the moment, but it looks like that is "the truth" (not it just needs to join the realm of "the verifiable").

I think there is some value in including it, just to set the record straight. Some would have you believe Obama has never given ACORN the time of day, and that's not true. Others would have you believe he personally helped them rig elections, which is also not true (ACORN does a hell of a lot more than rig elections... for instance, they lobby to get mortgages for low-income families that can't afford a conventional mortgage. Whoops.) The truth is somewhere in between: Obama did some volunteer work for them a long time ago, but it had nothing remotely to do with either the voter fraud nor ACORN's role in the subprime debacle. If the reliable sources materialize, it is worth it to have Wikipedia set the record straight here. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Jaysweet, he never did volunteer work form them or at least I have yet to read anything credible which says that he did. The volunteer work that he did was for a faith based program on the South Side of Chicago which had nothing to do with ACORN and his voter registration drives in the early 90s were not through ACORN. He represented them in a case concerning the 'Motor Voter' law in Illinois, a case in which the DoJ was involved (I'm guessing possibly just an amicus brief, although it is possible that they were more involved than that). That's as far as his relationship seems to go with ACORN. I'll stick by Obama's count until something credible emerges which questions his story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlund (talk • contribs) 06:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if he did volunteer work for ACORN, but Jdlund is wrong when he says "The volunteer work that he did was for a faith based program on the South Side of Chicago." He was paid for that work. Rharrykelly (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, I didn't mean to use the word volunteer there. What I meant to say was when he was a 'community organizer' the work he did was not for ACORN. I am pretty sure, though not absolutely certain which group, he worked for a faith based organization on the South Side. Much of the work that is called community organizing is done through churches and I have heard, numerous times from credible sources, that he worked for a faith based organization. Either way I know it wasn't ACORN. Naturally, Barack Obama was an active part of ACORN at the time, helping it legally in court and helping it organize voters. By 1996, ACORN and the New Party were essentially the same body. Along with the Democratic Socialists of America, the New Party endorsed Barack Obama in his State Senate bid.

Obama began seeking the New Party endorsement in 1995. He had been running in a four way primary against his former boss, Senator Alice Palmer, herself a far left radical, and two other individuals. But an election law quirk gave Obama the upper hand. In order to get on the ballot, candidates had to collect signatures of voters. Printed names were not allowed. Obama challenged the petitions of his rivals and was able to get every one of them thrown off the ballot. By the time the ballot was drawn up for the 1996 election, Obama’s was the only name in the race.

Nonetheless, Obama still coveted the New Party endorsement. The New Party required candidates who received the endorsement sign a pledge of support for the party. Obama did not need to support a party that was, in effect, a front group for communists; yet he still chose to. The July issue of the New Ground noted that 15% of the New Party consisted of Democratic Socialists of America members and a good number of Committee of Correspondence members.

Barack Obama, not needing to, chose to affiliate himself with this band of quasi-communists. As the nation moves closer to the election, it is clear that Obama chose to affiliate with assorted anti-American radicals. Machiavelli once noted that we can know a leader by the people he surrounds himself with. What does that say about Barack Obama, who chose to surround himself with people committed to overthrowing the United States and capitalism?

DigitalNinja, this original research of yours will never get into the article. Ever. As soon as it's not original research anymore, you'll know... because quality news stories from good sources will start running this as news, not conjecture. Until then, you're just filling up the talk page. Please stop. --GoodDamon 21:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Signature

---I am curious - why is Mr. Obama's signature a part of this page?--- 4.242.174.169 (talk) 06:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Because a great number of prominent national politicians also have their signatures pictured on their wiki pages - Obama is a United States Senator; hence his signature is shown here. Duncan1800 (talk) 07:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

