Talk:Barack Obama

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any sections older than 10 days are automatically archived.

middle name

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where is the Obama Criticism section?

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

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

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

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

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

Views on Israel

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

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

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

African American?

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

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

Here is the intro to African American:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:SYN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Explained on your talkpage. [1] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Bobblehead, I see that you've reworded the thing again.[2] I appreciate that you're putting effort into this. Thanks. The material in the article now seems to be accurate. However, I think it's verbose, and it perhaps unintentionally is written in a POV way. Allow me to explain. First, I don’t know why you need both Obama quotes, when either of them gets the message across (the first being shorter), so it seems like verbosity could be considerably reduced here. Second, nothing that you’ve written includes any hint that Obama criticized the filibuster tactic (that criticism, after all, was the main message that USA Today got from the article). The Sun-Times version of the article (which you seem to prefer) says that Obama agreed with Biden that the filibuster was a “stalling tactic”, and “that it was not particularly wise,” but your sentences give no hint that Obama criticized the tactic. How come? Can't we say that he criticized the tactic?Ferrylodge (talk) 06:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Added that he criticized Dems for an over-reliance upon procedural maneuvers as requested. The reword with the second, more verbose quote was a result of your rephrasing[3] and an attempt to incorporate it into a more accurate explanation as to what Obama was saying, but if you no longer want to incorporate the "win elections" bit, I can remove that. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 07:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Authored?

I think this has been brought up before, however:

He has authored two bestselling books...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"His mother's American middle class family"?

I find something a little odd about this sentence:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chicago's Southside

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Multi-ethnic Indonesian capital city?

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

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

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

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

You are of course encouraged to write a long essay on the differences between Batak [4], Sundanese [5], and Minangkabu [6], but for anyone reading this article, to imply that a black man is anything other than an extreme oddity in Indonesia is very misleading. Even white people (more common due to tourism and business) are liable to shouts of bulé (whitey) anywhere outside of the wealthiest areas. 82.31.164.67 (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

"Absent Luo father"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Languages

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

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

Yes he does [source Parnohadiningrat Sudjadnan, Indonesian Ambassador to the US Time Magazine: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1695803,00.html]. He is quite popular with Indonesians. He went to a school where he was taught in Indonesian. [7]

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

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

He also mentioned eating dog meat, which is somewhat popular in Indonesia. His step-father was an Indonesian man who practised Abangan Islam (essentially a blend of traditional animism and Islam). Dogs are haram (forbidden) in Islam, to touch or to own, but a somewhat loose line is taken in traditional Javanese culture on such matters (also on alcohol, which is generally freely consumed). Modern Indonesia is becoming steadily more fundamentalist due to the power of wealthy Wahaabist Saudis and their media influence. In the 60s and 70s Indonesia was extremely liberal as their own interpretation of Islam had been developed over hundreds of years. See the Vespa Girls of the 70s. [8] compared to today. The influence of Christians in high finance and so on in Jakarta is also reduced compared to that era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.114.226.173 (talk) 13:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Placement of only African American Senator fact

The second sentence of the article now reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cut down Keynote section

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

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

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

Iowa

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

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

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

Pronunciation -- Audio

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

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

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

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

biased statement on tax cuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

His father

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kenyan- or African-American?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cultural and political image

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

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

Removal of appropriate categories

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

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

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

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

This biased page is changing election results

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

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

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

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

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

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

Siblings

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

External Links - Press

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

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

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

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

Rezko resurrection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Something gone wrong with a template?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The leading candidate or a leading candidate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He's Irish!

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

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

Early childhood religious background

Some uncontested facts:

Barack was born of a Muslim father and Christian mother.

Father died at early age

Stepfather was Muslim

Barack enrolled in Catholic school in Indonesia as a Muslim student

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

Barack is currently a practicing Christian

Barack described his father as non practicing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Raila Odinga

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

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

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

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

Reversions without edit summaries

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

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

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

There was a user apparently using wikipedia as a propoganda tool

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dreams From My Father

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wedding date incorrect

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

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

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

Barack Obama's Muslim origins section

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

Barack was born of a Muslim father and Christian mother.

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

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

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

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

Stepfather Lolo Soetoro was a Muslim from Indonesia

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

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

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

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

Race

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

First black president?

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