Jump to content

Talk:Barack Obama: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 5 discussion(s) to Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 84) (bot
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
<!-- Please do not remove or change this message until the issue is settled -->
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{ {{#ifeq:|{{void}}|void|Error:must be substituted}}|medcab-request}}
{{FAQ|quickedit=no}}
{{pp-move-vandalism|small=yes}}
{{Article history|action1=FAC
{{Community article probation|main page=Barack Obama|BASEPAGENAME=Barack Obama|[[Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation]] for full information and to review the decision.}}
|action1date=12 August 2004
{{skiptotoctalk}}<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THIS TAG. SMALLER SCREEN LAPTOPS NEED IT TO NAVIGATE.-->
|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Barack Obama
{{talkheader}}
|action1result=Promoted
{{ArticleHistory
|action1oldid=5174535
|action1=FAC|action1date=August 5, 2004|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Barack Obama|action1result=Promoted|action1oldid=5297601
|maindate=August 18, 2004
|action2=FAR|action2date=09:53, 23 January 2007|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive1|action2result=pass|action2oldid=102622704
|action3=FAR|action3date=22:24, July 26, 2007|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive2|action3result=pass|action3oldid=147098144
|action4=FAR|action4date=06:08, 15 April 2008|action4link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive3|action4result=kept|action4oldid=205714008
|currentstatus=FA
}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|blp=yes|activepol=yes|1=
{{WPBiography|class=FA|priority=mid|activepol=yes|politician-work-group=yes|listas=Obama, Barack|nested=yes}}<!-- For high importance: Must have had a large impact in their main discipline, across a couple of generations. Had some impact outside their country of origin. -->
{{Project Congress|class=FA|subject=person|importance=High|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Illinois|class=FA|importance=Top|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Hawaii|class=FA|importance=Mid|nested=yes}}
{{Talk Spoken Wikipedia|class=FA|Barack_Obama_1-31-2007.ogg|nested=yes}}
{{ChicagoWikiProject|class=FA|importance=top|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Columbia University|class=FA|nested=yes}}
{{Project afro|class=FA|importance=low|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProjectPolitics|importance=High|class=FA|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject United States presidential elections|class=FA|importance=Top|nested=yes}}
{{WPCD-People|class=FA|nested=yes}}
}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barack}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=yes}}
{{calm talk|#FFCCCC}}
{{tmbox
| type = content
| image = [[Image:Imbox content.png|40px]]
| text = [[WP:ADMIN|Administrators]] have identified this article as problematic with regard to our [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|biographies of living persons policy]]. In order to avoid placing [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes#Special_enforcement_on_biographies_of_living_persons|special enforcement sanctions]], which may include blocks, deletions, page protections, topic/article bans, and "any and all means at their [administrators] disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy", users are asked to take special care in editing this article to ensure it remains in compliance with policy.


|action2=WPR
If you violate [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|biographies of living persons policy]] you may receive a warning and explanation on your talk page. If you again violate [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|biographies of living persons policy]], you may be blocked, banned or otherwise sanctioned with limited rights of appeal.
|action2date=18 August 2004
|action2link=Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 18, 2004
|action2result=Maindate
|action2oldid=5294576


|action3=FAR
Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to [[Wikipedia:verifiability|verifiability]], [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutrality]] and [[Wikipedia:No original research|avoiding original research]], particularly if it is contentious.
|action3date=09:53, 21 December 2007
|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive0
|action3result=pass
|action3oldid=8658294


|action4=FAR
Editors must take particular care adding '''biographical material about a living person''' to ''any'' Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere ''strictly'' to all applicable laws in the [[United States]] and to all of our content policies.
|action4date=09:53, 23 January 2007
}}<!-- Template: BLP Spec Notice -->
|action4link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive1
{{pressmulti|small=yes|collapsed=yes
|action4result=pass
| title = On Wikipedia, Debating 2008 Hopefuls' Every Facet
|action4oldid=102622704
| author = Jose Antonio Vargas
| date = 2007-09-17
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601699.html
| org = The Washington Post
| section = September
| title2 = 'Round the Clock: Obama, Clinton Wiki-Warfare
| author2 = [[Alison Stewart]], Rachel Martin
| date2 = 2008-04-03
| url2 = http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89333759&sc=emaf
| org2 = [[The Bryant Park Project]], NPR
| title3 = Editors in Chief
| author3 = [[Brooke Gladstone]], [[Bob Garfield]]
| date3 = 2008-04-04
| url3 = http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2008/04/04/02
| org3 = [[On The Media]], NPR
| title4 = Wiki Woman
| author4 = Eve Fairbanks
| date4 = 2008-04-09
| url4 = http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=4f0c6aa3-3028-4ca4-a3b9-a053716ee53d&p=1
| org4 = The New Republic
| section4 = March
| title5= Hillary's Wiki Defender
| author5 = Jesse Brown
| date5= 2008-04-10
| url5=http://www.cbc.ca/searchengine/blog/2008/04/this_weeks_show_april_1008.html
| org5= [[Search Engine (radio show)|Search Engine]], [[CBC Radio One]]
| title6= Wikipedia Wars
| author6 = [[Tom Foreman]]
| date6= 2008-04-12
| url6= http://www.charter.net/video/?vendid=35&vid=142269
| org6= [[This Week...]], [[CNN]]
| title7= Liberal Web
| author7 = [[John J. Miller]]
| date7= 2008-04-21
| url7=http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=YWM4Nzc3ODk3NDQxYWYyMjMzZjQ3NzEzM2JkMzM1OTk=
| org7= [[National Review]]
| section7=April 2008
| title8= Clinton's entry in Wikipedia has a watchdog
| author8 = Kelly Heyboer
| date8= 2008-05-28
| url8=<!--http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-13/1211949334324290.xml&coll=1--> http://blog.nj.com/digitallife/2008/05/hillary_clintons_wikipedia_wat.html
| org8= [[The Star-Ledger]]
| title9=one of two pieces aired
| author9 = Paul Murnane
| date9= 2008-05-28
| url9=http://www.wcbs880.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=2400703
| org9= [[WCBS (AM)|WCBS Newsradio 880]]
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{atnhead}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 34
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(5d)
|archive = Talk:Barack Obama/Archive %(counter)d
}}