FAQ could use a section on the "Arab" canard

A few users have been spouting the "Obama's an Arab" thing, which is even more ludicrous than the Muslim thing. I noticed it's not explicitly mentioned in the FAQ, probably could be. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC) starting to feel a little guilty about it... --19:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It's probably just the common American ignorance that leads them to believe Arab and Muslim are the same thing. Grsz^X 20:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I mean, there's nothing wrong with being Arab, it's a nationality just like American or Latino. When people pull that line of argument, they are most likely trying to say he is a Muslim, but just don't know the difference. Grsz^X 20:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Umm... "Latino" is not a nationality. Spanish, Mexican, Argentinian etc are nationalities :) EuroSong ^talk 16:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we can agree that there all sorts of ignorant people out there and will twist this just about any way you can think of. The best we can do in the FAQ section would be to cover the biggest and most spoken/known incorrect thought/statement instead of putting in a portion for every single thing that comes up. Brothejr (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't checked the FAQ but among the things that most frequently come up in a contentious way are that Obama is Muslim (was educated in a Muslim school, etc), that he is an Arab (or Cherokee, not the first AA nominee, not AA, or mixed race), that he is not a natural born citizen (or birth certificate was faked, not from Hawaii), and that he is a socialist (or communist). Wikidemon (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Cultural and political image

There was a recent change to the section, an addition by Ferrylodge of a short paragraph that said "He's sometimes perceived as elitist, but points out he grew up poor and worked hard." It was worded better than my paraphrase, and I have no objection to it (nor any strong advocacy for it... it was removed by another editor).

However, reading the section with somewhat fresh eyes, I feel like everything in it is more-or-less completely arbitrary and capricious. Dickerson makes a moderately interesting comment, but without any evidence it is of particularly great significance to overall "image" of the bio subject. Noonan likewise makes a comment, likewise interesting but of no indicated significance. The Ferrylodge paragraph (whether finally kept or skipped) has the exact same satus: true enough as far as citations go, interesting enough, and no evidence of broader biographical significance.

I'm puzzled by what to do with the section. I think it's slightly relevant to have such a section at all, but nothing inside it stands out as actually worth keeping. Quite apart from likely edit conflict, I'm ambivalent about taking a hatchet to the whole thing. On the other hand, I really don't like devoting paragraphs to "Some random pundit wrote <blah>".

Ideas? LotLE×talk 17:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Everything in that section is arbitrary, as you say. For example, Colin Powell's statement today that he supports Obama because of his “calm, patient, intellectual, steady approach” to the nation’s problems[11] is arguably more relevant than Noonan's comment, from someone who is probably more notable than Noonan. I was about to add it, but realized that there is nothing particularly notable or relevant about Noonan's comment, or the rest of that section. So where to begin? A hatchet sounds good to me. ~ priyanath ^talk 18:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the same paragraph was added to Public image of Barack Obama, where it probably makes a little more sense. The duplication here seems to be in conflict with summary style, and at the very least it does not seem that the paragraph is appropriate in this particular article. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph as written isn't really appropriate to any article. The content is fine for the public image sub-article, but it ought to be rewritten to avoid WP:WEASEL words. Saying things like "some people consider" or "he is regarded as" or anything else that avoids specifying exactly who thinks exactly what is to be avoided. Be specific: Political opponents (or some variation thereof) regard Obama as elitist. And when you specify that, it suddenly doesn't look like the kind of thing that goes in a BLP article, especially one that's in summary style. --GoodDamon 18:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

GoodDamon and others: does Obama claim he "grew up poor"? I've listened carefully, and although he hints at such poverty (i.e., "my mother had to apply for food stamps"), Obama is very very careful not to claim that HE ever ate a food stamp meal. [He didn't live with his mother when she went on stamps when she pursued her PhD] Truthfully, I oppose Obama, so if I (and other Hillary supporters) had ever heard him over-reach by personally claiming "grew up poor", I'da jumped on it hard and quick. He doesn't EVER claim HE "grew up poor," {he recently said in the debate, for example, that his grandma had to do without things so he could attend school, but then, don't most middle-class parents?] Obama claims a "middle-class background." He is more honest then than some of his advocates who pitch the "born in a log cabin" biography. I'm asking you, GoodDamon and other knowledgeable folks, to prevent the "poverty" falsehood in the article. Thanks. Rharrykelly (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama hired an ACORN "front" and there's voter fraud involved?

