Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 35

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

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

→

Black Liberation Theology

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

Why is WIkipedia, on a macro level, going out of its way to baste up Palin's religious information (i.e. her church with being 'saved', creationism, speaking in tongues) when Obama's core of black liberation theology, and the term "black liberation theology" is left out completely? On a micro level, I understand the common excuse "well thats over THERE, and this is HERE. Thats a different article". But that excuse is PRECISELY THE POINT. When you use excuses like that to stuff wikipedia with bias you have a systemic problem on a macro level. I know many of you are involved in stuffing Palin while protecting Obama. How come the term "black liberation theology" isn't found in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.63.188 (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I just checked Sarah Palin's WP:BLP page, and it doesn't mention speaking in tongues. It does mention her religion, as this article does with Obama's religion. I'm not sure what you're getting at exactly. A person's religion is certainly notable enough for inclusion in his or her biography, and it is included in both. The whole "black liberation theology" thing is another matter. There's no evidence that Obama believes that, any more than there is evidence that Palin speaks in tongues herself. Without some serious reliable sources to back them up, neither belongs in their bio. And neither is there. Might I gently suggest you read the Palin article more carefully? --Good Damon 17:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin's article mentions specifically "pentecostal church" and being saved. Additionally many people are petitioning the article include speaking in tongues. Since Wikipedia on a macro level has decided its important to describe the theology of Palin (pentecostal), what justification can you provide, on a macro level, that fairness would not demand readers know that Obama attended a church that believes in black liberation theology? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.46.2.202 (talk) 05:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This is macro bias. Having a whole section on religion for Palin while having nothing of the sort on Obama....mentioning the theology of Palin's churches while Obama's article never mentions once "black liberation theology" is macro bias. The excuse "well thats over THERE and this is HERE" is precisely the point, and does not justify or excuse that all wikipedians have a dual responsibility to fairness. This is a politician in an ACTIVE election. Not only are you to be fair in this article on a micro level, but you also have a duty to the image of NPOV for Wikipedia as a whole. Here you are so armed to stuff Palin's article full of religious controversy, creating a whole section just to thump on her religion (and it IS bigotry), while you completely protect Obama! And don't throw at me the excuse that these are two different articles that is PRECISELY THE POINT, and you are using that excuse as a loophoole to denigrate the entire image of wikipedia as being POV. If you are honorable wikipedians, you will choose one of two options: you will either include a section in Obama's article for religion and make mention of the fact that he attended a black liberation church (like you make mention of Palin attending a pentecostal church), or you will remove the religion section from Palin. Right now, all of you are complicit on pervasive macro-bias on wikipedia. You have a duty to fairness and NPOV and in an active election, that duty extends beyond this one single article, but must take into account the individuals Palin is competing against and their articles as well. The excuse of "thats THEIR article" is just a sham and an utter double-standard, and is a terrible discredit to the reputation of Wikipedia. I am posting a similar notice on Palin's article. Fair-minded wikipedians can come together than present a fair portrait of the candidates, not simply as isolated articles, but in reference to each other, since this is an active election. Because what is happening on Wikipedia right now is POV, and no amount of fallacy and rationalization will change this objective fact. I am a fair person, I support including a religion section on Palin, if it is done on Obama. If it is not done on Obama, your duty to macro-fairness demands that you remove it from Palin's article. Far more press coverage exists over Obama's religion than Palin, and you simply cannot justify including Palin's theology (pentecostal) while not including Obama's (black liberation). Do the right thing, and be fair! Though, considering the typical wikipedian is a white male aged 35 and under, a tekkie, and socialist-leaning, I don't expect fairness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.46.2.202 (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Calling the efforts of our volunteer editors a "sham" or "double standard", young, "socialist", etc., makes it hard to take seriously what you say, and suggests -- no, rather states explicitly -- that your motives are inconsistent with our goals. But I will give it a try. The above is a fundamental misunderstanding of the point of Wikipedia and the editing process. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to participate in an election. Neutrality and balance are two very different things. Writing good articles is not a matter of apportioning praise and blame among political candidates so that they are evenly helped or hindered by the encyclopedia, or that their articles are all symmetrical across some arbitrarily placed mirror of election rivals. If I want to improve one article, I have absolutely no call or responsibility to improve some other article. Beyond misunderstanding Wikipedia, the above also seems to misunderstand the facts. Things said in the encyclopedia must have solid sources. It is clear that Palin has a Pentecostal background (though it is not at all clear that she subscribes to their practices or beliefs). There is no legitimate support for a claim that Obama subscribes to black liberation theology. Each claim must stand on its own merits, in its own article, and if true, must face a number of other considerations about due weight, relevance, neutral editing, where to put content, etc. Creating symmetrical articles is not one of those considerations around here. Wikidemon (talk) 06:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The moment you accused Wikipedia volunteers here of being bigots, you lost whatever argument you had. Let me make something perfectly clear, and then I propose this discussion be closed as unproductive: I have never edited Sarah Palin's article. I have never involved myself with the discussions on her article's talk page. I am not interested in editing in that particular biography. My lack of editing is not, and cannot be construed to be, a case of supposed "bigotry." The editors who work in that article are other people, and whatever biases or perspectives they may possess, they are not mine. And I will not stand for personal attacks and insults against wide swaths of Wikipedia editors in good standing, myself included. I hope I make myself clear. --Good Damon 15:21, 10 September 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.

The Sourcing of Ayers Ties Founded on Documentation

The documentation behind the Ayers sourcing is largely rooted in Jerome Corsi's book -- ObamaNation. So the question is, what books did Corsi write that led to any libel lawsuits? Corsi clearly had an impact on the last presidential election, and while exhortations were used to discredit the Swiftboat Vets for Truth, no slander has yet been proved. In fact, it would appear that the true mainstream [the Voter] did agree and still does agree with the Swiftboat Vets for Truth.

Thus, using the last election to 'discredit' Jerome Corsi is empty. He is, as far as I can conclude, time tested. Thus, what footnotes in his heavily footnoted book, ObamaNation, are discredited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Wildfire March (talk • contribs) 15:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question... and one entirely unsuited to this article. Might I propose you bring that question to The Obama Nation? This is Obama's WP:BLP page. Go to the other page, and you will find a wealth of information, including reasons why the book may not pass muster as a reliable source. --Good Damon 15:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure what you're getting at but it does not seem to have anything to do with improving this article, which is about Obama rather than Corsi's book. Libel suits and voter opinion are not a test of reliability - politicians do not sue each other over political attacks. Rather, as in this case some books are repudiated by neutral fact-checking analysis by authors far more reputable than the book author. Corsi's book would not be a reliable source for content in this article because the book is partisan and has been widely criticized as containing substantial inaccuracies. Moreover, the reason we do not report various scandals described in your earlier post is only partly that they are poorly sourced. There are other key policies, such as maintaining a neutral point of view and only covering things in proportion to their due weight. After extensive discussion and dozens failed proposals, a consensus has remained that various supposed criticisms, scandals, etc. that are primarily related to the current election should be reported if at all in articles relating to the election, not this article, which is a lifetime biography of the person. Wikidemon (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Barack - Law Review

I saw that Barack made it to the Harvard Law Review partly through a writing competition. Does anyone know the titles of his legal writings, or have copies to post? I think it would be interesting to see what he wrote. 140.239.202.130 (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC) William

He has published no legal scholarship at all according to this Equaaldoors (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The question was not about his time at University of Chicago, it was about his time as editor of the Harvard Law Review. Are you claiming that he didn't actually write anything there? --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Academic

All this is academic. We write from a historical perspective, and the statement that is was the most watched in history is still factually accurate and reliably sourced. Consider also that it was during the Labor Day weekend, when viewing figures are among the lowest of the year, and it was carried on far less networks than either Palin's or McCain's speech. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Barack's holding the dubious title to a record of unclear importance, for a week, does not seem like a biographically important matter. Comparing the viewership to the Beijing Olympics seems irrelevant. More people heard him than watched Evel Knievel's Snake River jump, or the Who Shot JR episode of Dalls... but so what? This article is sometimes criticized for being too lauditory. Saying that it was the most-watched convention speech in history (Out of how many conventions in the modern era -- 56?), when the record was only by a small margin and held for only a week, sounds a bit like unadulterated but slight praise. How is the reader educated by knowing this fact? I think it would be better to include a phrase like "heavily watched" or something like that. Wikidemon (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That seems fine. Go for it. As long as it isn't removed because it is "wrong" (when it clearly isn't). -- Scjessey (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Obama's speech was carried on 4 more networks than Palin's and two more networks than McCain. But that being said, don't really care if it is included or not, but if it is included, it should probably note that the viewership total was surpassed by McCain's the next week (thanks in part to a strong lead in by the NFL on NBC). Although, I did just find an article on San Francisco Chronicle that says the two tied at 42.4 million when you add in PBS's numbers. That being said, perhaps a better way of including the factoid is to forgo the whole "most watched" bit and just go with "The speech, delivered in front of 84,000 supporters in Invesco Field and watched by an estimated 38.4 million on television, contained pointed criticism of McCain and President Bush and added details to his stances that were not mentioned in previous campaign speeches." --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the New York Sun, university spokesman Brian Connolly confirmed that Obama graduated in 1983 with a major in political science but without honors. Why do you publish that Obama graduated with honors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.19.184.194 (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Because the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, and a bunch of other newspapers say he did. He graduated magna cum laude. The fact that the New York Sun says otherwise is interesting, but someone's honors on graduation are a simple matter of public record, not opinion, and the Sun got it wrong. With the preponderance of reliable sources describing Obama's graduation with honors, there's no point in changing the article based on one newspaper's sketchy fact-checking. --Good Damon 15:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to enter these links into the article?

List of Wikipedia articles of Barack Obama in other languages

Yartett (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No. Because it's not an encyclopedia article, and it's self referential. Cenarium ^Talk 16:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please explain. Are no lists in Wikipedia? Yartett (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Not of this nature. If you look on the left side of the screen of this article you'll see that there is already a list of different languages that have a Barack Obama article. This is true for all articles. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As it's been pointed out to me. What about Wikiquotes, wikibooks, et al? Yartett (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Manipulated image - Obama's mole

On Sept 1 the main image in the article was photo manipulated and put in place of the original image, sans the mole on Barack Obama's face. Please see file history. This needs to be reverted back to the original. --Cioxx (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Update: it's been resolved by an admin. --Cioxx (talk) 03:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd thought I'd noticed his mole moving around to different places randomly. Spiff1959 (talk) 04:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been unresolved by another admin again. User:Ellomate reverted it to the photoshopped version. Please revert it back. --Good Damon 05:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Modifying the Main Page

[sorry if I'm making a posting error here. I normally post in another forum, and this is my first attempt]. I do think that the page needs to make mention of Ayers, Acorn, and the Weather Underground. Further, the description of Barack Obama regarding Rezko should be lessed biased [a scandal not related to him. That is an opinion.] Obama did do political favors that profited Rezko.

As for positive mentions of Obama, he did call for no smearing of Palin, he does make speeches which launches his popularity, and his candidacy is historic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Wildfire March (talk • contribs) 12:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the page. You're not making any sort of posting error. I would point out, however, that these issues have been hashed over time and again, and you might be well served reading the talk page archives for previous discussions on the facts. The arguments basically boil down to this:

PRO:

The Ayers and Rezko associations have been reported on in the mainstream press.
The current version of the Obama article is too positive; to satisfy WP:NPOV, it needs negative content.
Excluding the Ayers and Rezko associations is itself POV-pushing.

CON:

The mainstream press has only reported on the fact that right-wing attack pieces use Ayers and Rezko. The press itself has not validated those attack pieces.
WP:NPOV does not require that positive and negative information be equally balanced, only that the facts be stated neutrally.
WP:RS and WP:BLP indicate that only high-quality sources should be used, especially for negative content. Reliable sources have not lent any validity to claims about Obama's relationships with either man.
Since the only ones pushing the Ayers and Rezko stories are political opponents writing opinion pieces and blogs -- in other words, not reliable sources -- it is POV-pushing to try to get these controversies into the article.
The subject matter fails WP:WEIGHT for Obama's biography, and is better suited for the campaign articles.