|action5=FAR
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|action5date=22:24, July 26, 2007
|target=Talk:Barack Obama/Archive index
|mask=Talk:Barack Obama/Archive <#>
|action5link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive2
|action5result=pass
|leading_zeros=0
|action5oldid=147098144
|indexhere=yes}}
{{AutoArchivingNotice|age=5|index=./Archive index|bot=MiszaBot I|small=yes}}
{{TOClimit|limit=5}} <!-- PLEASE LEAVE THIS AS LIMIT=4; 2 IS TOO SMALL -->


|action6=FAR
<!-- please add new sections to the bottom -->
|action6date=06:08, 15 April 2008
|action6link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive3
|action6result=kept
|action6oldid=205714008


|action7=FAR
== Website? ==
|action7date=12:56, 16 September 2008
|action7link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive4
|action7result=kept
|action7oldid=238756853


|action8=WPR
I think this should be in the section where it shows his website. The Obama for Illinois senator is old and outdated.
|action8date=4 November 2008
http://www.barackobama.com/splash/first_to_know.html
|action8link=Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 4, 2008
[[user:chasesboys]]
|action8result=Maindate
|action8oldid=249658914


|action9=FAR
BarackObama.com is already included, I move to delete this section. [[User:Natezomby|natezomby]] ([[User talk:Natezomby|talk]])
|action9date=17:30, 2 December 2008
|action9link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive5
|action9result=kept
|action9oldid=255411914


|action10=FAR
== mixed race ==
|action10date=03:36, 10 March 2009
|action10link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive6
|action10result=kept
|action10oldid=276168026


|action11=FAR
agian why do i have to keep putting this up here just coz your are so naive the way i've changed it here:-
|action11date=23:34, 16 March 2010
''He is considered the first [[African American]] (although he is mixed-Race) to be a major political party's nominee for this office''
|action11link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive7
|action11result=kept
|action11oldid=349918777


|action12=FAR
sounds fine he's '''NOT''' afican amercian yes people alway call him that as he wants to help his votes, with out his racial backround his campian isn't strong enough he uses that to help him (anyone that says different is ling) by putting that he's afican amercian your inoring his mothers side and help with the naive people out there people, belive it or not people read wikipedia for information and you adding that here is why so many people wrongy think his race is different to what it is,
|action12date=12:32, 17 March 2010
mariah carey is the same race as obama (her dads an non american black man, her moms white-amercian) but if she went around says she afican american people wouldn't belivie her saying shes mixed race instead its unfair to exclude someones race (weather its mariah actually been half black, or obama been half white) read the part above in ''italic'' i thinks thats totally fine way to put it it fair on everyone that way.
|action12link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive8
look at other peoples Bios like [[Lewis Hamilton]] or [[Halle Berry]]s mixed race people that are like obama made history as "the first black person" in something but also like obama is mixed so read theres it might help the way we write this, the only reason so many people don't think hes black is coz wqebsites like this adding one tiny little sentance with ( ) isn't that big of a deal, why do so many people here have a probablem with telling the truth in stead of ling.[[User:Veggiegirl|Veggiegirl]] ([[User talk:Veggiegirl|talk]]) 18:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
|action12result=kept
#This issue has been discussed many times and we've reached a decision. Read the FAQ - above
|action12oldid=350447914
#Wikipedia's main content criteria here are [[WP:N|neutrality]] and [[WP:V|verifiability]]. There is no reasonable question about his ancestry. We all know that. The vast majority of sources, including Obama himself, call him "African American." Many blacks in America are mixed race, many whites and Asians too. Race is a complicated thing. We go with the standard language here, and it is standard to call Obama African-American.
#If you want to change the way people talk about race Wikipedia isn't the best place to start. Wikipedia is at the end of the pipeline, not the start. We reprint what other people say, we do not make it up here.
#Please do not accuse other editors of ling
#I think you have a reasonable point that makes a lot of sense, but we just happen to have decided to go the other way. It wasn't a racist thing, just a way to keep the article standard. His mixed race heritage is discussed though, just not in the first sentence.
#New comments go on the bottom of the page
Hope that helps. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 19:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


|action13=FAR
:Ummm... If you have "one drop" of non-white blood you are considered non-white in almost all of the American South. Obama *is* an African American just like I am a German American though only my mother's side was entirely German... Though even there if you go back far enough they were Dutch, and then Franks, and they all came out of Africa at one time. This is not really a matter of genetics, it is a matter of identity, and he may define himself as it suits him. Just like you would not nit-pick a woman calling herself a lesbian just because she once slept with a guy when she was in High School. So; Get over it. --[[User:BenBurch|BenBurch]] ([[User talk:BenBurch|talk]]) 19:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
|action13date=12:32, 17 June 2012
|action13link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive9
|action13result=kept
|action13oldid=497955278


|action14=FAR
:: Doesn't it simply depend on what system of classification you're using? Many people are against the one-drop rule, a high proportion of them being those that are directly mixed race, why do so many people complain on forums and mixed race websites about it if this is not the case? Have some respect for other people's opinions - your examples are quite poor. It is not a matter of nitpicking - its a matter of how Mixed race people self identify... in the same way as you said obama 'may define himself as it suits him'. I'd like to respond to this by saying would you accept obama as white if he called himself white? no, because of that one-drop rule you mentioned, so it isn't anything out of respect for one's self identification that you're arguing for, its your belief in that system. ([[User:Invertedzero|Invertedzero]] ([[User talk:Invertedzero|talk]]) 00:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC))
|action14date=20:51, 22 October 2012
|action14link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive10
|action14result=kept
|action14oldid=519144660


|action15 = FAR
::That was directed at the people who keep changing it, BTW, not the commentator it follows. --[[User:BenBurch|BenBurch]] ([[User talk:BenBurch|talk]]) 19:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
|action15date = 2021-12-04
|action15link = Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive11
|action15result = demoted
|action15oldid = 1058343247