Looks to me like this is gaining traction - seems relevant to this article [12] 216.153.214.89 (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That's hardly a reliable source.Wikidemon (talk) 01:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS. Blogs and opinion pieces are only reliable for the opinions of their authors, not statements of fact. --GoodDamon 05:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

What about this [13]? 216.153.214.89 (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a reliable source.Wikidemon (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a reliable taxpayer-funded organization, either Guddlegoo (talk) 01:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Rule of thumb: If the source is any of the following:

• A fringe-theory promotion website
• An opinion blog
• An editorial

...then it's only a reliable source for its owner/author's opinion, not for statements of fact. --GoodDamon 00:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

ok, here's the WSJ [14] 216.153.214.89 (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Project Vote, where Obama worked in the early 90's for seven months, is not part of Acorn, though they work together on get-out-the-vote efforts. There is no controversy around Project Vote to my awareness (other than the wide paintbrush smear trying to tie Acorn, PV, and Obama together.) Obama paid an Acorn affiliate $800k earlier this year for get-out-the-vote work for the primaries. There is no controversy (other than the paintbrush smear) and no reported wrong-doing around that event, it is documented in the Acorn article, it may or may not be worthy of inclusion into a campaign article, but it is not noteable for inclusion in this biography. thanks, --guyzero | talk 15:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Project Vote is an affiliate of ACORN. I believe some have called it a subsidiary but I'm not sure if that is true. The article needs more information on the relationship of these different entities. RonCram (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's some more information - it alleges that Obama campaign and ACORN are working together to steal the vote in Ohio. [15] 216.153.214.89 (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC) is

$800,000 went to ACORN from Obama, and Obama's campaign mis-described the purpose of the money that went to "Citizens Services Inc." until they were challenged, and "Citizens Services Inc." turned out to be an ACORN subsidiary. This according to a spokesman from the Obama presidential campaign. We can rely on this source -- it's Obama. http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/s_584284.html

How can guyzero insist that Project Vote is not part of Acorn? Project Vote IS a part of ACORN. Washington Times: "Citizen Services is inextricably tied to ACORN. Along with nonprofit sister organization Project Vote, Citizens Services and ACORN share the same New Orleans address and the same executive staff while money flows freely between the three entities. In 1996, Project Vote's tax returns show it paid ACORN more than $4.6 million for campaign services and Citizens Services more than $779,000 for legal and administrative services." http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/10/obama-camp-downplays-payments-to-acorn/ Rharrykelly (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I will say that I honestly have no idea if CSI is a subsidiary of ACORN. CSI maintains that they are a wholly separate entity and that ACORN is a client, which, if true, would run contrary to the notion of them being a subsidiary. In the end it gets very tricky and there is simply no way to parse all this out. But, what I will say, is that you and your precious Washington Times are wrong about Project Vote. The two organizations have completely different origins, are run by completely different people and are not apart of the same corporation, neither one is a subsidiary to the other nor do they even have a formal partnership. They have worked together during the current election on voter drives, hence the same address in New Orleans. They aren't apart of ACORN and there is no evidence that says they are. Money being exchanged between two companies who work together for a common goal does not create a formal partnership, corporation or subsidiary relationship. You, my friend, need to take a class in corporate law. McDonalds pays hundreds of millions of dollars to Coke (I have no idea the actual figure but I am sure it is incredibly high) every year. McDonalds is not a subsidiary of Coca Cola Enterprises, the two are not part of the same corporation, nor do the two form some sort of partnership. The reasons why McDonalds pays Coke so much money should be obvious. McDonalds uses their products and markets the name.

They have a working relationship based on contracts but are two separate companies whose relationship does not extend beyond the boundaries of the contract. If I slip and fall at McDonalds I can't sue Coke, I could only sue McDonalds. ACORN and Project Vote are two separate non-profit groups who have coinciding goals and thus have chosen to pool their resources and work together. They don't suddenly become the same company, merge together, or even become a formal partnership simply because they work together. They undoubtedly have a contract which governs their relationship and nothing extends beyond those borders. It would be like a film advertising along side of Doritos. The two are separate but they work together for a common goal of advertising. Of course money would be exchanged between the two entities, that proves nothing beyond the fact that the two are working together. Of course all of this is irrelevant because Obama hasn't worked for Project Vote in over fifteen years and Project Vote was not working with ACORN at that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlund (talk • contribs) 22:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Photo change

status quo lead image

(change) I have attempted to change Senator Obama's photo on his page to another which is in the Commons and is at the very least a more interesting portrait than the ubiquitous "security" photo that has resided there for some time. What is the beef with changing the photo? Prosediva (talk) 04:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(keep)Before changing the lead photo of a featured article, and a controversial article at that, you should get consensus on the talk page first. Put your photo here, and see what other editors think. If consensus is to change to the photo you like, then it should be done. If not, then the current photo should be kept. Personally, I prefer the current photo. ~ priyanath ^talk 04:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(keep) I agree with Priyanath. It's not a bad photo, but it's not exactly a necessary change. The "security" photo as you say gives a closeup of Obama's face and contains far more detail. While I'm not strictly opposed to a change, it is definitely better discussed first. --GoodDamon 04:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(keep) I tend to prefer the close-up photo as well. LotLE×talk 07:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(keep) Agreed, I like the close up photo as well. Brothejr (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(change) My vote is for BarackObamaportrait.jpg]. I think it's far better because he appears friendlier and the background is great. Can we please change the photo? --PaulLowrance (talk) 13:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep current. Grsz^Review! 13:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