I'm sure I'm missing some of the other arguments, but I think that covers most of the basics. What it all boils down to is that those controversies are manufactured, are not being investigated for legal malfeasance, are not being pursued by investigative journalists, and are not significant in a biography about his life. If he comes under investigation, that's a different story, but right now we only have blogs... and news stories about those blogs. There's not enough there to merit inclusion in his biographical article. --Good Damon 17:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

While the mainstream press has not deconstructed Obama's connections with Ayers, I would think that any complete article would link to the Ayers-Obama wiki article and acknowledge that there definitely has been a controversy over it. The mainstream press has at least done that. It ought to be worthy of inclusion if only because of the stand-off with the University of Illinois refusing to open its records regarding Sen. Obama's work with Ayers's non-profit.

On top of that, it has become an issue because Sen. Obama requested James 9:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a tremendous difference between USA Today reporting that conservative political opponents of Barack Obama have attempted to link Obama and Ayers negatively... and USA Today reporting that Barack Obama and Ayers actually have such links. The first is notable from a political campaign perspective, but not from that of a biography of Obama's life, at least not for the main article. I would also like to point out that this article is written in summary style, meaning each section is a brief overview of the most pertinent facts, with more details in the sub-articles. Those sub-articles should be considered part of this article, and the Ayers connection is already mentioned in appropriate places therein. But it's simply not a notable enough fact to merit a mention in the bird's-eye-view of this particular article. That would certainly change if, for instance, Ayers were up on terrorism charges (he's not), and USA Today published a big investigative piece on their connections, revealing they were best of friends or something. Until then, this is a one-sided, manufactured political controversy, and not really applicable to his bio. Oh, and the University reversed itself on those records, by the way. They were released, and the only thing they revealed was that Obama and Ayers were sometimes in the same room at the same time. Not exactly news. --Good Damon 05:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"conventional weapons" -> "firearms" in the lede?

"Conventional weapons" is a pretty odd term for small arms. Isn't there anything better? I'm aware that might be the term that the legislation itself uses, but can we afford to take a slight hit on direct accuracy here for the sake of making the article more accessible? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

In terms of common usage, conventional weapons usually means anything that won't cause annihilation of humanity (ie: guns, knives, sticks, etc), and the term generally applies to international relations regarding use of weapons. Is this what it is referring to? .:davumaya:. 00:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Typically, "Conventional weapons" refers to any non nuclear explosive. (TNT, nitroglycrine, C4, ect.)98.108.73.89 (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Profession: Attorney?

Why does the infobox list his profession as an attorney? Surely not everyone who was once an attorney or who holds a law degree is currently list as being an attorney? Shouldn't it be Senator or politician?LedRush (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

For some reason people like to know what politicians did before they became politicians. Obama was a practicing law firm lawyer for about 10 years, which overlapped his time in politics. Wikidemon (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

So how many cases did he try? 68.46.183.96 (talk) 09:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and for those people they can read the part of the bio that talks about his past jobs (like the 3-plus years he spent as an attorney). The info box should be for a current occupation unless otherwise stated.LedRush (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at the other candidates' pages, and they state "Politician" plus whatever they did before (though Palin's seems not quite honest to me). So I will keep Attorney and add Politician. Ok?LedRush (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. I agree with you on this, and think most people would. It's good to keep the largest significant portion of his career there, but it's also good to list his current position. --Good Damon 20:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama is NOT half white

Obama's mother has native american descent. This means the strongest ancestry in his blood is black african. Why is this not mentioned?YVNP (talk) 10:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

>>> Well, you can say his mother was Native American and so he is not white, but that doesn't make him more black, that makes him less white and more Native American... and... was she? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.5.19 (talk) 05:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Currently Barack Obama identifies as an African American. We use the general term White American to cover his mother's descent and not delve deeply into his mother's ancestry. This article is also written in an outline style that only covers the basics and most important information about Obama, leaving the rest to daughter articles to delve deeper into the various subjects. While it may or may not be true that he has native American ancestry, it does not merit a mention in the article. If we mentioned every single facet of his ancestry delving way back to the middle ages, the page would be triple the length that it is now. It is also important to use the identity that Obama himself chooses to associate with and not apply the various other things that people tag onto him, that he himself does not use. Brothejr (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Does that matter? LTIC the One drop rule still meant he is legaly black. --Deuxhero (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

We're here to describe not prescribe what his identity is. .:davumaya:. 05:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It is also important to use the identity that Obama himself chooses to associate with and not apply the various other things that people tag onto him, that he himself does not use I agree 100% with Brothejr, identity is not our issue here, his self identification (and the media branding of him) as black is not in dispute is it? Anything further is genealogical original research or somebody's opinion of what he should be called, neither of which is relevant to this article! natezomby (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The German media im sure branded Americans as terms similar to scum back during the war does that mean that americans are scum? (Invertedzero (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC))

Wow. Godwin's Law this early? Nothing is in dispute here. Move to delete this section. natezomby (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It Still makes him half-black, his mother is Native american, that makes him Half-Native and Half-Black, it would be politically incorrect to say he is completely black or even mostly black.--Banditda (talk) 16:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's edits are not determined by how "politically correct" they are. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 17:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

But he is still only half-black. how about wikipedia being FACTUALLY correct The FACTS say he is only half-black and if it isn't based on politically correctness couldn't i just change "african american" to "black". there is no such thing as a consensus on FACTS.--Banditda (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a consensus to call him African-American, and that this fits his self-identification, the vast majority of published sources, etc. Race is not a fact, it is a social construct. That construct, in America at the moment, is that if you have one African-American parent and one European-American parent (or Native-American, I won't even get into that) and you call yourself African-American, then you may be described as African-American. Our consensus is to follow that construct. That is not meant to endorse it, simply to use the terminology that everyone else does. Wikidemon (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(Incidentally, he had no African-American parent -- he had an African parent and an American parent (which I suppose makes him African-American by national background, if nothing else.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.86.90 (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

ok i get it, and now i understand that i can officially consider myself latino, or asian, even though i am mostly european and a native born american. I think ill go with latino, lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.229.64 (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh that last comment was from me BTW--Banditda (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The FACT is that he IS a mixed race American and this is Wikipedia so that is how it should be stated. You all know that you're not supposed to use opinions when editing articles. If a white person and a black person have a child, it is considered a mixed child. I have a mixed nephew. I don't consider him black just because he has black in his ancestry. Why is Obama left out of this and seen as 100% black? I honestly dont know but I'm sure a lot of people out there would be suprised if you told them he was only 50% black because of how the media advertises him as the possible "first black president". Sorry to burst your bubble media. First MIXED major presidential cantidate? Maybe. wagexslave (talk) 12:05 AM, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

As I read this whole debate about him being half white or half black or half native american. I can only think of the days when if you had a single drop of Jewish or Negro blood, your existance was now contaminated. Nice going folks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.205.246.175 (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It's clear that Obama has a black Kenyan father and a white American mother. So the term biracial would be more accurate to use than African-American. He is biracial with a Kenyan father. Kenyan-American? Just because terms are commonly used doesn't make them correct. And Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic in nature. Furthermore, is a White South African moves to the USA African-American? (Wallamoose (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

Featured picture

Question: Why is that we aren't using the Featured Picture File:Obama Portrait 2006.jpg in this article? We should always be striving to use our featured content. Even if it's not the infobox, we can find room for this photo? Thanks. howcheng {chat} 18:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the need. There are plenty of pictures of Obama in the article already, and I'm not sure of the context with which we could use this one. It's certainly a dramatic photo, but it would probably go better in a sub-article that includes information about that particular speech. --Good Damon 18:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where it fits in with the article, unfortunately. California Proposition 87 (2006) seems to be short on images.. Perhaps there? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Fits thematically, might work... --Good Damon 19:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

But where? The only place I can see is if we replace Image:Barack Obama in New Hampshire.jpg with it and mention he was campaigning on behalf of Prop 87. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You know, the more I look at it, the more I like it... and the more I can't figure out where to put it. It's a really detailed, really dramatic picture, but I frankly think Image:Barack Obama in New Hampshire.jpg is better suited to its current location in that article. I'm stumped. I'd like to place it somewhere, but haven't been able to figure out where. --Good Damon 20:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

sorry, damon but i think you first impression is correct. the intent of this photo is to show an angry black man discontented from the people, the new hampshire puts obama into the crowd he is speaking to, much better photo. Buzzards27 (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This picture is great, it is very nice with the light and the resolution is high. Perhaps it can be at the lower sections? 83.108.225.40 (talk) 06:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I would cordially recommend that it should be used to replace another, less striking photo. Perhaps the photo of Obama playing basketball. Curious bystander (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Replace the dreadful lead image! This one is much better. Setwisohi (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

leave this image out, no good reason served. intent of inclusion apears to be to demean obama [image tends to look frightening]. Buzzards27 (talk) 17:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"Intent of inclusion apears to be to demean obama"? Ouch! It's certainly not my intent. And I can't see why you think it is the intent of others. But I'm sure you don't mean it the way it reads. Setwisohi (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

yeah, your intent is pretty clear, if that5 isn't your intent drop the request for inclusion. the photo leave people with a FIRST impression that obama is an angry black man they should somehow fear. you know, don't vote for him becuz he is a little uppity...

anyone can capture a photo of someone in mid word and use it to create a negative caricature of that person. i do not think this article is the place for it. why don't you take your photo over to the free republic? they'll love it there. Buzzards27 (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one who finds this comment rude? 90.231.2.252 (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not like this image either. The lighting is kinda "artsy", which may make a good photo, but not particularly a good factual representation of the subject. It also seems to connote "angry" or "threatening" in the facial expression rather than something more neutral. LotLE×talk 19:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it's a nice photo but it does not present a well-rounded straightforward view of the candidate, so not very encyclopedic. Wikidemon (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite get the same hit off of it of "angry" that other people are seeing, but I just can't find a suitable location for it. My main problem with it is that, however dramatic the photograph is, it lacks the visual context that would make it a suitable replacement for other photos. It's a shame, as it really is a good photo, but I have to agree with Wikidemon that it's not an encyclopedic photo. Encyclopedic photos don't lack context. --Good Damon 17:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin (main image) vs Barack Obama (main image)

The lead image of Palin is much more flattering than the lead image of Obama. Hers is 3/4 profile and smart-casual clothes outdoors. His is formal, front on, indoors and rather off-putting. Can't we change these so that both are of a kind? Setwisohi (talk) 09:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry, not being clear: my point being that we need to be fair and that the above image of Obama would be much more balanced). Setwisohi (talk) 09:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I actually think the Obama one is much better...Palin's is unflattering and informal...not vice presidential at all. Obama's is nice and stately...it inspires confidence.LedRush (talk) 13:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"I actually think the Obama one is much better...Palin's is unflattering and informal...not vice presidential at all. Obama's is nice and stately...it inspires confidence." Just like this place, filled with people that make everything you read on this site biased. Moderators do no good, either. It's always a double standard, on Palin's page vs. Obama's page, there are plenty of issues Obama has gone back on his word on because it might not look favorable to a Presidential Nominee, but you won't read about it here because the only people who edit and have any real say here are supporters of Obama or the Democratic party. You really can't read anything these days without some sort of sick political inspired hidden agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.218.215 (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Why delete my original submission, I thought this site was for people to edit with constructive points? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.218.215 (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure it was deleted? It might have been archived. Duuude007 (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk page recently blanked

Philz4555 blanked other people's text and posted his opinion in its place. Look at the difference between his edit and my revert. This cannot be assumed good faith. Who is with me? Duuude007 (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Already reported. --Floridianed (talk) 03:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Honest Leadership and Open Government Act