|currentstatus=FFA
:::No offense taken. I'm happy to get over it and stop ling. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 19:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
|maindate=August 18, 2004
|maindate2=November 4, 2008
|itndate=November 5, 2008
|otd1date=November 5, 2013
|otd1oldid=579954170
|otd2date=November 4, 2016
|otd2oldid=747850418
|otd3date=2022-11-04|otd3oldid=1119935935
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|listas=Obama, Barack|1=
{{WikiProject Barack Obama}}
{{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=top|s&a-work-group=yes|s&a-priority=top}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Top|DC=yes|DC-importance=High|USGov=yes|USGov-importance=Top|USSL=yes|USSL-importance=Low|USPresidents=yes|USPresidents-importance=Top|USPE=yes|USPE-importance=Top|portal1-name=United States|portal1-link=Selected biography/4|portal2-name=Illinois|portal2-link=Selected biography/1|portal3-name=Chicago|portal3-link=Selected biography/7|portal4-name=Hawaii|portal4-link=Selected biography/11}}
{{WikiProject U.S. Congress|importance=High|subject=person}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=high|American=y|American-importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Hawaii|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Illinois|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Chicago|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject New York (state)|importance=Low|Columbia=yes|Columbia-importance=high}}
{{WikiProject African diaspora|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Africa|importance=Mid|Kenya=yes|Kenya-importance=High}}
{{WikiProject 2010s|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Law|importance=Top}}
| blp=yes
}}
{{press
| collapsed=yes
| title = On Wikipedia, Debating 2008 Hopefuls' Every Facet | author = [[Jose Antonio Vargas]] | date = September 17, 2007 | url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601699.html | org = [[The Washington Post]]
| title2 = 'Round the Clock: Obama, Clinton Wiki-Warfare | author2 = [[Alison Stewart]], Rachel Martin | date2 = April 3, 2008 | url2 = http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89333759&sc=emaf | org2 = [[The Bryant Park Project]], [[NPR]]
| title3 = Editors in Chief | author3 = [[Brooke Gladstone]], [[Bob Garfield]] | date3 = April 4, 2008 | url3 = http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2008/04/04/02 | org3 = [[On The Media]], NPR
| title4 = Wiki Woman | author4 = Eve Fairbanks | date4 = April 9, 2008 | url4 = http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=4f0c6aa3-3028-4ca4-a3b9-a053716ee53d&p=1 | org4 = [[The New Republic]]
| title5 = Hillary's Wiki Defender | author5 = Jesse Brown | date5 = April 10, 2008 | url5=http://www.cbc.ca/searchengine/blog/2008/04/this_weeks_show_april_1008.html | org5 = [[Search Engine (radio show)|Search Engine]], [[CBC Radio One]]
| title6 = Wikipedia Wars | author6 = [[Tom Foreman]] | date6 = April 11, 2008 | url6 = http://www.charter.net/video/?vendid=35&vid=142269 | org6 = [[This Week...]], [[CNN]]
| title7 = Liberal Web | author7 = [[John J. Miller]] | date7 = April 21, 2008 | url7=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_7_60/ai_n25474310/print?tag=artBody;col1 | org7 = [[National Review]]
| title8 = Clinton's entry in Wikipedia has a watchdog | author8 = Kelly Heyboer | date8 = May 28, 2008 | url8=<!--http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-13/1211949334324290.xml&coll=1--> http://blog.nj.com/digitallife/2008/05/hillary_clintons_wikipedia_wat.html | org8 = [[The Star-Ledger]]
| title9=NJ Man Appoints Himself Wikipedia Watchdog | author9 = Paul Murnane | date9 = May 28, 2008 | url9=http://www.wcbs880.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=2400703 | org9 = [[WCBS (AM)|WCBS Newsradio 880]]
| title10 = Updating a Reference Site on the Fly | author10 = Noam Cohen | date10 = November 9, 2008 | url10 = http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/technology/internet/10link.html | org10 = [[The New York Times]]
| title11 = Obama Wikipedia page under possible security attack | author11 = Adrian Bridgwater | date11 = January 22, 2009 | url11 = http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,1000000567,1001960o-2000458459b,00.htm | org11 = [[ZDNet]]
| title12 = Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility | author12 = [[Aaron Klein]] | date12 = March 8, 2009 | url12 = http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114 | org12 = [[WorldNetDaily]]
| title13 = Obama's Wikipedia Page Distances President from Wright and Ayers | author13 = Joshua Rhett Miller | date13 = March 9, 2009 | url13 = http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,507244,00.html | org13 = [[Fox News Channel]]
| title14 = Barack Obama 'receives preferential treatment on Wikipedia', report claims | author14 = Mark Coleman | date14 = March 10, 2009 | url14 = http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/wikipedia/4965132/Barack-Obama-receives-preferential-treatment-on-Wikipedia-report-claims.html | org14 = [[The Daily Telegraph]]
| title15 = Wikipedia May Be a Font of Facts, but It’s a Desert for Photos | author15 = Noam Cohen | date15 = July 19, 2009 | url15 = http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/arts/20funny.html | org15 = [[The New York Times]]
| author16 = Staff | date16 = August 17, 2009 | url16 = http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6043534/The-50-most-viewed-Wikipedia-articles-in-2009-and-2008.html | title16 = The 50 most-viewed Wikipedia articles in 2009 and 2008 | org16 = [[The Daily Telegraph]]
| subject17 = article
| author17 =
| title17 = Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger says online encyclopedia scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics
| org17 = [[Fox News]]
| url17 = https://www.foxnews.com/media/wikipedia-co-founder-larry-sanger-says-online-dictionary-scrapped-neutrality-favors-lefty-politics
| date17 = 2020-05-21
| quote17 = The first example pointed out by the [[Larry Sanger|site’s co-founder]] is that President Barack Obama’s page “completely fails to mention many well-known scandals” such as [[2012 Benghazi attack|Benghazi]], the [[IRS targeting controversy|IRS scandal]], the [[2013 articles about the Department of Justice investigations of reporters|AP phone records scandal]] and the so-called [[ATF gunwalking scandal|"Fast and Furious"]] operation.
| archiveurl17 =
| archivedate17 =
| accessdate17 = 2020-05-22
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 75K
|counter = 84
|minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Barack Obama/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{tmbox
| image = [[File:Nuvola apps kdict.svg|40px|link=|alt=]]
| text = '''Bookmarks:'''
{{Columns-start}}
* [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation]]
* [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive1]]
{{Column}}
* [[Talk:Barack Obama/Historical diffs]]
* [[Talk:Barack Obama/weight]]
* [[Talk:Barack Obama/race]]
{{Columns-end}}
}}