To clarify discussion: let's include the images. Just so the new editors understand, we need consensus to change the current image. It doesn't really look like the suggestion is even running a majority, but consensus is a higher bar (it doesn't mean any precise percentage, but 80% is sometimes taken as a proxy number where the possibilities for discussion are somewhat limited, as here). LotLE×talk 17:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(keep) The current photo should be kept, it provides best detail. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 17:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Conditional Keep. If Obama wins the election, we can change to his Presidential Image; on January 20, 2009. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I should really add this to the FAQ since this comes up every couple of months, but the image of Obama standing in front of the capitol building is copyrighted and Wikipedia received a takedown notice back in 2007. See WP:OTRS ticket 2007041810014021 for more information. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead's copyright claim contradicts the information given on the "Obama by Capital" image. The image page itself states that the image is a government-created public domain work. I do not have any knowledge of the true copyright status beyond that claim... however, I do not think there is any harm in leaving the image on the talk page for a short while until or unless it is actually deleted from the commons as copyrighted. As I've stated, I do not myself support using the newly proposed image. But the suggestion seems to be made in perfectly good faith, and the idea of changing images is hardly absurd (or fringe, widely rejected, etc. as are some swiftly closed discussions). Let's see if advocates come up with some new compelling argument for why the new image is much better. I doubt it, but I'm not opposed to hearing such an argument. LotLE×talk 21:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Umm.. Lulu, a complaint by the owner of the image that has been confirmed by an OTRS volunteer by contacting Obama's senate office holds more bearing than an incorrectly applied template on the image's page. Unfortunately there is an incorrect assumption by many people that just because an image is on a .gov website it is PD. I've removed the image from the page again. If you have a problem with the assessment of OTRS or questions about the validity of the ticket itself, the proper course of action is to follow the instructions on WP:OTRS. The person that originally removed the image was J.smith. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I know this is not the page for it really. I've been perplexed by some of the image takedowns in the past (including some I have self-created and released as PD or GFDL). It seems (frustratingly) almost impossible to properly document the usability of images against incorrect deletion tagging. I do not know how to check an OTRS ticket, but if one was submitted over a year ago and not acted on, I have to presume that is because the copyright status was determined to be acceptable... indeed, it's hard to see how it could possibly be more usable that a PD gov't work. If anyone happens to know where I can read about what the f**k actually happens in these image takedowns, I'd welcome the link. LotLE×talk 22:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The OTRS ticket was acted upon back in April 2007 and the original image was deleted back then. Unfortunately, because this image is on Obama's senatorial website it is readded here and on Commons every couple of months due to good-faith editors assuming the image is PD because it is labeled as being copyrighted on Obama's Senate website and the presumptive assumption of most editors is that any image on a .gov website is in the public domain. This is probably the fourth or fifth time that the image is going to be deleted. As far as checking the OTRS ticket, because OTRS deals with a lot of private information the tickets are not posted publicly and the only option is to contact an OTRS volunteer and have them confirm the content of the ticket and then trust that they did so accurately. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way, Bobblehead, that other editors can find out stuff like this call to the senate office, who "originally" removed the image, or any other information related to any of this?! Looking at it, the image has been at the commons since April 2008... it is, of course, conceivable that it had previously been deleted, but then restored by someone else. As I mentioned, I'm resistant to just assuming "everything is a violation" given my previous failed attempts to release self-created PD images to WP because of overzealous deletionists. LotLE×talk 22:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I gave you the name of the OTRS volunteer that originally removed the image, User:J.smith. You can contact him if you'd like.. You also have the option of contacting Obama's Senate office yourself and confirming ownership of the image. As far as how I know all of this... I started editing the Obama article in 2006 and just happen to remember the ticket coming up. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I contacted J.smith (on his/her talk page): short story, your descriptions are not accurate, Bobblehead. We're not going to use this image, so it's moot. However, as a general matter, unreflexive and automatic deletion and removal of images that we speculate might be copyvio is not a good thing. LotLE×talk 04:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Just going off what J.smith said at the time. When he deleted the image back in 2007, we disagreed that it was copyrighted, but dropped it when he told us that he had contacted Obama's people. If my description is not accurate it is because J.smith's description of how he confirmed that it was copyrighted was inaccurate. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, J.smith contacted Obama's campaign today and while they didn't know the copyright status of the Obama in front of the Capitol Building image, they did say we could use any image from this page as long as we attribute them as "Courtesy of Obama for America".[16] J.smith left a message with the Obama's senate PR office, so hopefully they'll respond back on the Capitol Building image.