On the page it says, "Obama co-sponsored the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act", while drilling into the Act's page it clearly says he did not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.2.218 (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've modified the text which was using "co-sponsored" somewhat loosely. Obama and Sen Feingold introduced an amendment to the bill in Jan 2007, sponsored by Obama and co-sponsored by Feingold (hence, "co-sponsored" by Obama), that was included in the bill. The amendment [1] pertains to (among other things) corporate jet travel. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Chairman of the Senate's subcommittee on European Affairs

It should be noted that there have been no meetings of this subcommittee while Obama has chaired it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlfahl (talk • contribs) 19:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The "subcommittee's" meetings have been held at the "committee" level, at the request of the chairman of the committee, which takes prescedence over the subcommittee. Obama has attended these meetings. Try and provide all of the facts please. Duuude007 (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"Most Watched Convention Speech in History"

Should this sentence be removed now that the numbers for the Palin speech have been reported as over 40 million? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.39.44 (talk) 09:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Got a reliable source for that info? GlassCobra 09:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I think so...[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.39.44 (talk) 09:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Quick re-read seems to indicate the numbers aren't apples to apples. Less networks for Palin speech, but not broken out in article. Maybe undeterminable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.39.44 (talk) 09:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, to clear some of this up here is a direct quote from the Guardian[3]:

"Audience research body Nielsen estimated that an average of 37.2 million viewers watched Palin give her vice-presidential nomination speech at the Republican national convention across broadcast and cable outlets between 10pm and 11.15pm, east coast US time, on Wednesday night. This compares with the 38.4 million who watched Barack Obama's Democratic presidential nomination acceptance speech at his party's convention last week." - The Guardian

I would contend that the Guardian is a reliable source for a Neilsen rating quote, and even if it isn't I also found that on Neilsen's site, "NeilsenWire" confirmed that Obama had more viewers[4] even though some folks seem to have missed their fact check. Saying it was the most watched convention speech (at least since they started such ratings) still holds true and is an important part of the article, unless the numbers from McCain's acceptance speech turn out to be even more. Heres the Neilsen quote:

"More than 37.2 million people tuned in for coverage of the third night of the 2008 Republican National Convention, which featured Sarah Palin’s much anticipated national debut. Wednesday night’s RNC broadcasts attracted just a 1.1 million fewer viewers than Barack Obama’s record-breaking speech on day four of the Democratic convention." - NeilsenWire

Hope this helps! Natezomby (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Did this on the Palin talked page. Summary : Palin Numbers and Obama Numbers . Obama's numbers still appear to be higher, but only because 4 other networks aired Obama's speech which Nielson's tracked. I think some people are reporting the Palin PBS numbers on top of the Neilson ones unfairly against the Obama Neilson numbers. Addition of PBS numbers puts both of them over 40 million.

Total Viewers Of 2008 Convention Speech From 6 Primary Networks
Person	NBC	ABC	CBS	FNC	CNN	MSNBC	Totals (In Millions)
Obama	6.1	6.6	4.7	4.2	8.1	4.1	33.8
Palin	7.7	5.9	4.9	9.2	6.2	3.4	37.3

Nielson's also collected numbers from BET, TV One, Univision, and Telemundo [for Obama only]. These networks didn't air the Palin speech. Neilson's total numbers reported for both candidates with all airing networks that they tracked was: Obama at 38.379 and Palin at 37.244 [in millions]. It has also been reported that Obama had about 4.0 and Palin with 3.9 [in millions] viewers from PBS. PBS didn't participate in the Neilson study - nor does C-SPAN (numbers unknown). The Obama entry here should be modified to state it's only true for a Neilson rating that included those 10 networks - otherwise it's argumentative. Theosis4u (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

As I noted on the Palin talk page. You're assuming that the viewers on the 4 additional stations that aired Obama's speech would not have switched the channel to one of the commons channels if they channel they watched it on did not air Obama's speech. Unfortunately that isn't an assumption that can be made.. It's also more likely than not, a bad assumption to make as it is more likely that more would have switched channels than would not have... Neilsen only works as an aggregate and that's how it should be included in this article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it's hard to come up with any apple to apple comparison. I don't believe there's even a weak argument to suggest though that the missing 4 channel viewers would of watched it on one of the other 6 though. Spanish language viewers are from - Univision, and Telemundo. Theosis4u (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Most US television stations include a Spanish translation in their broadcast on the secondary audio program. That's the "Broadcast with SAP" tag you see either at the end or at the beginning of the opening credits. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Reaching...just like I would be if I made the argument that when my family comes over they put it on either univsion or telemundo and it stays on either of them - regardless of what's on it, content wise - until they leave. Theosis4u (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh. It's no more reaching than your assumption that they wouldn't have watched the Obama speech on a different channel if it hadn't aired on the one they watched it on. I was just pointing out the fallacy of your assumption that simply because they watched it on Telemundo or Univision that they would not have watched it on a different channel. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It certainly seems like these speeches, more than just about any other televised event, are things where the viewers pick a channel to watch a specific thing. There might be a sliver of viewers who get BET on their TV but don't get NBC/CNN, but that can't be many. The viewership of these two widely-watched events is certainly close, but it does appear that Obama's was the "most watched political speech" or whatever. I don't have any special attachment to the sentence in the article, but I definitely don't want some contrived circumlocution with lots of caveats (omitting the point altogether would be fine, though I think it's modestly notable to include; just don't put in some awkward sentence rather than the direct and clear statement) LotLE×talk 17:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks for the tireless legwork. I hope this doesn't sound like a stick in the mud but the viewership of the speech is a bit of a sideline. The entire paragraph about his convention speech may get cut down to a few words, or removed entirely, as it recedes into history and he wins or does not win the election. If it is unequivocally the most-watched convention speech in history it might merit a few words held up against his lifetime biography; if it is only debatably so and it has to be explained or proven with charts, I don't think people are going to care so much that they need to read it in his bio. It's relatively more important to the article about the convention, of course. If there are conflicting accounts and numbers, I would just report that the speech had a large audience that was by some accounts the largest ever, then footnote the whole thing, keeping in mind that it will eventually get farmed out to the convention article.Wikidemon (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

All mute now because McCain draws record 38.9 mln viewers, bests Obama Theosis4u (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup.;) It's all academic now. Heh. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Thank you Mr. McCain. Wikidemon (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The news reports I've read state that Obama was shown on more networks, but has less total viewers than McCain for sure and likely less than Palin too. Also, Biden was way less than all three. Looks likee the wunderkind picked the wrng running mate, but the old-fogey picked the right one. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Request notation that viewership was equaled or surpassed by McCain speech one week later. Leaving original record is fine; not noting MCain's numbers is at best POV, at worst blatant dishonesty. The "new" record doesn't appear on the McCain page at all, which seems rather strange. Perhaps the community can agree on an identical wording for both articles...maybe in the vein of "Obama's nomination acceptance speech was watched by more viewers than any convention speech in history, a record subsequently matched by McCain's acceptance speech one week later." There, a NPOV statement that can go on both pages. Any objections? --Textmatters (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I am really confused why PTV isnt shown on this list. Not only is it the only programming that provided an HD channel for the convention, but it was the most commonly pumped in signal from what I saw, far beyond that of fox. Where are its official numbers? Or C-SPAN, for that matter, the official site for commentator free viewing? Seriously, if you leave these two ratings out, you are leaving a massive chunk of viewers out. These numbers could be wholly innaccurate as a result. Duuude007 (talk) 06:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Controversies

There needs to be a section on Obama's earmarks requests ($740 million) that he requested in the US Senate from 2005-2007

Also, there ought to be a mention of his "Present" votes in the Senate since this is a key issue in in the presidential campaign. Here is the Washington Post reference sheet.

This article mentions the controversy over Obama's abortion record but does not mention what it was about. Here is a link to his interview with CBN where he calls the National Right To Life Committee liars. And here is a link to the NRTLC's allegations. James 21:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the presidential campaign article. This is a biography about Obama's entire life. I suggest you bring your suggestions to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. In terms of the man's life, I don't think the earmarks he's requested as Senator have any more bearing than, for instance, John McCain's (whose article I just checked; it doesn't go into earmarks, except by way of mentioning Mr. McCain's overall stance against most of them). You have to consider such factors as recentism and weight here. There are articles, such as the campaign ones, where mention of recent allegations and political discussions makes perfect sense, but that doesn't really apply in a biography unless a reliable source establishes its weight in comparison to the rest of the individual's life. And again, I'd like to remind you that this article is written in summary style, meaning the more detailed information belongs in the sub-articles, while the bird's-eye-view stuff goes in the main one. --Good Damon 06:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the presidential campaign article. This is a biography about Obama's entire life. Without the presidential campaign, Barack Obama's entire life history would be worth about 250 words here. He is no more notable than any other freshman senator in the US Senate. We should be devoting more space to the presidential campaign, to provide more details. Curious bystander (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, McCain has reportedly never requested an earmark. I would think that is an important aspect in the US Senate portion of Sen. Obama's life story. Just as the "Keating Five" scandal is significant in the McCain article (mentioned three times). Surely if the legislation Obama has sponsored is inclusive in summary style, then his voting record is. If he had had a 30 or 40 year record like Biden or McCain, then, yes, it would be cumbersome. But even so, it would be a severe oversight to fail to include a LINK to a Biden/McCain voting record article if one existed. But Sen. Obama has only a three and 1/2 year record, thus it is not a great burden to link to, say, a Washington Post article that summarizes his record. For that matter, I don't understand why there is not link to the Obama–Ayers controversy. Obama launched his Senate campaign in Ayers's living room, and they were political allies for almost 20 years. If the Wright and Rezco associations are significant, then I would think Ayers deserves a mention. None of this would undermine the summary style of the article. It would merely avoid confusion as to why there are holes in his bio. James 09:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.28.6.153 (talk)

This is not to say anything one way or the other about the quality of the earmarks, but Mr. McCain has requested them before. He asked for $10 million for the University of Arizona in 2006, and in 2003, he requested $14.3 million in a defense appropriations bill for Luke Air Force Base. Those are earmarks. But all that aside, may I suggest reading the sub-articles to see if the information you would like to add is already there? --Good Damon 16:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeremiah Wright