{{Banner holder|collapsed=yes|
::::I moved this section back down to the bottom of the talk page where it should be. I also agree with the two users above. Everyone is so mixed race (I can count at least five other countries in my background) that the real question is what the person identifies themselves as. Barack Obama identifies as African America. Like others have said before, all this is covered in the FAQ section. [[User:Brothejr|Brothejr]] ([[User talk:Brothejr|talk]]) 20:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
{{All time pageviews|155}}

{{Top 25 Report|Jan 20 2013|Jul 24 2016|Nov 6 2016|Jan 15 2017|Nov 1 2020|Nov 8 2020}}
so what if obama identified himself as mixed race? I've seen other unreferenced articles of people from mixed heritage that state they are biracial or mixed race when there's no tertiary source to justify it... [[User:Invertedzero|Invertedzero]] <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment was added at 13:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{{Annual report|[[Wikipedia:2007 Top 50 Report|2007]], [[Wikipedia:2008 Top 50 Report|2008]], [[Wikipedia:2009 Top 50 Report|2009]], [[Wikipedia:2010 Top 50 Report|2010]], [[Wikipedia:2011 Top 50 Report|2011]], [[Wikipedia:2012 Top 50 Report|2012]], [[Wikipedia:2013 Top 50 Report|2013]], [[Wikipedia:2014 Top 50 Report|2014]], [[Wikipedia:2015 Top 50 Report|2015]], [[Wikipedia:Top 25 Report/2016|2016]], [[Wikipedia:2017 Top 50 Report|2017]] and [[Wikipedia:2020 Top 50 Report|2020]]}}

{{Annual readership}}
:Really, so if a white person decides he'd rather be identified as an Afro-American, you would allow that here? Do you think that would be allowed by any government agency as far as identification is concerned, the obvious answer is no. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/209.242.19.9|209.242.19.9]] ([[User talk:209.242.19.9|talk]]) 19:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{{Section sizes}}

}}
::Wikipedia does not really work by precedent. Each issue is taken individually as not all issues may fall under the same rule (apart from established policy). Obama's identification is established under WP policies '''already answered in previous archived discussions (please go review them)'''. We are not here to debate a what-if discussion on another topic. [[User:Davumaya|.:davumaya:.]] 21:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
{{pp-move-indef}}

{{Spoken Wikipedia request|Catfurball|Important}}
Nah it's pretty obvious its all under tight control just for the sake of his campaign. I'm in support of Obama, but disagree with him being described as black, as a large proportion of the mixed race population do, but our views are never respected are they?
__toc__
Bill Clinton has been described as black and african american in the media, should this be taken as that he is?
If Obama was to identify as white, would you respect his personal choice of identification then? ([[User:Invertedzero|Invertedzero]] ([[User talk:Invertedzero|talk]]) 00:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC))

== Illinois "13th District" ==

The section on his State Senate service says he's from the "13th district", but it links to the Illinois 13th Congressional District in the US House of Representatives, not the Illinois State Senate. Could someone who knows more about IL politics than I do fix that so it's right? \ [[User:Fnarf999|Fnarf999]] \ [[User_talk:Fnarf999|talk]] \ [[Special:Contributions/Fnarf999|contribs]] \ 02:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:It is my understanding that State senate positions follow congressional districts in Illinois, and this is supported by the sources that always seem to refer to Obama (and Palmer before him) being in the 13th Congressional District. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 21:51, 4 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?[[User:YVNP|YVNP]] ([[User talk: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? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/201.141.5.19|201.141.5.19]] ([[User talk:201.141.5.19|talk]]) 05:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: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. [[User:Brothejr|Brothejr]] ([[User talk:Brothejr|talk]]) 12:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::Does that matter? LTIC the [[One drop rule]] still meant he is legaly black. --[[User:Deuxhero|Deuxhero]] ([[User talk:Deuxhero|talk]]) 02:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::We're here to '''describe''' not ''prescribe'' what his identity is. [[User:Davumaya|.: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 [[User:Brothejr|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! [[User:Natezomby|natezomby]] ([[User talk:Natezomby|talk]]) <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment was added at 14:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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

* Wow. Godwin's Law this early? Nothing is in dispute here. Move to delete this section. [[User:Natezomby|natezomby]] ([[User talk:Natezomby|talk]]) <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment was added at 07:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: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.--[[User:Banditda|Banditda]] ([[User talk:Banditda|talk]]) 16:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

::Wikipedia's edits are not determined by how "politically correct" they are. Erik the <font color="red">[[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]]</font> 2 <small>(<font color= "maroon">[[User Talk:Erik the Red 2|AVE]]</font>·<font color= "orange">[[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|CAESAR]]</font>)</small> 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'''.--[[User:Banditda|Banditda]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk: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.) <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.138.86.90|70.138.86.90]] ([[User talk:70.138.86.90|talk]]) 19:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:::::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. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.17.229.64|75.17.229.64]] ([[User talk:75.17.229.64|talk]]) 22:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::Oh that last comment was from me BTW--[[User:Banditda|Banditda]] ([[User talk:Banditda|talk]]) 23:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

== References ==

Make the references part two columns please.--[[Special:Contributions/212.175.40.242|212.175.40.242]] ([[User talk:212.175.40.242|talk]]) 12:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:They are in two columns already. Older, less standards-compliant browsers may not support multiple column CSS. Get [[Mozilla Firefox]]! -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 14:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::Or Safari 3. --[[User:Frogger3140|frogger3140]] ([[User talk:Frogger3140|talk]]) 20:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Finance Section Request ==