Stanley's place of birth

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article claims that Stanley Ann was "from" Wichita which I presume means born there, but not necessarily. However that sentence is only cited to an article which posts his birth certificate. Although the birth certificate states his mother's name it does not state where she was from. We need a good citation for where she was from or born.Wjhonson (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

... and it should be discussed at Talk:Ann Dunham. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is this "discussion archive" a joke or am I missing something? —Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 23:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The place to discuss where his mother was "from" is her article, which is where anyone wishing to learn more about her will go. Therefore, there's no need to continue this discussion here. Therefore, it can be archived. Fair enough? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Positions section

Does not need to be divided. That's what the Positions article is for. Grsz^Review! 05:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Family External Link

New book "Obama - Yes We Can Hope" gives extensive new family background for Obama's family including many leaders part of that family ... including early USA leaders ... add as new external link [http://www.amazon.com/Obama-Yes-We-Can-Hope/dp/0595533841/ref=sr_1_2? ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224627239&sr=1-2 Obama Extended Family] 76.192.0.146 (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.0.146 (talk) 06:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Birthplace

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

The reference for his place of birth; ^ "The truth about Barack's birth certificate". my.barackobama.com. Retrieved on 2008-06-13 leads to his own campaign website. Is it ok if I reference the Berg v. Obama case as well? http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/1/ & http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/18/0.pdf

Also, Was Obama born in Kapiolani Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii, Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii, or Coast Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya?

Kingphilip2 (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If you can demonstrate that that case is a significant and notable event in the context of Obama's life (as opposed to his presidential campaign) then yes, it would be due some space in this article. SHEFFIELDSTEEL</font>^TALK 19:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lawsuit

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

Why is there no mention of the lawsuit filed against Barack Obama by Philip J. Berg which he alleges that Barack Hussein Obama is ineligible to run for President? This sounds like a very serious and important lawsuit to not be mentioned on Wikipedia. It also alleges that there is no records of Barack being born in Hawaii, and that his own family admits he was born outside the USA rendering him a non-US born citizen, incapable of U.S presidency. 71.112.196.141 (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Because it's a obscure theory that no normal person seriously believes. Grsz^Review! 01:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Grsz, the issue isn't about what "normal" people believe. This is a FACT based information source. If 90% believed that President Bush was a space man from mars, and that the whitehouse was his ufo, would it then be TRUE just because 90% of the world believed it? Let me make this clear, I am NOT the same guy that made the original post here, but I myself have NEVER seen proof that he was born in the U.S., so this could be a VERY important thing. These articles need to be fair and balanced! Now I understand that most of the people around here are Liberal Democrats, but myself and people like myself are neither Republican nor Democrat and we would like to have ALL of the information on the subject, not just some of the information. TheСyndicate 19:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.188.221 (talk)

Closing this discussion per WP:FRINGE and WP:BLP. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Redirects from "Hussein Obama".