The Jeremiah Wright paragraph is written in a way that strongly implies an inaccurate time-line. It says "In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning Obama's former pastor of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright. After ABC News broadcast clips of his racially and politically charged sermons, Obama responded by condemning Wright's remarks and ending Wright's relationship with the campaign. Obama delivered a speech, during the controversy, entitled "A More Perfect Union" that addressed issues of race. Obama subsequently resigned from Trinity "to avoid the impression that he endorsed the entire range of opinions expressed at that church." But of course, in the More Perfect Union speech (his response to the sermons) he disassociated himself with Wright's comments but refused to denounce Wright or to end his relationship with him. He ended his relationship with Rev. Wright 6 weeks later after an embassing National Press Club appearance. To say Sen Obama "subsequently" resigned Trinity suggests it occurred shortly after ending his relationship with Wright and for the same reason. But of course it occured weeks later after a sermon by the new pastor and by Father Pfleger. Summary style should avoide extensive details, but it should not leave a significantly false impression. James 10:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In response to the various controversies proposed for inclusion here, where is there a hole in the bio? Per summary style, NPOV, etc., we cover in the BLP article only things that are biographically relevant. With respect to earmarks nearly every member of both houses of Congress has their hand in earmarks. McCain, as a Senator, is known for a number of good government initiatives relating to campaign finance, spending, etc., so it makes some sense to mention that briefly in his article as a defining point of his long career in office. That doesn't mean that we should mention in every other Senator's bio that they were not reformers. The Wright, Rezko, and Ayers matters were discussed to death and we arrived as a group after months of hand-wringing at a consensus as to how much weight to give each issue here. In Ayers' case that is none because Ayers is not significant to Obama's life. Ayers did not launch Obama's career - that is just an opposition talking point. He is one of dozens to hundreds of Chicago constituents with whom Obama dealt at that level. That Obama's opponents make political hay of it because Ayers' past is supposedly unacceptable in the context of a presidential election is at most an issue to the campaign, where the matter is covered. Rezko by contrast is marginally notable to Obama's life as a bona fide but minor scandal, and someone Obama was much closer to. And Wright caused a blow-up with Obama's church and religion, which is clearly a lot closer to the core of his life story. Even if you take it out of the context of the current election, if you are a person of color and church is a big part of your civic and personal life, and you quit your church in protest (or embarrassment, pressure, disgust, whatever) because the church preachers take a divisive position on race, it's fair to call that a life issue. Buying a home and having a major patron / sponsor like Rezko is a life issue. An incidental professional brush with a civic leader with a controversial past, and playing by one of the rules of the game professionally, are not life issues. The weight of the sources bear this out. Outside of blogs, opinion pieces, and partisan journalism you see almost no mention of these things, other than factual reporting that partisans are making an issue of it. Wright and Rezko probably take up too much space in the article as it is but they are relatively complex issues that are hard to do justice in a brief mention. We link from here to articles where they are discussed in more detail. Wikidemon (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a gaping hole in this bio that consists of William Ayers, more details about Rezko, and more details about Wright. So much effort has been poured into making these mentions as amputated as possible, that ambiguities have arisen. More details are appropriate. Curious bystander (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The only -- and I can't emphasize this enough, apparently -- people who are saying there is anything notable whatsoever about Barack Obama and William Ayers being acquainted with each other are conservative bloggers and conservative editorial writers. Once and for all, they are not, have not been, and will not be reliable sources. The fact that they have generated enough noise to themselves be reported on by the media is notable, but not applicable to this biography, which must adhere to WP:BLP, and so cannot, shall not, will not use opinion pieces for critical content. Give it up already. Continuously, endlessly pushing for that load of malarkey to be included in this biography is POV-pushing, and if I may say so, a rank and foul example of the inability to tell opinion pieces from news articles. Let me say this in no uncertain terms: Until the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and a bunch of other reliable news sources report that their investigations have revealed some kind of powerful connection between the two men, it does not belong in his biography. Right now, it is opinion that there's anything meaningful about their relationship. When it is not opinion is when it goes into the bio. Are we all, at long last, finally clear on this? --Good Damon 01:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Don't bother with "but Palin's article says this," and "McCain's article says that." Those are other articles. If they're broken, go fix them. Don't break this one. --Good Damon 01:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

We are totally off-point here, and the place we went off-track is Wikidemon's response. The point is that the Jeremiah Wright paragraph is objectively inaccurate. It states and strongly implies things that are simply untrue. Don't care? Okay, then say so. Don't get into a totally irrelevant argument about the whether some things should be included and others not. The comprehensiveness of this post IMO an viable issue, but it is not the issue here. The issue is "accuracy". The Jeremiah Wright paragraph is inaccurate. This is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manawyddan (talk • contribs) 01:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Is the suggestion to replace "Obama subsequently resigned ..." with something like "Following additional controversial sermons delivered at the church, Obama resigned ..."? -- Rick Block (talk) 02:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama II should be Barack Obama, Jr.

Please check if this is correct and change if not.

Thanks,

Fredstang (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Fred

If you look at the source provided, it shows his birth certificate, and the correct name. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

i think it comes down to the name obama uses today, just how is he on the ballot. if he uses junior the article should say Jr. [a birth certificate does NOT mark you for life.] I have NOT used my given name in 40 years. I did run for office once and was know by AL not ALAN. I campaigned as AL and i was on the ballot as AL, NOT ALAN. i would object to being called something other then my chosen identity!!! if obama use Jr. instead of the II that is how this article should read. Buzzards27 (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama refers to himself as "Barack Obama" (which is why this article is so titled). He does not use junior, II, or any other suffix. However, the article also gives his full name per longstanding Wikipedia convention. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Education and Experience

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.

The article mentions that Senator Obama received a BA from Columbia and that he majored in Political Science. It is reasonable to infer that his BA is in Political Science (isn't that usually a BS though? I guess it depends on the conferring institution.). Just wondering if the article could state this more specifically (ex, " a BA in Political Science with a minor in ...."). Also, I am wondering if Senator Obama has any actual EXECUTIVE experience directly relevant to the EXECUTIVE office of President of the United States of America (for example, EXECUTIVE offices such as Mayor or Governor), or is his experience only in Legislative office (senator) and social work? I understand that he has no military service what-so-ever so there is no reason to ask about that subject. Thanks!

This would be Barack Obama's biography article. Based on the unnecessary allcaps and thinly veiled contempt, I'm inclined to direct you towards either:

The campaign article - The issues, as such, that you mention more properly belong there.
WP:SOAP - Wikipedia is not a forum for you to air your political opinions.

I hope you find this helpful. --Good Damon 17:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama's full-time chief executive experience by age 30:

three years as executive director of the Developing Communities Project
one year as president of the Harvard Law Review
six months as executive director of Illinois Project Vote!

Obama has also served as chief executive of his three campaigns for state office and his three campaigns for federal office, including:

his successful 21-month U.S. Senate Democratic primary campaign in Illinois that led to his March 2004 come-from-behind surprise landslide victory in the most expensive U.S. Senate primary election campaign in history
his successful 20-month U.S. Presidential Democratic primary campaign (visiting 48 states and 8 countries) that led to his August 2008 U.S. Presidential nomination in the most expensive election campaign in history

Newross (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Contempt? No, just ligitimate questions (although, you are correct, I do not prefer this candidate at this time). Allcaps, I wanted to get your attention to that specific word because it seems that people are either not grasping or intentionally overlooking the logical relevance of executive experience to becoming President (such as mayor, governor, business owner, or executive officer (ex, military: captain, civilian: CEO). I will check out the links you provided and thank you for the assumption of good-faith as I am really being serious (I wouldn't do it here but if I wanted to express political oppinion and spout critisisms and talking points I would be typing alot more than this). I will use the points and links that you both have provided while considering my final choice to vote. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.3.46 (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This whole "executive experience" thing is a meme to come out of the current election. It is not generally considered a qualification for office. In the past, and more broadly, terms like "leadership", "vision", "organization", "experience" and so on have been more prevalent as campaign selling points. Occasionally somebody's business experience leading a for-profit company (or being in charge of a large military operation, or a large wing of government) is held out as real-world experience, but not "executive experience" in the abstract. Being a small town mayor, head of a small group of lobbyists, or independent owner of a small business may or may not give you some common sense but it is a completely different thing with different skill sets than supervising tens of thousands to millions of underlings. In fact, for most candidates supervising their own campaign and office staff is the closest they will ever come before the election to actually being personally in charge of anything. The two main routes to the Presidency historically have been Congress (generally the Senate) and being state governor. Very few have gone directly from business, mayorship, or other offices. But none of this is terribly relevant to an article like this that describes Obama's biography. He did what he did in his life. Whether you or anyone else feels that qualifies him for office is something to take into the polling station, not an encyclopedia article (unless it is well sourced and notable as a campaign issue, in which case it might go in a campaign-related article). Wikidemon (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The question of executive experience is not a meme. It is a legitimate question. It is generally considered a qualification for the office of president. All candidate who have executive experience talk about their experience. All candidates who lack such experience dismiss its importance, but there is no substitute for experience. Sarah Palin has just as much experience in elected office as Barack Obama, and he has two years of executive experience in government where he has none; and she's not the one running for president. I support Barack Obama and will be voting for him (unless he's indicted for something before the election), I've donated money and even more valuable time to his campaign, but I recognize that executive experience is a legitimate criticism. Curious bystander (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Your claimed political position is irrelevant, and does not offset editing the article for the task of introducing derogatory material about Obama. The line about "executive experience" does reflect Republican criticism of Obama and defense of Palin. It is transparent and unconvincing. Nobody could seriously compare Palin's experience to Obama's. Again, the "executive experience" thing was not generally described this way and has not generally been considered a relevant qualification for the presidency or, frankly, any other class of job in America. High-level experience and responsibilities in relevant jobs, yes. The fact of it being "executive" per se, no. Wikidemon (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that executive experience for an executive position would logically be relevant and I do think that the good points previously noted highlighting senator Obama's would be in no way derogatory, in-fact beneficial. Why so touchy about this topic? I seriously wanted to know when I asked and am now pretty surprised at the level of defense that seems to be expressed. I honestly do not think that if someone were applying for an executive position, say something as important as CEO of a Bank (or President of the United States), that he or she would be seriously considered if he or she had no previous relevant executive experience (as is apparently not the case as noted by our friend in this discussion Newross). Please people, chill out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.0.36 (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This page is for discussion on improving the article, not for general discussion about the article's subject. Since this seems to be the latter, I am archiving the discussion. As to the unanswered question in the original post, "It is reasonable to infer that his BA is in Political Science (isn't that usually a BS though?" -- Under Wikipedia standards, it is never reasonable to infer anything that can't be properly sourced. More directly to the point, I majored in accounting in college, but my degree is not a BS in accounting, but rather a BS in Business and Economics with a major in Accounting. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 14:32, 15 September 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.

use of non-english letters in pronounciation of obama's name

sorry, but for the life of me i CANNOT understand why foreign language letters would be used to aid in the English pronunciation of Obama's name. the correct English letters should be used to aid in the proper pronunciation of his name. just becuz his name has foreign origins does NOT justify the use of foreign language letters. without knowing these letters i have no idea how they would be pronounced. seems like a rather transparate attempt to imply the type of sterotypes that the new yorker mag. cover noted. i believe that obama's family origins are discussed in the main article and there is no need to add to that with he use of foreign letters that the average person just would not understand or know how to pronounce. PLEASE correct using proper english pronounciation. i found this: Barack Hussein Obama II (pronounced: bah-ROCK hoo-SAIN o-BAH-mah) ^[1] Buzzards27 (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This article, like probably a majority of all other biographies (and also many articles on place names, etc) gives an IPA pronunciation of the subject's name. It's true that International Phonentic Alphabet is not necessarily widely known, but it gives an unambiguous pronunciation of names and terms, unlike a dialect-specific pseudo-spelling like that suggested above. Some articles also give a link to an audio file of a name as pronounced; that wouldn't be bad to have here, if someone creates it. LotLE×talk 19:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

IPA is an encyclopedic standard used world wide, and is the standard in Wikipedia as well per Wikipedia:Manual of Style. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

i do note that the style guide says that phonetic pronunciations can be used in addition to the ipa pronunciation. is there a good reason NOT to use the one i suggested? i also wonder why some think this ipa is BETTER than simple phonetic pronunciations. not to start any conspiracy theories but i noticed that the ipa 'standard' seemed to become the standard around the time [sept 2007] obama began running for office. any correlation there? is there a consensus that the phonetic pronunciation be added to this section? Buzzards27 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC).

The International Phonetic Alphabet has been around for perhaps a hundred years and is the agreed upon international standard for a lot of things, especially for linguists. It is perhaps the default universal alphabet that fits in line with Wikipedia's use of Open Source and Public Domain. Obama and IPA have nothing to do with each other. As well, inserting a "phonetic" pronunciation does nothing. English speakers will pronounce his name the way they please and your "phonetic" example will probably more confuse them than help. If you didn't notice there are about two dozen distinct American accents of English let alone UK, Australia, Canada, etc. By far, the primary concern over a phonetic pronunciation is that there is no official pronunciation of his name by which there is a source for it. .:davumaya:. 07:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

i did NOT question how old the ipa is, i questioned how long it was the standard here. best i can tell is that around sept 2007 it first was used here, and i note that it is not universally used here. according to the style manual, under pronounciation, "For English pronunciations, pronunciation respellings may be used in addition to the IPA." [This is a pronunciation respelling key used in some Wikipedia articles to UNAMBIGUOUSLY spell out the pronunciations of English words., DOES THAT IMPLY THAT IPA IS AMBIGUOUS?] if your claim is true that there is NO offical pronounciation of obama's names, just how was the current ipa prounciation arrived at? i think if your claim is true, an evaluation of the current ipa prounciation guide would be in order.

i am asking that the phonetic pronunciation [or "pronunciation respellings"] i suggested, Barack Hussein Obama II (pronounced: bah-ROCK hoo-SAIN o-BAH-mah), be used in addition to the ipa prounciation guide. i'd also ask that the current ipa guide be evaluated to determine if the correct symbols are being used. Buzzards27 (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Per the Wikipedia:IPA for English policy, everything checks out. Why are you arguing against policy? Find something more worthwhile to worry about. Duuude007 (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, the version of the pronunciation suggested may not even be accurate. I would have said "bur-RAAK hoo-SAYN oh-BAH-muh" - and therein lies the reason IPA is used: as an Englishman, I pronounce "rock" differently from Americans; therefore, to use it in a pronunciation guide creates ambiguity. I remember how much I roared with laughter when I saw my stepson's middle school biology text book refer to the word's pronunciation as "by-AHH-luh-gee", when I pronounce it "by-OL-oh-gee". IPA gets around these problems by taking regional and international accents and dialects out of the equation. Almost all modern day dictionaries use IPA exclusively nowadays. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Political Views and Platform

I think it is absolutely essential that a subtopic be added under this heading to discuss his platform and political views.