I would love to see some [http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:DptbZ6MZr9IJ:articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/MutualFunds/HowTaxBoostingObamaCutsHisOwn.aspx+obama+%22net+worth%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=17&gl=us&client=firefox-a detailed information on Obama's finances], if someone has the time to do some digging. I [http://www.mangoboss.com/ObamaNetWorth don't think] the 1.3 million net worth figure is still accurate, though I understand that the generally accepted value right now.
[[User:Icaruspassion|Icaruspassion]] ([[User talk:Icaruspassion|talk]]) 15:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:If you have a reliable source that contradicts the reliable source we currently have for the $1.3 million, you are more than welcome to update the figure. Until then, there isn't much we can do. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 18:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::Well, [http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/MutualFunds/HowTaxBoostingObamaCutsHisOwn.aspx?page=2 MSN reports] [...]Since then his wealth has ballooned, notably due to sales of two books, "Dreams From My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope." In 2007, he collected royalties of $815,971 on the former and $3,278,719 on the latter[...]
::And the revenue from his books is widely reported and documented. --[[User:Icaruspassion|Icaruspassion]] ([[User talk:Icaruspassion|talk]]) 04:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::That MSN article states that his net worth is between $2,022,016 and $7,356,000. I am not sure whether that is good enough for use in the article. However, that range is $5,333,985--not an accurate figure. However, that evidence contradicts the $1.3m figure from Money magazine... Any ideas on how to deal with this? —''[[User:Kanodin|Kanodin]]'' 05:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::What his net worth is ''right now'' is not important. The number reported relates to the tax return that was made publicly available, and it can be updated when the ''next'' return is released. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 12:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Signature ==

He really has a fancy signature. Where did you get it? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/84.173.72.253|84.173.72.253]] ([[User talk:84.173.72.253|talk]]) 13:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Barack_Obama_signature.svg (ultimately from the Senate web site). The source of any image on Wikipedia can be found by clicking on the image. -- [[user:Rick Block|Rick Block]] <small>([[user talk:Rick Block|talk]])</small> 14:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== Question about Legislation ==

"Obama voted in favor of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and cosponsored the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act.[55] In September 2006, Obama supported a related bill, the Secure Fence Act.[56] Obama introduced two initiatives bearing his name: "Lugar–Obama," which expanded the Nunn–Lugar cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons,[57] and the "Coburn–Obama Transparency Act," which authorized the establishment of www.USAspending.gov, a web search engine.[58]"

Should the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act be included in this list as it was never put into law? All the other acts listed in this paragraph were passed by the Congress and signed by the President. Including the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act in this context may give the reader the impression that it was enacted into law. There are many other pieces of legislature that Senator Obama sponsored that were also not enacted into law. Why are some of them not included or why is this one piece of dead legislature included?

I would like to suggest that the reference to the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act either be removed or earmarked as dead legislation. [[User:Throckmorton Guildersleeve|Throckmorton Guildersleeve]] ([[User talk:Throckmorton Guildersleeve|talk]]) 13:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:The purpose of this article is to describe Obama and his actions, not Congress's actions. If a Bill isn't passed, perhaps it should be labeled as a 'Bill', not an 'Act'. [[User:Flatterworld|Flatterworld]] ([[User talk:Flatterworld|talk]]) 15:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

::A failed bill can well be important to a politician if it's something they actively worked for. I don't have any specific background on how much this bill was important for Obama, but let's discuss the specifics of that association rather than the abstract (incorrect) principle that only passed legislation mattered to the bio subject. <font color="darkgreen">[[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|LotLE]]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">[[User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|talk]]</font> 17:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Re to SAOIA and SFA, I think the reasoning behind both would be that it highlights Obama reaching over the isle and specifically supporting measures by the opponent party (and opponent himself). The Secure Fence Act was signed into law by Bush and was pretty much a Republican-led effort. [[United States Senate career of Barack Obama]] sheds some context of why these two are relevant to mention. [[User:Davumaya|.:davumaya:.]] 16:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

== Controversy re: Rezco/Ayers ==

What about Obama's alleged ties to Rezco and Bill Ayers? {{unsigned|65.96.201.111}} <br />(<small>Comment restored after total brain failure and Twinkle-madness on my part -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 15:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)</small>)
: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. [[User:Davumaya|.: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 <font color="red">[[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]]</font> 2 <small>(<font color= "maroon">[[User Talk:Erik the Red 2|AVE]]</font>·<font color= "orange">[[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|CAESAR]]</font>)</small> 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. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/209.242.19.9|209.242.19.9]] ([[User talk:209.242.19.9|talk]]) 19:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: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 [[WP:Troll|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.'' [[User:Davumaya|.: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. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:S Scott Yapp|S Scott Yapp]] ([[User talk:S Scott Yapp|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/S Scott Yapp|contribs]]) 05:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Use of ''National Journal's'' flawed study to summarize Obama's 2007 senate career ==

Section '''U.S. Senator, 2005–present''' reads "the National Journal ranked him as the "most liberal" senator based on an assessment of selected votes during 2007."

That study was selectively bias, and doesn't serve as a neutral summary of Obama's 2007 senate career. Here is an article from ''Media Matters'' with more detail (and links to even more detail) explaining the bias of the study;

<blockquote>
...as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, the National Journal based its rankings, not on all votes cast by senators in 2007, but on "99 key Senate votes selected by National Journal reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale." In contrast, a study by political science professors Keith Poole and Jeff Lewis, using every non-unanimous vote cast in the Senate in 2007 to determine relative ideology, placed Obama in a tie for the 10th most liberal senator.[http://mediamatters.org/items/200806050001?f=s_search]
</blockquote>

National Journal is well known as a source for these types of rankings. However, I would not mind adding a brief mention of Poole & Lewis' study next to the other rankings (subject to proper citation, conciseness, etc). <font color="darkgreen">[[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|LotLE]]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">[[User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|talk]]</font> 17:05, 5 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? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/98.220.39.44|98.220.39.44]] ([[User talk:98.220.39.44|talk]]) 09:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Got a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] for that info? [[User:GlassCobra|<font color="002bb8">Glass</font>]]'''[[User talk:GlassCobra|<font color="002bb8">Cobra</font>]]''' 09:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I think so...[http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=114&sid=1472337] <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/98.220.39.44|98.220.39.44]] ([[User talk:98.220.39.44|talk]]) 09:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
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. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/98.220.39.44|98.220.39.44]] ([[User talk:98.220.39.44|talk]]) 09:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

* Ok, to clear some of this up here is a direct quote from the Guardian[http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/sep/05/ustelevision.tvratings?gusrc=rss&feed=media]:
<blockquote>
"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
</blockquote>
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[http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/category/politics/] 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:
<blockquote>
"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
</blockquote>
Hope this helps! [[User:Natezomby|Natezomby]] ([[User talk:Natezomby|talk]]) <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment was added at 12:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Did this on the Palin talked page. Summary : [http://www.thrfeed.com/2008/09/palin-ratings-s.html Palin Numbers] and [http://www.thrfeed.com/2008/08/obama-ratings.html 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.