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

As a test, I just typed in "Hussein Obama" and it came here. This should be changed to "file not found" page or something. Whomever made this redirect is just trying to do a political GOP hit job on Senator Obama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.0.187 (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL, this claim of "GOP hit job" coming from a computer registered to a firewall protected server in Washington DC? Now thats laughable. 70.250.214.209 (talk) 03:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Says the GOP-defending IP coming from Texas. Ironic. Grsz^Review! 03:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Texas? Ummm...you mean Missouri right? But yes, I admit I'm fond of capitalism, 2nd amendment rights, the right to keep the money I earn, smaller government, and conservative values in general and proudly admit it :) 70.250.214.209 (talk) 03:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't going anywhere productive. The issue was addressed. Grsz^Review! 03:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: A request of deletion discussion was made a few months ago, archived here, regarding this redirect. The result of that debate was Redirect to Barack Obama. Therefore, if you want it deleted, you need to post another request on WP:RFD. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Conservapedia

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

I know they are irrelevant, but if you wish to see some of the nonsense that the rightwingers are spewing out, have a look at Conservapadia.com's article on Obama. It's quite amusing. Also, should you feel inclined to write on their page, remember, ad hominem is all that matters to those people (evidentially). Aaberg (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

C-Obamamide?

The guy is everywhere. -- Suntag ☼ 20:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Overlinking

You know I've got a style question. Does it look to you like there seems to be an over abundance of inter-wikilinks within the article? It seems as if people have gone link happy and linked every word that might be misunderstood. Do you think that maybe we could go through and clean out some of the wikilinks that are unnecessary (I.E. easily understood?) Brothejr (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit: This is about the article's style not about Barack Obama or any the election controversies. Brothejr (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone added the "linkspam" today. I did not roll it back, but would quite agree if someone else were to remove all the links to common noun. LotLE×talk 04:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've got the majority of the "linkspam" that had been added last night. Brothejr (talk) 10:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Brothejr, your thread-opening post is hilarious - I wonder how many people checked your links. Thanks for the laugh - much needed around these pages these days... Tvoz/talk 00:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if people would get some of the links. Sometimes it is nice to deal with something to do with style and not the never ending inserts of fringe theories and conspiracies! Brothejr (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

<snark>Oh yeah? Well, Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim who pals around with terrorists, and is simultaneously a Christian extremist and the messiah! Plus, he's a Communist, a Socialist, and a follower of Saul Alinsky! Did you know he was born in Kenya? Or maybe somewhere in the Middle East, because he's Arab, not African American. And remember, he wants to steal the election by registering Mickey Mouse to vote! Aren't you scared yet? Well... Why the heck not?!?</snark> --GoodDamon 23:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the summary. I try not to follow politics too much (no stomach for it). Your summary is a great hoot. -- Suntag ☼ 04:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

← You betcha. Tvoz/talk 07:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Jr. or II?

Usually when a son has his father's name, the son's name ends with Jr. not II. as Barack's father was also named Barack Hussein Obama, and he has no other siblings named Barack Hussein Obama, and he's not named after an ancestor other than his father. the term appended to his name should be Jr. not II.

From: http://genealogy.about.com/b/2006/06/19/jr-or-ii.htm

"In my experience, the use of the term II generally indicates a son who has been named after a family member other than their father, such as a grandfather or an uncle. It is also sometimes used to identify the second male in a line of three with that name, although in that case Junior is usually the preferred term. As to whether it is required or not, I would tend to believe that it isn't. Terms such as Junior, II, III, etc. came into use to distinguish between two family members with the same name, generally implying that these family members are all still living. I believe in the case of little Jacob Miles Burnum, since the ancestor in question is five generations back in the family tree, it is really a matter of personal preference - the II being a formal way to indicate that there was a first, but not required since the great, great grandfather is long deceased. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrVonMalfoy (talk • contribs) 04:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Please review the FAQ at the top of this page. It's covered. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 05:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The FAQ does not address this. If the choice of "II" over "Jr." is explained there or anywhere else, I'd appreciate it if you'd link to it here -- it does seem like an odd choice and I'd like to know the reasoning behind it. --74.183.166.57 (talk) 07:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Finding no answers here, I investigated the matter, myself. Apparently "II" is the form used on Obama's birth certificate. I went ahead and added this information to the article's FAQ. --74.183.166.57 (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Now, if anybody can understand the Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. article. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I meant to get around to that. It ties in a bit with the conspiracy theories, but more so with the section in MOS about using people's complete formal legal name in bold the first time it appears (which is why we use "Hussein" despite some attempts to portray that as a negative thing), and from there on out the name by which they are most commonly known (hence, Barack Obama). Wikidemon (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

"Snagged" sounds better than "won" ?