I also think an article on his political influences may be useful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.40.211.61 (talk) 04:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Bi-Racial and not African American

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.

Obama is of african and white european decent. he is not the first "african american" candidate for president because he is bi-racial. some will say that if you "have one drop of black blood you are all black" but where is the logic in that? i am half irish and half australian, mom from ireland, dad from Australia. so obama cannot be considered African American or Black when 50% of his genetic makeup is White European. Valliant1967 (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You might want to check out all the previous recent discussions on this, as well as all sorts of reliable sources, reputable news organizations, and Obama himself. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

so he is not from two races? both parents are black? and "check out" Obama himself? what does this mean? is he so powerful that he can discount science and common sense? Valliant1967 (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports what reliable sources have written on the subject. Whether or not they fit in with your idea of reality is irrelevant. Calling Obama bi-racial in that sentence is original research, as it goes against what reliable sources say and indeed even what Obama considers himself. It is made clear in the body of the article that his mother was Caucaisian. But Obama is still referred to as an African-American. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

He is of course African American, but the neutral thing to do would be to mention he is Caucasion too. Why not mention in parenthesis in the lead that his father was black and his mother white, or some clarification like that? To an unknowledgeable reader that only reads the lead paragraph (which a very large percent of readers do) they would get the impression his race is a majority of African American. Most black people in the US today I would assume are not 100% black, however, Obama is 50% black 50% white, singling out the black seems like deceptive information here. Many readers only read lead paragraphs, therefore the lead should be very unambiguous, and for many people race is a large issue (which is confirmed clearly in this article because the lead mentions his race). LonelyMarble (talk) 23:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

well, my eyeballs are pretty reliable, and when your momma is white, you are not black. if obama considered himself an ardvark would you report that? Valliant1967 (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Only if other reliable sources said so as well. (Right?) —Kal ^(talk) 23:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Check out the One-drop rule and Race in the United States. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

i must say that i agree with lonely marble, it is only fair. Valliant1967 (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you think is fair. It matters what reliable sources report. And reliable sources report that he is African-American. It is not Wikipedia's fault that some readers don't read the whole article. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously reliable sources point out he is 50% black, 50% white. I don't care about using the specific term "bi-racial". Your argument seems really defensive and irrelevant. It is very obvious we can get a million sources that say he is half white as well as half black. The argument here is whether it is relevant to say he is African American and not mention he is Caucasion also in the lead paragraph. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

it does matter what i think Mr Red, i am trying to be a useful member of wikipeida. Valliant1967 (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In the context that his race is mentioned in the lead of the article, A-A is the most appropriate as it is this part of his racial ancestry that the press is focusing on and not his Caucasian part. While it is true that Obama is bi-racial, he is not being put up as the "first biracial person to be nominated for President by a major political party", he is being put up as the "first African American to be nominated for President by a major political party"... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not climb down and reach a compromise? Just put this up: "He is the first African-American (bi-racial) to be a major...". It's not enough added verbage to congest the sentence, makes everyone here happy <cough>, and gives the reader additional info up front. The man also fits the definition of "bi-racial", arguing about sourcing on this point seems like requiring one to reference that the "world is round". Spiff1959 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Because if we don't follow what the source says that would be original research? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Using "African-American" does not invalidate "bi-racial", and vice versa. They are not mutually exclusive. By including both you are including ALL sources. Spiff1959 (talk) 04:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a longstanding consensus on this page to identify Obama as African American, because: (1) Obama self-identifies that way in his speeches, writing, etc; and (2) the preponderance of reliable sources identify him primarily that way. As a quick illustration (not argument or proof - the decision on this is pretty firm) if you google Obama with "African-American you get 11,000+ news hits.[5] Obama + "biracial" has less than 600 news hits.[6] So obviously being of African descent is a bigger deal with the sources than being of mixed descent. This does not invalidate other things. Race and culture are complex issue and one may fit multiple overlapping categories, e.g. being Native American and Caucasian, or Hispanic and Jewish, etc. Wikidemon (talk) 04:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, in addition to having this in the FAQ, perhaps we should just create a sub-page for this... Wikidemon (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

How is my propsed compromise of using "... African-American (biracial)..." not identifying him as African-American? Throw in "bi-racial" and "mixed-race" and you get another 400 hits on google. So all the sources would be satisfied if both monickers are present in the sentence. Wouldn't you say a great majority of those described as African-American can not claim to have a caucasian mother? Were not raised by white grandparents? Wouldn't you say that is a very important aspect of Obamas life? What is wrong with including your preferred phrase to satisfy 90% of the sources, and including the other as well to satisy the remaining 10% of news sources and provide a very important piece of information about Obama's life to those readers who may not go beyond the opening paragraph? A long-standing consensus only stands as long as there is a consensus? But just to reiterate, this change would not affect the status quo, it simply adds key info, satisfies the remaining news sources, it only costs adding one word to the paragraph, and makes those who have posted here wanting an edit happy. It would also thrill the posters who have argued this debate in the past, and would alleviate the future debates on this same point. Win-win? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiff1959 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent)Looking at everyone here who is arguing that he is bi-racial must be included into the outline biography over and over again keeps on reminding me one thing, and that is that they continually forget what Obama thinks. While you yourself may identify as bi-racial, and you may see others as bi-racial, the one person who has the most say in the matter, is the person themselves. This is an outline biography of Barack Obama. This is not a discussion on Barack Obama, social commentary on Obama or the country, not a political commentary, but an outline biography of Barack Obama. He self identifies (I.E. he calls himself) as an African American. It's kind of like a person who has a Christian father and a Jewish mother calling themselves Jewish. It is strictly up to the person themselves and no one else. Added upon that, we have thousands of very reliable sources saying that he calls himself African American, including from the person's own mouth. I would think that people would be respectful of what Obama chooses and not apply labels to him that he chooses not to apply himself. This is like someone up to you and telling you are something else other then what you call yourself. As stated in the FAQ and in the variety of reoccurring arguments about the same thing, Barack Obama self-identifies as an African American and his outline biography reflects that. Brothejr (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

We can't say what "Obama thinks". In his most recent speech, the acceptance speech, the only description of himself was (paraphrasing) "My mother is white, and my father is Kenyan". Obama appears African-American, has likely has always been treated as an African-American, maybe it's more convenient for him to go with that than to say "No, I'm biracial" then have to go into a minute-long explanation each time? Who knows? He has described himself as biracial. He has never denied that he is biracial. Ten-percent of the media accounts attribute him as biracial or mixed-race. Respectful? What you all are saying is that if Sandy Koufax called himself a "pitcher" and 90% of the media articles refer to him as a "pitcher", yet 10% of the media articles identify him as a "leftie" or a "southpaw", that we don't want to go against sources, or disrespect his wishes by identifying him on his wiki page as a "left-handed pitcher". That is EXACTLY what you're saying. Spiff1959 (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, your Sandy Koufax analogy does not fit here because him calling himself a pitcher (which is a profession) is not the same as someone calling themselves one race or another. While Obama has not hidden the races of his parents, he still identifies and allows others to identify him as African American. As has been mentioned before, there is more then enough reliable sources calling him African American. If you feel there is a problem of him calling himself an African American and not mixed race then I'd suggest you contact his campaign and bring it up with him as he is the only one to choose which race he self identifies as and no one else. However, as this is an outline biography of Barack Obama, then calling him African American (A race he self identifies as) is appropriate. Brothejr (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth, or twist what edit it is that I (we) am advocating. I NEVER said not to refer to him as African-American. Did my analogy recommend to not refer to Koufax as a pitcher? My analogy is dead-on. 216.170.33.149 (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding on to my last comment. I think the issue here is the idea of mixed race and how a person self identifies themselves. I can easily understand that there are a good portion of people who have mixed races from their parents. For example, a person with an African American parent and a Caucasian parent. They look like an African American, yet that person want's to be known as mixed race for whatever personal reason they may have. These mixed race people have a hard time getting people to see them as mixed race and not one or the other, but both. So while these mixed race people are trying to fight to be recognized as mixed race, they latch onto other people who are also mixed race because they see those people as feeling the same issue and problems as they are. Yet, the underlying theme here is those people of mixed race who want to be seen as mixed race, has self identified and want other people to identify them as mixed race. Because of this, they purposely choose to see others as mixed race even if the other person does not see themselves as mixed race. The basic issue here is self choice. While a person might be mixed race it, is completely up to that person and no one else, to choose how they self identify as. In this instance, Barack Obama does admit to having a mixed race background. He is happy with it, he is proud of it, yet he has chosen to self identify as an African American. While this goes against what those who identify as mixed race are arguing, it is not right to tell Barack Obama what he should self identify as or whose self identifies as mixed race to change Barack Obama's outline biography to reflect their own values and views. Brothejr (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Could you put my last comment back where it was beneath your "Sadly..." post? I'm not sure an "Adding on to..." comment is appropriate 14 minutes after I'd already replied? Kinda throws off the continuity of things. If I respond to your new "Adding on to..." then it really pushes my prior comment off into oblivion making it appear a disjointed orphan, and making your "Sadly," comment appear to have gone unrebutted. Thanks ;) Spiff1959 (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(I've moved your comment above, sorry we posted just about the same time and your post was added right after mine.) To show the problem with your analogy is this: Sandy Koufax was a pitcher and calling him a leftie/southpaw is still the same as calling him a pitcher in baseball lingo. Besides, a pitcher is still a profession not a race. As stated above, the main issue here are people who identify themselves as mixed race wanting to everyone else to identify Obama as mixed race despite what Obama himself wants to identify as. It is stated down within the article his linage, yet it still uses the race he chooses to identify as. Brothejr (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"despite what Obama himself wants"? I can provide instances of reliable sources where he described himself as biracial. Do you have a source somewhere where he asked that no one reference those conversations? That he specifially did not want to be referred to in that way? (as an aside, I'f Charles manson asked that we not refer to him as a murderer, would we comply to not hurt his feelings, or show disrespect?) The compromise I proposed above, with one word, adds key, impeccably-sourced, information to the article, without negating the existing content one iota. The post ending with "Win/win?" above lists the rest of the benefits. Spiff1959 (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Simply put, it is not a compromise. It is getting the words you like up in the lead paragraph. While you have some sources that call him biracial, and he does admit to being biracial, he identifies as African American. Plus, any addition to the lead calling him mixed race when he does not self identify as mixed race will be reverted do to it being WP:SYNTH and also a bit of WP:OR. Let the article reflect what Barack Obama chooses to identify as and lets not push the issue any further? Brothejr (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Spiff, the issue is that in the context African-American is being used, calling him bi-racial is original research. Barack Obama is not being billed as the first bi-racial candidate for a major political party, he's being billed as the first African-American candidate for a major political party. There simply isn't a way that we can include that he is the first bi-racial (even in the format that you're trying to add) without violating WP:NOR. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