{| border="1"
|+ 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. [[User:Theosis4u|Theosis4u]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 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. [[User:Theosis4u|Theosis4u]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 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. [[User:Theosis4u|Theosis4u]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 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) <font color="darkgreen">[[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|LotLE]]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">[[User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|talk]]</font> 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.[[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 17:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

: All mute now because [http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN0549430620080905 McCain draws record 38.9 mln viewers, bests Obama] [[User:Theosis4u|Theosis4u]] ([[User talk:Theosis4u|talk]]) 18:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
::Yup.;) It's all academic now. Heh. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 19:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Ha! Thank you Mr. McCain. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/216.153.214.89|216.153.214.89]] ([[User talk: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? --[[User:Textmatters|Textmatters]] ([[User talk:Textmatters|talk]]) 03:20, 7 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. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk: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). -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk: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 [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/05/MNHN12OV1M.DTL 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." --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 20:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

== RfC on Weathermen, Ayers, Dohrm, Obama, and "terrorism" ==

Please note that I have created an [[WP:RfC|RfC]] to discuss the matter of whether, how, and where we should use and cover the designation "terrorist" describe the Weathermen and their former leaders - in which articles an dwhere in those articles. It is located here: [[Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC]]. The intent is to decide as a content matter (and not as a behavioral issue regarding the editors involved) how to deal with this question. Thank you. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

== Discount on Home Loans ==

In Gov. Palin's page wikipedia talks about her ethics in dismissing the Public Safety Commissioner. But nothing on Obama's page talks about his ethics in office. For example, Obama [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/01/AR2008070103008_pf.html]got a discount on home loans, but I didn't see any mention of that in the article. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.117.138.162|24.117.138.162]] ([[User talk:24.117.138.162|talk]]) 02:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:You see no mention of a minor event such as that because its mention would be in direct violation of [[WP:UNDUE]]. Just because Governor Palin's page is not in line with that policy in some sections, there is no reason to bring this article out of line with it. My suggestion: [[WP:BOLD|be bold]] and fix up Palin's article yourself. Also, dismissing the PSC is of far greater weight than receiving a loan discount. Erik the <font color="red">[[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]]</font> 2 <small>(<font color= "maroon">[[User Talk:Erik the Red 2|AVE]]</font>·<font color= "orange">[[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|CAESAR]]</font>)</small> 02:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

::What makes you think this is a minor event? National newspapers talking about it would make me think otherwise. Currently, Palin's article is locked so I can't "be BOLD". Also, to say the dismissing of the PSC is of far greater weight than receiving a loan discount is complete opinion. I actually think it is of more importance that Obama is getting a discounted loan than a Governor dismissing someone. [[Special:Contributions/24.117.138.162|24.117.138.162]] ([[User talk:24.117.138.162|talk]]) 04:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Except... Of course, Obama didn't get a discount on his home loan. You see. The whole thing about an average rate is that 50% of loans are below that mark and 50% of loans are above that mark. You also have the bank that issued Obama the loan saying that the rate was in line with those given to other people in that time frame. All in all, it's just a sloppy bit of reporting on the part of the Washington Post. There's also a rather large difference between the dismissal of the PSC by Palin and the supposed discount that Obama got on his loan.. Palin's firing of the PSC got a lot of coverage in the local papers at the time (salacious details and speculation tend to do that) and has resulted in a special investigation into her actions, while Obama's "discount" got an article in the Washington Post and then died when the rest of the press looked at it and saw there wasn't a story... --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 06:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

::::If this wasn't anything special about this loan than why did Jim Johnson resign shortly after he got a "not so special" loan. These discounted loans are essentially gifts which are illegal for Obama to receive.[[Special:Contributions/24.117.138.162|24.117.138.162]] ([[User talk:24.117.138.162|talk]]) 11:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Johnson stepped down because he got his loans through the "Friends of Angelo" program that was actually giving far better than market rates and Countrywide was one of the main lenders that was giving predatory loans that caused the whole sub-prime mortgage meltdown. Obama's loan terms are unremarkable for a person with his income ($400k+ a year at the time), debt load (non-existent), and credit rating (rather high). He's a very safe loan and as such, his interest rate is lower than someone that is a higher risk, so one would expect him to get a below average loan. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 18:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
True or not, legal or not, if this ever becomes notable we will know it by frequency of coverage in reliable sources. Depending on context it might go in one sub-article or another (e.g. the election article if it were to become an election issue) and this one only if the loan itself or an ensuing scandal becomes a significant biographical event. For now it is one of a hundred or more other rumors and complaints about Obama going around the conservative blogosphere. Here's a blog about the blogs, saying that the actual report is a non-story.[http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0708/Obamas_loan.html] It's safe to say that this is far below the threshold of notability here and that it's unlikely to make it into the article given the sourcing that now exists. Having established that, this talk place is not the place for further speculation on political issues or fallout.[[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 16:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:Bobblehead,How do you know that 50% of people are higher than the average and 50% are lower than the average? It is an average, outliers ,such as getting a discounted loan, would skew the average. For example take the number 20,20,20,20,20,5= 105 divide by 6 to find the average which would be 17.5. What percentage is below the average? 16.6%. 50% of people being above the line and below it would be under extremely rare circumstances.[[Special:Contributions/24.117.138.162|24.117.138.162]] ([[User talk:24.117.138.162|talk]]) 21:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
::I think the "50%" thing was just a guess, I don't think he was trying to say it's exactly 50% above and below. I think all he was trying to say was that you would expect some lower rates for some people, and higher rates for others, depending on things like existing debt load and regularity of income. Like others have said, there's no substance to this. The one news article that covers it has been largely dismissed by the rest of the media, and the bank itself has stated that the loan was perfectly normal. Look, no one wants this article to become a laundry list of really questionable allegations and their refutations. If Obama comes under investigation for the loan and it becomes a significant part of his personal history, there could be a place here for it, but right now it's a non-issue. --<font color="green">[[User:GoodDamon|Good]]</font>[[User_talk:GoodDamon|Damon]] 18:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