What does snag even mean? Grsz^Review! 03:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"Snagged" is far too colloquial/slangy for a featured article. Half the world won't know what it means here. ~ priyanath ^talk 03:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

which is why it has already been reverted--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"Snagged" is another word for "grab" or "capture". Obama "snagged" the primaries, (Obama won/captured/grabbed the primaries). I changed it because I think it's more clear. I think it is more appealing and not as plain as won. I think it makes the article more interesting. Smuckers ^{It has to be good} 03:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

But being so unclear, it does just the opposite. In my opinion, it also makes the victories seem illegitimate. Grsz^Review! 04:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Smuckers, but no. Rlogan made a one hundred percent correct revert - "snagged" is neither clearer nor encyclopedic. I find it hard to believe we actually have to talk about this, but just in case anyone claims consensus in favor of it, here's another voice against. It is not common usage, even informally, to say that someone snagged an election - in fact according to Merriam-Webster it means "to catch or obtain usually by quick action or good fortune" which would be like snagging tickets to a Yankees game or snagging a good parking space. Not an election. And I agree with Grsz that it devalues the victories. Tvoz/talk 04:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Snagged devalues the efforts that went into the success. -- Suntag ☼ 04:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No mention of Ayers controversy? No mention of extreme positions on Abortion and Gun Control?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Closing as usual. See FAQ, see incredible amounts of talk page history, blah blah blah. Let us know when a preponderance of reliable sources mention Ayers without a) debunking the "controversy" or b) simply reporting on the existence of the campaign talking point. Also be sure to let us know when the campaign talking point has a significant impact on Obama's life, because according to the available reliable sources, Ayers himself never did. --GoodDamon 04:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC) How can you possibly not mention this controversy? The man's name never even appears in this article. While it's only now getting heavy attention, it's been a simmering issue for over six months. Obama's positions on both are at the far left end of the spectrum, along with many of his other positions. Why are these not given any attention? On gun control, Obama has voted against the right of self-defense, as well as in favor of numerous extreme measures restricting ownership, sale, and purchase. On abortion, Obama has voted in favor of multiple fringe positions such as allowing the direct termination of live-born abortions and up-to-full-term abortion. So much for balanced, unbiased attention.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.219.28 (talk) This article is the biography of Barack Obama. The place to document election talking points is United States presidential election, 2008. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 01:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC) I love how you spew "election talking point" towards every valid concern. The fact that he's an pro-abortionist and gun control advocate isn't campaign talking points...it's just fact from his own words and positions. 70.250.214.209 (talk) 01:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC) I love how you spew "valid concern" towards every election talking point. That approach doesn't get us very far, does it? In fact, the unproductiveness of such confrontational dicussions is one of the reasons why the community has put this article under article probation. In a nutshell, we are all instructed:- Do not edit-war; Interact civilly with other editors; Avoid making repeated comments unrelated to bettering the article; Avoid making repeated comments about the subject of the article; Avoid repeatedly discussing other editors, discuss the article instead; Not much leeway in pages under probation, so basically be a model Wikipedian; We actually know when we cross the line; we are all intelligent people; Don't get worked up when you get subjected to remedies such as a temporary block or ban. Take a break and come back refreshed. Note that these conditions are in addition to normal Wikipedia policies and guidelines. And with those in mind, I'm going to ask you, nicely and politely, whether you have reliable sources discussing these questions. If not, the material cannot be included in wikipedia. If you do have some sources, the question is whether those sources treat these as important aspects of the election, or of Obama's life. Based on that, we can decide whether it's best to document what the sources say in this article, or in the election article. And we'll decide in a civil discussion, aimed at building a consensus. Seem reasonable? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 02:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC) See Bill Ayers presidential election controversy and Political positions of Barack Obama. -- Suntag ☼ 04:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem with Ayers

What I think the common complaint is about the Ayers controversy article is that it is practically orphaned. The only mainspace article in which a link to it can be found is Bill Ayers; there are no links from Barack Obama articles or 2008 Election articles which lead there. To clarify, I certainly don't think the controversy deserves mention in Obama's biography, any more than the cost of Palin's wardrobe would belong on her own page, but there should probably be a subarticle or template to which this article is linked. Any thoughts? »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 06:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I would link it somewhere on the United States presidential election, 2008 page. It astonishes me that this hasn't yet been brought up there yet. If there's one article the manufacture of controversy related to Bill Ayers belongs, it's there. --GoodDamon 07:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and congratulations on posting the first thoughtful, well-reasoned question on the subject I've seen here! --GoodDamon 07:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)