His being biracial is well-sourced - definitely not original research. In fifteen seconds I see it in the Washington Post, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, USA Today. Here is a CNN article devoted to the very subject.[http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/09/btsc.obama.race/index.html I think it passes the threshold of relevance / notability, and it has been mentioned from time to time in the article. So I have no objection, and in fact there seemed to be consensus for noting this in the article a couple days ago (see above discussion at Talk:Barack Obama#Before anyone reverts it). There is no contradiction between his identifying as African-American and his being biracial. Just not as a primary identification here, and not in the lead. Also, even though there is some sourcing to call him the first bi-racial candidate that's a little shakier. Race is a very slippery thing, and we are all multi-racial to some extent depending how you look at it, and any claim that he is the first implies that no other president has been multi-racial (something we should take with a grain of salt) Wikidemon (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't Obama said that there is only one race- the human race? I really don't think we should apply a label that he would obviously object to. "African American" is simply the common term for an American of significant african ancestry so the term is entirely appropriate for Obama. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence of the Early life and career section already identifies his father as a black Kenyan and his mother as a white American.... Identifying him as bi-racial seems redundant... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> The journalistic top-down style states that the opening paragraph should concisely summarize the main points of the story. There seems consensus at least to admit being born of a caucasian mother and raised by whites is a key point regarding Obama. I have some support now that identifying him mainly as African-American and also biracial does not detract from the fact that he is still African-American. Given that, a one-word addition to the opening sentence seems worthly to impart additional key information. I've laid out my case as best I can. I was trying to act as an intermediary of what I see has been a frequently-recurring debate and come up with the best solution possible. Some might want to save their posts as they may need to use them again with the next person who wants "A-A" removed entirely, and the person after that, and the person after... Take care. Spiff1959 (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think it is appropriate to use a term which Obama would himself strongly object to- that his mother/grandparents are/were white is not so important to who he is that it should go into the lead paragraph. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

He obviously does not mind being identified as a minority race - the aphorism notwithstanding. There's no evidence to suggest he has objected to being known as biracial. If we are going to cover race we might as well cover all the issues within the bounds of relevance, POV, verifiability, and so on. I think the main question is just how notable it is. Given the sourcing, I would say it's fine enough for a word or two in the article body but not the lead. If elected he will be the first of a lot of things, but the most notable of them is the one everyone is talking about, the first person (partly, substantially, and recently) of African heritage... which in America given the lingo of the times we call "African-American."Wikidemon (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Where has he said anything about identifying as a "minority race"? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

He identifies as African-American. Do I need a cite for that? Wikidemon (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

He has never said African Americans are a separate race to everyone else. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You've lost me. How can you infer that he objects to being called biracial, but not that he objects to being called African-American, from his repeating the saying that there is only one race, the human race? Wikidemon (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

He himself has called himself African American. If he believes that there is only one race, then he obviously does not believe that his parents were of different races so he obviously would not want to be called bi-racial. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

He has called himself African-American, he has called himself biracial, he has stated there is only one race. All are verifiable. He has never disowned any of those statements. What right do you have to do so? Spiff1959 (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

When has Obama called himself bi-racial? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 11:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I looked around a bit and I concede I was unable to find him referring to himself directly as that. Frankly, I couldn't find him "labelling" himself very often at all. But he has called himself A-A. I've never argued to not use that as his primary racial identifier. I just think a compromise to end the debate would be to include both facts in the lead. It should impart A-A as the preferred descriptor, and the addition of some reference to biracial adds important info and should not detract from the A-A identificaion. Spiff1959 (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Trying to discredit him as a black man

As I said before Obama is half black while he is about 455 white and 5% native american. His black ancestry is therefore the most prominent. He is black in the same way that Asians are the largest race. Asians make up 45% of the world while every other race is at 20% or 10%. The same goes for Obama's ancestryYVNP (talk) 03:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

He is not White, bottom line. One drop of non-white blood and you're done- there is no point in wasting time thinking past that drop of impurity which muddies-up the blood. (sorry, I'm just havind fun here, but honest to gawd there are people that still think like that!). I personally think that if you go back far enough, and honestly enough, we all have mud for blood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.3.46 (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Senator Obama is not African American according to U.S. Law. Senator Obama is an Arab-American according to U.S. Law.

Senator Obama’s racial background consists of the following: 50% white (mother, both sides), 43.25% Arabic (father, both sides), and 6.25% African Negro (father, one side, 1 generation removed). 12.5% is the legal threshold one must prove to claim racial status under the law. In addition, Senator Obama cannot make a sociological claim as an African American either. He was not raised as an African American, was not raised by African Americans, and was not raised in an African American neighborhood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dont Igonre Truth (talk • contribs) 09:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:SOAP. And while you're at it, I recommend WP:RS and WP:V, policies and guidelines that should explain why your statistics about Mr. Obama's racial background don't matter (as well as being absolute bunk, by the way). --Good Damon 15:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

A solution, all be it semantic, to this problem

My understanding is that Mr Obama's mother is what one would call an American and his father I believe was born in Kenya? Thus he is what one would call African. Therefore by the definition set forth by almost everyone complaining that he is not African American he would be half African and half American. Thus in much the same way as an child of German mother and Arab father would be Arab-German Mr Obama is African-American. Problem solved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by James.robinson (talk • contribs) 22:33, 9 September 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.

Suggestion

I personally think that wikipedia/a wikipedian should reword or remove some content on the infobox. There has been controvery over whether he is Christian or Muslim. He claims to be Christian, but can we be sure? I personally think that the religion part should be removed until this matter is resolved. If you think I have place this message in error, please inform me. I would like to open this for discussion. I am not online much, so if you like you can also Email me. Thanks and Happy Editing ⊥m93 TALK 16:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The matter is resolved. The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not accuracy. Do we know what is in his most private, secret heart? No. That's not possible. We can only know what reliable news sources report his religion to be. Christian. Case thoroughly, completely, and utterly closed. Sorry to be short about this, but this is not at all a productive line of discussion, will not result in improvements to the article, and relies on arguments from sources that practically define failing WP:RS. --Good Damon 18:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologize. I had briefly forgotten the verifiability and accuracy part of wiki. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. It won't happen again. And that is true... very reliable news sources do say that he is christian. I had just thought that since there were claims of different religion. But yes. Since this matter HAS already been solved!

So let me be clear that this will NOT happen again. Once again a apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. I hope I did not come across as rude. Thanks and Happy Editing ⊥m93 TALK 19:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I really appreciate that. Verifiability can be tricky, especially with such controversial topics and heated opinions. The claims that he is a Muslim come from very strongly opinionated sources which may very well consider themselves to be reliable per Wikipedia policy, but they're truly not, any more than MoveOn or Huffington Post. And as an aside, I would disregard any source that simultaneously labels a person a follower of militant black theology from a Christian church, and a secret, radical Muslim. --Good Damon 20:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

awe-struck supporters

I think there should be something included in the article about the people who faint and see him as a near god. It is something that is very unusual in politics and would be valuable information to include, especially if it included some explantions. Crd721 (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm.. I don't think there is anyone that sees him as a near god. Are there those that are huge fans of his, indeed, but I doubt anyone is going to be setting up a Church of Obama, despite what the Republicans say. As far as including the faintings, I'm not sure how that is anything but trivia. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Or the heat. Tvoz/talk 04:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have seen people though looking up at him (literally looking up at him) with awe-struck eyes, and have their hands together like they are praying. Just one of my observations. And Im not a Republican, either, and I haven't made up mind yet in the election, Im about equal on McCain and Obama, so this isnt just me spreading right wing propaganda. At any rate the level of support by his supporters is unheard of, ignoring the fainting/"god" stuff. And haven't people fainted indoors or in the winter? Crd721 (talk) 09:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you are referring to how our beloved Senator Michelle Bachmann sees GWB as god/savior/almighty? .:davumaya:. 00:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the people I'm thinking of were young supporters of Obama, much younger than Michelle Bachmann, who I never even heard of, so I dont think I could have made that mistake. Also, it was clearly at Obama rallies, I could clearly tell it was Obama and not GWB, who was no where in sight. So there is no way I am consfusing who I saw. And yes, I know you are being a smart ass, so I decided to be one too, but everything I said was true. When has Michelle Bachamann ever been seen on tv? Crd721 (talk) 09:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In regard to the fainting, please refer to Mr. Obama's 2008 speech in Grand Rapids in which he accepted John Edwards endorsement, you will notice, if you watch the recording of the speech, theat someone does indeed faint in the crowd.98.108.73.89 (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, I don't know the proper signing etiquette for saying things here, but I would point out that someone fainting in the crowd doesn't indicate anything about Obama himself, as we don't know the situation that person was in health wise. As for looking up at him, well, he is on a stage, its inevitable. And for the hands clasped together, its called 'clapping'. One often stops clapping with ones hands clasped together. I believe I saw it for McCain and Palin to. I think these points are coincidental. While he does have strong support, he is a canidate. They all have strong support, thats why they're canidates. If they have more its generally because they are 'better' canidates (as in better at what they are doing, not as in they would naturally be better as a leader). ~14th September, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.210.102.52 (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This whole discusion seems to be getting completely OT. It doesn't really matter what editors thing of Obama or anyone else's supporters. If we have multiple reliable sources that mention Obama's supporters think of him as a god or that they faint more then supporters of other candidates, then we could probably include this in one of the related articles. If not, then we don't care what editors have seen or think of his supporters (or anyone elses) Nil Einne (talk) 10:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

In regards to 69.210.102.52's response, the health condition of the individual is not likely to be a factor, as if they were willing to stand in an ampitheater in the middle of the summer, they are likely of sound health. Also in regard to 69.210.102.52's comment of the hand clasping phenomenon, one does not clasp one's hands together for more than a few seconds after clapping. On another topic, 69.210.102.52, it would appear that you have a slight democratic bias. This is exactly the bias that Wikipedia is accused of having. It would be best that you keep your bias in the talk pages, no offense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.155.3 (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit request

racist slander contained in opening line - please remove immediately as it is offensive to blacks and Muslims

Good thing you made a reference or even added a date to what you think is offensive. This way everyone will know what you are talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.6.18 (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Not done No evidence of offensive material in opening line.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

My guess is anon was referring to this edit which was not surprisingly reverted before he/she posted Nil Einne (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely, eh? I am satisfied with that decision. Duuude007 (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Post-convention polling numbers

You're trying to start an edit war, Wikidemon. I have inserted neutrally written and impeccably sourced material about recent trends in polling in the presidential campaign. This is not a hagiography. If you want to revert it, gain consensus for your reversion. Curious bystander (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comment here is inappropriate per article probation, and you should refactor or remove it. Your attack on me here is unwelcome and inappropriate. Do not edit tendentiously. If you want to make disputed changes you are free to seek consensus here. Wikidemon (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the trend itself is notable, or at least as notable as anything that is likely to itself change over the next 60 days, but I would suggest it be included in either the McCain article under 2008 Presidential election section, the Palin section Under 2008 Presidential election section, both, or neither. It doesn't appear to me to fit here, as it is really about McCain/Palin, not Obama. Just my 2 cents.--Textmatters (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a watershed event in the campaign. Before Palin was named as McCain's running mate, Obama was ahead in nearly every poll. It looked as though he was going to win the White House on cruise control. Since Palin was named, Obama has been behind in nearly every poll. I have restored the paragraph that was reverted and would respectfully invite an explanation of why it doesn't belong here. Curious bystander (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted - you are well aware of article probation at this point so do not edit war to try to insert content. Sarah Palin's popularity at the moment is of interest to Sarah Palin's article possibly, and to the campaign-related articles. It is not a biographically important detail of Obama's life. We don't need a whole paragraph in the campaign section against a 2-3 week trend in polling numbers. In this article it is simply an anti-Obama tidbit, which is improper per weight, relevance, recentivism, and POV. Wikidemon (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I gotta butt in here... This is WP:RECENTISM. I respectfully remind you that when every poll showed Obama with a substantial lead, that information was not in this article. When every poll showed McCain with a lead, that information also was not in the article. Now that the polls are leaning towards Obama again... it still doesn't belong in this article. Let's say Obama wins. Will the polls as of September 16th, 2008 be all that notable on, say, September 16th, 2009? No, not for his biography. --Good Damon 22:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