== Middle Name ==

Why in the entire article was his middle name left out? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.52.24.6|68.52.24.6]] ([[User talk:68.52.24.6|talk]]) 13:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Umm, I don't know what's on your screen but on mine "Hussein" is the second word in the article. He does not commonly go by that name, and we usually refer to people by last name anyway, so subsequent mentions simply refer to him as "he", "Obama", and at the beginning of the main section, "Barack Obama". There is a discussion of his middle name in [[Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008]] and [[Middle name pride day]] in case you're interested. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 15:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
::It seems like the introduction of middle names recently is politically motivated; historically, candidates only use middle names if there is a specific reason, and even then it's typically an initial (John F. Kennedy, George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush). Looking at the Wikipedia [[list of past presidents|List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States]], middle names and initials are included only when they were in common usage.... In fact, Clinton is listed as "Bill" rather than "William". Barack Obama's middle name is only included in common usage by is political opponents, to emphasize his father's Muslim heritage; his middle name is not regularly used by the mainstream media, and its inclusion in this article and the McCain article seems disingenuous and inappropriate. --[[User:Eeblet|Eeblet]] ([[User talk:Eeblet|talk]]) 03:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

== Barack Hussein Obama jr., Barack Hussein Obama II, or Barack Hussein Obama ==

It is unclear what his proper name would be. I believe on his birth certificate it says "Barry Soetoro", after his childhood nickname and his step-father's last name. I believe it originally was BHO, then BHO jr., but was changed to BHO II. Can anyone provide a link to confirm what his legal name would be? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:PonileExpress|PonileExpress]] ([[User talk:PonileExpress|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/PonileExpress|contribs]]) 18:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:The article already provides a reference to his birth certificate, stating his real name as '''Barack Hussein Obama II'''. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 19:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

== Before anyone reverts it ==

... I kind of like this addition[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=236713357&oldid=236708524] as a way to address the nagging question of this article downplaying the bi-racial aspect. I certainly do understand (and have tried to explain to people new to the article) why we refer to Obama as African-American, but there are a growing number of biracial Americans. Some feel slighted and ignored by the so-called "one-drop" rule, and feel that continuing to use racial terms that imply that everyone has to choose one race or another denies their identity. In other words, there is an implicit question of neutrality when we insist that race has to be described a single way. I would move the statement to the body somewhere, though.[[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 20:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:Interesting; I wonder if [[John McCain]] is described as the caucasion presidential candidate. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
::Heh. Well, being a Caucasian president is pretty unremarkable considering there have been 43 prior ones. He is described as being the "oldest president" if elected and first born outside the 50 US states in his article though.--[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 21:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:You mean the previous 42 (see [[Grover Cleveland]])--. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
::I believe the opening sentence of Grover Cleveland's article supports 43. ;) That being said, not really that important. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 22:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I meant individual counting; but you're right, that's another topic. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 14:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
:I've moved these "firsts" to the 2008 campaign section. They should probably be referenced. -- [[user:Rick Block|Rick Block]] <small>([[user talk:Rick Block|talk]])</small> 21:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
No, if elected McCain will be the oldest "first term" Potus. [[User:PonileExpress|PonileExpress]] ([[User talk:PonileExpress|talk]]) 15:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

== Convention speech ==

The NPOV regarding 2008 convention speeches is WAY off kilter. The Obama article now states only this regarding his speech: "The speech, delivered in front of 84,000 supporters, contained pointed criticism of McCain and President Bush, and added details to his stances that were not mentioned in previous campaign speeches.[105][106]" In contrast, the Palin article addresses her speech in this manner: "On September 3, 2008, Palin delivered a 40 minute acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention that was well-received by the crowd and by media analysts.[97][98]". Were one to analyze the two speeches I doubt anyone would disagree that the finding would show a much higher percentage of Palin's speech was spent "on the offensive" than Obama's speech. Yet, we portray Obama's as the "attack" speech. I saw staunch-conservative, former Nixon speechwriter, former Reagan aide and two-time Republican presedential candidate Pat Buchanan state "That was the best acceptance speech I've ever heard". Yet, Obama's article has zero praise about the speech. I witnessed no counterpart to Buchanan extorting Palin's speech, yet it was "well-received by the crowd" and throughout the land it was "well-received by media analysts". It is shocking that millions of readers are being subjected to sourceless statements and outright partisan bias. [[User:Spiff1959|Spiff1959]] ([[User talk:Spiff1959|talk]]) 17:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
:Criticism of campaign opponents is utterly unremarkable and only to be expected, so I tend to think that characterizing the speech - either speech - only in those terms is unhelpful. I don't see any evidence this is an NPOV matter so much as an accident of editing history. There was some praise about how many people watched it that got removed as fluff. How much can you say about an acceptance speech in a sentence? Any more than that would be too much weight. The Palin article is edit protected and it is on its own subject with its own strengths and weaknesses as a Wikipedia article. So it doesn't make a great comparison point. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 17:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