And I'd like to add that the introduction of the material you propose could very easily lead to someone else adding something like "But on suchandsuch date, the polls leaned this way. Then they leaned that way. Then this, then that..." And so on, ad infinitum. --Good Damon 22:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have restored Cb's paragraph because it belongs here. As campaign events go, naming Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate rated about 9.8 on the Richter scale. Before it happened, Obama was in the lead; since it happened, Obama has been behind. Name a policy that the paragraph violates. Reverting it is a violation of WP:WEIGHT. WorkerBee74 (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a complete fantasy. Before the conventions, the race was a statistical tie. The Biden announcement and the DNC caused a bounce. Then the Palin announcement and the RNC caused a bounce. Now we are back to the statistical tie. This happens in every election cycle and isn't notable in any way. It is an excellent example of why recentism should be policy, and not just an essay. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

But it is just an essay. WP:WELLKNOWN is bedrock Wikipedia policy. The paragraph at issue here has the gold standard of reliable sourcing and it would be a clear violation of WP:WEIGHT to exclude it. I repeat: name a policy that it violates and explain why. WorkerBee74 (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is Obama's biography. It does not have to include every single reliably sourced detail regarding the 2008 Presidential election. That is why devoting an entire paragraph to McCain's convention bounce lends it undue weight, and why it shouldn't go back in. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Just from a common-sense perspective, WorkerBee, you're thoroughly failing to take into account the long view. Yes, WP:RECENT is an essay, but personally I think it applies very well here. No one will find the convention bounces notable for Obama's biography (or McCain's, for that matter) in a year. Or heck, in six months. But all of that is moot. Those details belong in the campaign articles -- no question about that, it's a notable event in terms of the campaign -- but they do not belong in this article. Removing that paragraph does not violate WP:WEIGHT. On the contrary, for Obama's biography, you're weighting the convention bounces too highly. There's no reason but POV-pushing to try to force off-topic -- and now out-of-date, considering recent polls -- information in the man's bio. This article is not part of the presidential campaign. I shouldn't have to be reminding you of that. Please check your POV-pushing at the door. --Good Damon 15:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it. If you want to include disputed content here, establish consensus first. And stop wikigaming.[7][8][9] Wikidemon (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked, the way it works is, when someone adds something to an article, and someone else disagrees and removes it, there is then a discussion on the talk page, and there needs to be consensus on the talk page before re-adding the material. BRD, not BDR, and especially not BDRDRDR.

Without having much of an opinion on whether the section should stay in or stay out, I’ll say that as an uninvolved admin, if I see someone re-add the polling section without a consensus here to do so, I will block them; my first time using article probation, but it seems a very clear cut case to me. And, before I get accused of taking sides, please read my first paragraph again for why it defaults this direction and not the other.

I actually see something of a weak consensus here not to include it, but the night is young, and consensus can change. But don’t re-add it again until and if a consensus in the other direction develops.

Also, a 3RR reminder for everyone involved on both sides; this isn't a BLP thing, it's a content thing, so AFAIK 3RR still applies. --barneca (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The arguments for including appear to boil down to "it's well-sourced." Of course it's well-sourced. It was all over the news. I can provide equally well-sourced documentation to the effect that:

Mayflies have very short life-cycles.
Sugar causes tooth decay.
1948 was a leap year.

None of that, of course, applies to this article, and no content referencing any of those well-sourced facts should be included. The same goes for the polls... They are important in the context of the campaign articles, but not in the context of Obama's life story, any more than they would be important in McCain's. The ongoing attempt to insert them is little more than POV-pushing. --Good Damon 17:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The vacant plug for Palin's virtues by the same editor who has disrupted this page before (and caused the article probation) has no place in a biography of Obama. GoodDamon makes a good point in his/her tongue-in-cheek metaphors: completely irrelevant topics that happen to be sourced do not belong here. LotLE×talk 20:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

looking more deeply into the sources, they weren't even that good of sources, and proved that the text posted was a mix of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Here, let me show you:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26625240/

...notes a 4% margin for error. This was also dated on Sept. 9, 2008, well before the post convention polls had stabilized.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/29/palin.republican.vp.candidate/index.html

This is a blog. We all know what their role plays in Wikipedia.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/sep/10/women.uselections2008 is international news talking about US news. How about referencing the source it provides instead of a 3rd party opinion: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_090907.html Duuude007 (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ermm, aren't they all reliable sources? And isn't this a very, very important event in the presidential campaign? And hasn't the Obama campaign shifted its gears and changed its strategy in response? If they feel it's a significant event, why don't you? The fact is that post-convention polling has stabilized. It used to be averaging about five points in Obama's favor. Now it's averaging about two points in McCain's favor. This is a watershed event. LotLE, pointing fingers at others and accusing them of "causing the article probation" is hilarious, coming from you. Curious bystander (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This is campaign news, and not even particularly notable at that. We have gone from a statistical tie to a statistical tie. Earth-shattering, DEFCON 1-like amazingness! Tag-team edit warring to try to include non-notable, non-neutral material should be a blockable offense under article probation. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Simple fact: This will go to archives. If this single event is truly the reason he somehow does not become president, then it is relevant. If anything else is a reason he does not, or if he does become president, then this point you are trying to make has absolutely no relevance, positively no notability. Personally, I don't think it does even now. If you care about contrasting balance, you would also consider that in the last week, Palin's approval-disapproval net rating has now gone from the highest to the lowest of the four, as soon as people got to know her. That has no place in this article either, but I am merely proving a point. Duuude007 (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no way to know whether this is an important event in the campaign. What will matter is the final vote, and perhaps demographic break-down of the vote. A narrative of how the vote got to that point will be useful in the campaign article but in the bio articles only if it is a life event for the person in question. The edit warring and uncivil accusations against the productive, legitimate editors here by a group recently returned to the article, are clearly inappropriate. Now we have a section started as a personal attack on me[10] by an editor claiming that my first revert of the clearly non-neutral content was "trying to start an edit war" (which he pursued until blocked). We don't need this here. If you want to include something you can be bold or better yet propose it here, and if there is a reasonable objection you talk about it civilly to see if there is consensus. That is very simple. Wikidemon (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Curious bystander has been blocked for edit warring. 24 hours this time, duration will escalate fast if it continues. --barneca (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Curious bystander said something very important here: "...isn't this a very, very important event in the presidential campaign?" It's certainly notable for the presidential campaign articles. But this isn't a presidential campaign article. This is Barack Obama's biography. In six months, if that, no one will care what the convention bounces were, and certainly it won't be regarded as notable enough for this biography, any more than the convention bounces of past presidential candidates have been considered important in their biographies (don't bother, I've already checked... the post-convention polls are not mentioned in at least the last three presidents' biographies, nor those of their opponents.) Incidentally, post-convention polling has "stabilized" with Obama generally in the lead (see today's Gallup results). And you know what? It still doesn't belong in his biography. --Good Damon 21:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but:

Polls taken after the Republican convention suggested that Mr. McCain had enjoyed a surge of support — particularly among white women after his selection of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate — but the latest poll indicates "the Palin effect" was, at least so far, a limited burst of interest.
The contest appears to be roughly where it was before the two conventions and before the vice presidential selections: Mr. Obama has the support of 48 percent of registered voters, compared with 43 percent for Mr. McCain, a difference within the poll’s margin of sampling error, and statistically unchanged from the tally in the last New York Times/CBS News Poll in mid-August.

From today's New York Times. Events have passed this by, which reinforces the issue of WP:RECENTISM. Let's move on. MastCell ^Talk 23:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see how this works now. Edit war to block the material that would "wipe the smile off anyone's face at Obama Campaign HQ" until it becomes outdated, then dismiss it as outdated. How clever. Curious bystander (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's disappointing, though not unpredictable, that you would choose to see it that way. MastCell ^Talk 18:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

We should simply ignore, and consider closing / striking comments like that. I'll leave a warning on the talk page.Wikidemon (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

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

I am closing/archiving this as it is quickly dissolving into personal attacks from each editor. - Brothejr (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Featured article review

~~===THE NEUTRALITY OF THIS ARTICLE IS DISPUTED===~~ inflammatory headline renamed - Wikidemon (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This piece of Obama campaign literature, formerly known as a Featured Article, is not neutral. It is a walking violation of WP:NPOV. Furthermore, it fails another test of Featured Article status: the content is insufficiently stable. I'm submitting it for Featured Article Review. Curious bystander (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be stable if POV pushers such as yourself did not go around disrupting it. How does it violate NPOV? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, users, lets not have an Edit war here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojhutton (talk • contribs) 23:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is not unreasonable to ask Curious bystander what exactly isn't neutral. I've reviewed the article again, and it seems perfectly neutral to me. In fact, I think it is a shining example of what a Wikipedia article should be. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If the amount of criticism in this article even approached the amount of criticism in George W. Bush, Tony Blair or Hillary Clinton, I might agree with you. Curious bystander (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Right now Curious bystander is stirring up a hornet's nest by canvassing everyone who has edited the article - including most of the disruptive editors from the past few months - to participate in the FA review. The article was stable for the past month when he and other problem editors were gone. This is looking to be terribly disruptive.Wikidemon (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The procedure for FAR requires me to notify people who have edited this article. You're now being heard to complain because I'm following the prescribed procedure? Curious bystander (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You should withdraw the nomination, and probably withdraw from editing this article if you will not stop causing disruption. You are indeed stirring up quite a bit of trouble to an important high quality article that had been civil and stable in your absence. Wikidemon (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Only problem is you've only been notifying editor's who have been pressing an agenda that you know would come to your rescue. Grsz ^talk 00:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's see if I follow CB's logic here: we need more criticism in this featured article, so it can be more like the good articles listed above. Okay, I get it now! Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 00:48, 19 September 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.

Obama's service on the Joyce Foundation

I see nothing in the article about Obama's time spent on the Board of Directors (and in fact was offered the Chair). The Joyce Foundation is an extreme left wing policy and fund raising organization favoring, among other things, the complete confiscation ban of hand guns.

So suggest an addition, properly verifiable and NPOV, of course (and NPOV does not mean "NRA point of view".) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Curiously, our article on the Joyce Foundation seemed to be written largely using the latter definiton of NPOV :) Thanks for bringing it to my attention. MastCell ^Talk 18:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Grammy winner?

There is no mention of his winning a Grammy Award, yet he's in a category for winners. Anyone know why that's there?--Appraiser (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure. He's won two spoken word Grammys, one in 2006 for Dreams From my Father, and one in 2008 for The Audacity of Hope. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know that. That fact should probably be mentioned in the text.--Appraiser (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It used to be, but much of that sort of thing was purged recently in an attempt to shorten the article and let the child articles shoulder more of the burden. The result has been a more focused article with less edit warring. (your addition about reversing the campaign financing pledge should be reverted for the same reason, the child article goes into the all the specifics). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Still it deserves mention. Perhaps a link to its subarticle+section, with the appropriate naming? All I propose is a summary, even if its extremely brief. Duuude007 (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Then why not a link and summary of Obama-Ayers controversy, even if it's extremely brief? Curious bystander (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Simple. WP:VERIFIABILITY. Quit spamming tabloid. Duuude007 (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Even simpler. It's not biographical. It's other people's innuendos of guilt-by-association, and is not supported by reliable sources. Now then... Curious bystander, you created a FAR because of this very issue, and the FAR was closed with the decision that there is no NPOV problem with the article. At this point, it seems like every single one of your contributions on this talk page is an attempt to re-hash this. It has long since gone beyond absurdity and straight into farce. It's time for you to stop. Now. No more endless regurgitation of this issue. You have made your arguments, and they've been picked to pieces, again and again and again. Repetition does not make it fact. Half the citations you and other editors have brought up in support of this POV-pushing are opinion pieces and blogs, and the other half are news articles about those opinion pieces and blogs. The first don't fly in any context, and the second fly only in the context of the campaign, as they do not make biographically notable statements about Obama himself. I am sick to death of explaining this to you, over and over again. I won't do it anymore. I will simply close these off-topic discussions as you open them, because they are disruptive. --Good Damon 19:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

(ignoring goading) I think that his autobiography and his book on politics both won Grammies is biographically important and worth including. To most anyone winning a Grammy would be a significant life achievement. But due to the weight and all the other more important things in the article I would only do it if we can with only a few words and a link. It's probably not even worth a full sentence.Wikidemon (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thats all I was ever suggesting, Wikidemon. Some sort of credit listed ~~in the see also section perhaps.~~ next to the books listed in works, near the bottom: "Grammy award winner, spoken word." Ok, I was bold. Duuude007 (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Controversy re: Rezko/Ayers

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

Discussion closed as becoming contentious and unlikely to lead to productive discussion on improving article - Wikidemon (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion reopened. This is a productive discussion. You do not own the Talk page. Curious bystander (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

What about Obama's alleged ties to Rezko and Bill Ayers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.201.111 (talk • contribs)
(Comment restored after total brain failure and Twinkle-madness on my part -- Scjessey (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC))

These two issues appear to be speculative in news stories that have yet to gain a formal influence on Obama's life. To talk about them in the article now would be a crystal ball of a poor synthesis. It would be the same as a "controversy" with Louis Farrakhan. These issues if they come to light may be better placed in 2008 general election. .:davumaya:. 16:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that you, Megapen? If so, you spelled Rezko wrong again. The answer to your question can be found above and in any of the several dozen recent archives where this has been discussed. It is a violation of WP:UNDUE, and wholly innappropriate for this article. The Ayers controversy in mentioned in the article on Obama's campaign, where it belongs. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama's personal and professional ties to Bill Ayers and Bill Ayers' radical past are NOT speculative, rather, they are fact just as his 20+ year relationship to Rev Jeremiah Wright is fact. Both of these references should be contained in this article, unless of course, this article is just campaign propaganda, in which case it does not belong here in Wiki Land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.242.19.9 (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, it would be appropriate for you to register a username if you wish to be taken "seriously" in a discussion. Next, you ought to review the many archives which already contain the answer to your question. If you are Megapen and here again to stir trouble, then you are trolling, and I'll ask you kindly to leave since the matter/matters are settled. And lastly, your accusation that this article is just campaign propaganda is disillusioned and won't help you gain Consensus by insulting Wiki Land. .:davumaya:. 21:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing speculative about the relationships with the terrorist Bill Ayers. I agree that these references should be in the article. To be fair John Mccain's warts are in his article and the same should occur here, unless there is bias? These relationships are some of the only glimpses that people can get into his character. I'm a new contributor so I hope I've followed the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S Scott Yapp (talk • contribs) 05:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Your Rezko information is prominently located in "Family and personal life." As for Ayers, let me direct you to Obama–Ayers controversy where the only conclusion one can draw from their "controversy" is that Ayers happens to be a well known professor and person in the community. Two and two in the same place do not equal one. Similarly McCain is often in the upper elite circles of very very terrible men who have maimed and extorted, but in how much we do say that is to be in McCain's biography? And labeling Ayers a terrorist is interesting, a terrorist implies someone who is wanted by the law and is either incarcerated or on the run. Last I checked Professor Ayers was an educator. .:davumaya:. 00:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing "prominent" at all about "your Rezko information." It's a single sentence, carefully buried in a vast field of text. That relationship deserves a paragraph at least. Ayers deserves at least a sentence, particularly since there's an entire article about Obama-Ayers controversy which should be linked here. If you're using summary style as excuse to exclude legitimate criticism, you have to follow WP:SS, which requires you to provide a link to the article where you've concealed the criticism. There is no doubt that Ayers is a terrorist. That is what makes him notable. Otherwise, we'd have a Wikipedia bio about every university professor in the world. Curious bystander (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems strange that Obama's well documented 20 year relationships with Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, and Tony Rezko shouldn't be fully covered. (Wallamoose (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

If by "well documented" you mean a small handful of soundbytes by Rev. Wright taken out of their theological context and repeated ad nauseum on tabloid radio shows, I don't think you're making a strong point. But as an Obama supporter I would like to see the supposed "shady real estate deal" with Rezko covered in greater depth, because it would dismiss the issue altogether. Obama paid market value for his home, and then bought part of the backyard from the Rezko's at market value since the Obamas had children and would use it. Not exactly a sinister, smoke-filled backroom kind of story, and probably worth detailing for the sake of factual clarity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5000fingers (talk • contribs) 04:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

These are tabloid non issues that have about and much coverage in the article as they deserve, or as much as should be found in any educated venue Cosand (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Cosand. Eloquently stated. .:davumaya:. 08:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you ought raise the same point in other pages where every single tabloid article gets inserted into the page? This page is quite sanitized compared with the Palin and McCain pages. Collect (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The issues that may or may not appear there don't automatically result in editors of other articles being conscripted into working on them. If there's a specific tabloid or source that fails WP:RS, I suggest taking it up on the talk pages for those articles. But be forewarned: Comparing the negative content that's been rejected from this article and the negative content that appears in other articles may be a case of comparing apples to oranges. Factors such as active legal and journalistic investigations (as opposed to opinion pieces) make a significant difference in what can go into a WP:BLP article. You have to be very careful not to risk libel with poorly-sourced negative material, but if the sources are actually solid, then a given person's biography will necessarily become more negative -- ideally not in tone, which should remain neutral, but in content. One of the reasons so much negative information about Mr. Obama has been rejected from this article is that it's all sourced back to opinion pieces, with both legal investigators and journalists failing to state that there's any substance to them. In contrast, Ms. Palin has been the subject of numerous non-editorial news articles detailing various controversies, articles that have gone well beyond reporting the simple fact that Democrats have been making political hay of them. And of course, the current investigation of the controversial firing known as "Troopergate" has actual legal ramifications. In other words, they are two different people, with two different personal histories, and as such, the details that go into their respective biographies is going to differ. --Good Damon 20:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama's relationships with Ayers, Rezko and Wright have also been "the subject of numerous non-editorial news articles detailing various controversies, articles that have gone well beyond reporting the simple fact that [Republicans] have been making political hay of them." In fact, some of these news articles don't even mention the Republicans (or conservative pundits) at all. But we don't see the same level of coverage here that we see in the Palin article. Why not? Curious bystander (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't take this the wrong way, but it's just not true. The non-editorial articles about Ayers and Rezko that have appeared in reliable sources have almost universally been news about how Republicans have been making allegations. The articles have distinctly refrained from lending any credence to those allegations. In fact, to a large extent, they reject the allegations outright. As for the Jeremiah Wright controversy, it does appear in the article, and makes a larger appearance in the sub-article for that section. --Good Damon 23:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect, GoodDamon. Nexis is a wonderful resource in moments like this. A search can be tailored with exquisite precision. The non-editorial news articles that mention both "Rezko" and "Obama" are over 2,000 but those that do not mention "Republican," "McCain" or "conservative" number nearly 1,000. Numbers for "Ayers" and "Obama" are somewhat smaller, but in the same proportions.

These articles appear in the gold standard of WP:RS: The New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, LA Times, CNN ABC. They also appear in reliable sources that clearly lean to the left, and sympathize with Obama: Mother Jones, Village Voice, The Guardian, The Nation, The New Republic.

What we're seeing here, in this article, is a campaign to exclude or diminish any material that would tend to wipe a smile off anyone's face at Obama campaign HQ. Even a link to Obama-Ayers controversy is forbidden. WorkerBee74 (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh. The usual misrepresentation of the facts, I see. Most "gold standard" articles that cover Rezko and Ayers simply describe Obama's connection with these men, without making any judgment about whether these connections are good or bad. A few opinion pieces from conservatively-biased rags (or conservatively-biased reporters writing for normally-neutral organs) have attempted to use guilt-by-association to put a negative spin on these harmless connections - most notably the discredited conspiracy theorist Corsi, but nobody has proven that Obama has done anything improper, such as firing a public official because they wouldn't fire an ex brother-in-law. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"These articles appear in the gold standard of WP:RS..." WorkerBee, please provide some citations. Make sure your citations:

Are not opinion pieces.
Come from reliable sources. Note: An article count from Nexis doesn't cut it. Provide specific articles.
Indicate the notability of the connections between Obama and Rezko or Ayers beyond -- and this is important, here -- opposition attempts to smear Obama by association. Here, I'll even give some examples of what would qualify:

News reports that Obama and Rezko or Ayers were long-term best of friends. This would qualify for a sentence or two as significant for WP:BLP.
Investigative reporting that indicates Obama supports Ayers' radical past or was involved in anything shady with Rezko. Note: The discredited house purchase "controversy" doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. There was, as it turns out, nothing notable about the house purchase whatsoever.
Stories describing legal investigations into Obama's connections with either man. I'll save you some trouble, here... There are none.

It's time to put up. No more opinion pieces, vague implications of guilt-by-association, or reliance on opinion pieces and articles from conservative rags. Give us meat, or give up already. --Good Damon 13:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

We've already dealt with this. There's no reason to re-open it now. Wikidemon (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"Time to put up"???? Noroton has posted reams of material from very solid, reliable sources. It has been ignored. Curious bystander (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Dude, the source isnt reliable purely because of the network's name. They are reliable if they have proof to back up criminal allegations. Guess what? wheres the proof? Quick Fact check: There is none. Read WP:V and ask yourself if these "reputable" sources verified their work with actual reporting, or if they just went for the ratings. Duuude007 (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't second guess gold standard reliable sources here at Wikipedia. We simply report what they say. Except on this article. On this article, we delete whatever they say if it doesn't reflect favorably on our candidate, and we do our best to block and topic ban any editors who had the nerve to add those reliable sources to this article. We speculate about whether these gold standard reliable sources "just went for the ratings." For any other Wikipedia article, WP:WELLKNOWN is policy. On this one article it's inconvenient. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

With that I'm closing the discussion. This discussion seem to have degenerated into generalized complaints about other editors rather than suggestions for improving the article. I remind editors yet again of the terms of article probation. Wikidemon (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

And I have reopened it. This is a productive discussion. Curious bystander (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, really, no it isn't. You have wasted at least a week on this, and gotten absolutely nowhere. You are right back where you started. There are still no facts that show Obama is guilty of anything, there are only people like you who suggest that there might be. Every time you offer an article up, it is proven unrelated, or, like I just said, clearly stating Obama has done nothing wrong. That being said, you are wasting all of our times even considering this addition to the biography, as it has no notability whatsoever. Duuude007 (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No. It isn't. Once again, you are being intentionally disruptive with your repeated insistence that a completely irrelevant association with Rezko and this pathetic (and failed) smear campaign about Ayers are given undue weight. Your disruptive actions are in clear violation of the terms of the article probation. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, does WorkerBee74 still think The New York Times is "gold standard"? One of McCain's tools disagrees. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(Resetting indent). Let's give Curious bystander the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps s/he has discovered several new, reliable sources that indicate Obama is being legally investigated for his connections with Ayers, or perhaps there are several new major nonpartisan journalistic exposés that reveal their relationship was much deeper than has been previously indicated by other news stories. Perhaps there's a new bombshell article out there, revealing Obama has secretly maintained support for Ayers' prior radical behavior, and this article will show it, in Obama's own handwriting. Let's give Curious bystander 24 hours to provide substantive, unbiased citations to that effect. Well, Cb? Up for that challenge? And if you can't, then we close this discussion, and you agree not to reopen it. --Good Damon 22:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

^ http://inogolo.com/pronunciation/d455/Barack_Obama

[1] ttp://inogolo.com/pronunciation/d455/Barack_Obama

[1]