:: Yes, the articles are seperate entities, but readers here looking for information are likely to be perusing both. The (huge) problemns on the Palin page need to be addressed there. Nonetheless, media headlines following the Palin speech almost universally read something akin to "Sarah Attacks!". One can reasonably describe her speech as being mainly "directed at the opposition". Headlines garnered by the Obama speech were not at all equivalent. Having "contained pointed criticism" as the primary descriptive phrase in the sentence in this article creates a false impression by misrepresenting the tone and message of the speech Obama delivered, as reported by the media. (Unless someone can source a preponderance of reliable news articles that emphasize "Obama Attacks!") [[User:Spiff1959|Spiff1959]] ([[User talk:Spiff1959|talk]]) 17:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't lean on the comparison too much (or very much at all). [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]] isn't the right basis to decide how best to characterize Obama's acceptance speech; editors of this article have not necessarily edited (or even read) the article on Palin, McCain, or whomever, but simply worry about making ''this'' article as good as possible. If there's some more accurate (but not longer) characterization of Obama's speech, let's talk about that. That said, I took out a rather fluffy bit of praise for Obama's speech that read too much like electioneering. Moreover, it's hard for me to see how bubbly praise for the speech has any significant role in his general biography. The general content of the speech is a little bit notable, though it's hard to give that sense without either being vacuous or devoting undue weight... what we have seems like an OK compromise between those poles. <font color="darkgreen">[[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|LotLE]]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">[[User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|talk]]</font> 18:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
:I'm aware that comparisons between articles may be used to fill-in an argument, but should not be used as one of it's foundations. My most recent post used the Palin speech to demonstrate that the overall theme of a speech gets reflected in the resulting headlines. I stated it more eloquently above, but if "pointed criticism" is the first thing we can think of regarding the Obama speech, then we are presenting the speech in a different light than that of the vast majority of credible critiques available for sourcing. [[User:Spiff1959|Spiff1959]] ([[User talk:Spiff1959|talk]]) 19:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
::LotLE, fortunately being vacuous or devoting undue weight is not a decision that we have to worry about. The coverage of the speech in reliable source should dictate how the speech should be described in this article. In the case of Obama's speech, the coverage was almost universally positive, so much so that those that were negative are nearly an extreme minority. [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=236823702&oldid=236823484 This edit] you made earlier seems to address Spiff1959's concerns and it seems to be supported by the source you left behind. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 19:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Would adding "widely acclaimed", perhaps referenced to [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/08/30/ST2008083000450.html?sid=ST2008083000450], address this issue? -- [[user:Rick Block|Rick Block]] <small>([[user talk:Rick Block|talk]])</small> 19:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Just to throw an idea out, how about replacing the entire paragraph with:
<blockquote>Obama accepted his party's nomination on August 28 in a widely acclaimed speech,<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/08/30/ST2008083000450.html?sid=ST2008083000450 | title= Democratic Candidates Begin Touring Rust Belt | work=The Washington Post | author=Murray, Shailagh | date=2008-08-30 | accessdate=2008-09-07}}</ref> delivered in front of 84,000&nbsp;supporters in [[Invesco Field]] and watched by over 38&nbsp;million on television,<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed1/idUSN2948169620080829 | title=Obama acceptance speech believed to set TV record | work=Reuters | author=Gorman, Steve |date=2008-08-29 | accessdate=2008-09-07}}</ref> that elaborated on policy goals that had not been mentioned in previous speeches and criticized McCain's and [[George W. Bush|President Bush's]] policies and achievements.<ref>{{cite news |title=Obama accepts Democrat nomination |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7586375.stm |work=BBC News |date=2008-08-29 |accessdate=2008-08-29 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/08/29/soaring-speech-from-obama-plus-some-specifics/ | title=Soaring speech from Obama, plus some specifics | work=The Christian Science Monitor | author=Marks, Alexandra | date=2008-08-29 | accessdate=2008-09-07}}</ref></blockquote>
::::Of course, it does make a rather long sentence, perhaps moving the bit between the commas could be moved out to it's own sentence. I also re-added Invesco Field to the sentence as the locale was only the second time the acceptance speech was delivered in a different location than the rest of the convention. While that bit isn't mentioned in the sentence, to ignore Invesco entirely seems out of place. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 20:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm doubtful that ascribing any sort of praise to this speech, whether warranted or not, will pass muster when it comes to attaining "consensus". To at least remove the implied "attack speech" falsehood, how about: "On August 28, Obama delivered a speech before 84,000 at Invesco Field in Denver. During the speech he accepted his party's nomination and presented details of his policy goals." ? [[User:Spiff1959|Spiff1959]] ([[User talk:Spiff1959|talk]]) 02:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

== ? ==

I hate Obama, but in the interest of having an encyclopedia what's up with the pic?--[[Special:Contributions/69.40.139.226|69.40.139.226]] ([[User talk:69.40.139.226|talk]]) 19:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
:How about narrowing it down to which picture you have questions about? --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 19:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
::He could be talking about this image: Image:Vote McCain.jpg. It was just appearing on Obama's page as some sort of hack because it was in the middle of the screen and stayed in the middle as you scolled down. The problem has resolved itself for me. This also happened on McCain's page and all the others listed on that image page. Some Wikipedia bigwigs got to do something about this, like I said though the problem resolved itself after only a couple minutes for me. [[User:LonelyMarble|LonelyMarble]] ([[User talk:LonelyMarble|talk]]) 19:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Ahh. I'm sure one of the templates got vandalized. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 20:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
::::That makes sense, I was thinking how it could happen and forgot to think of that. I didn't see any edits on this page but I forgot about templates being vandalized. [[User:LonelyMarble|LonelyMarble]] ([[User talk:LonelyMarble|talk]]) 20:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vote_McCain.jpg#filelinks (Incidentally this is infuriating to me). Apparently a lot of these pages were affected as well. Are all these pages fixed by the template fix? User http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keeper_of_the_matrix should be banned. Has he/she been banned? [[User:Jctw769|Jctw769]] ([[User talk:Jctw769|talk]]) 20:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::Yes, all the pages will be fixed by fixing the one template page. Although, it took [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_Senator&action=history 7 minutes] for this huge vandalism to be fixed. That is far too long. [[User:LonelyMarble|LonelyMarble]] ([[User talk:LonelyMarble|talk]]) 20:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Looks like they hit [[:Template:Infobox Senator]] and [[:Template:Spoken Wikipedia ]] and no, they haven't been blocked yet. As far as how long the vandalism was up.. Template vandalism always takes longer to fix, so it isn't surprising it took 7 minutes to find the problems. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 20:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::How to get them blocked/banned in a hurry?
:::::::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=236928345 See here] --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 20:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
While we are on a similar topic, does anyone else ever have problems with template updates not displaying? Sometimes when I make a change to a template the change does not display on the actual articles. One way for it to display I've noticed is if I make an edit to the article. I bring this up because I checked a different computer and that computer was not showing the vandalism of the picture while the original computer was showing the picture at the same time the other computer was not. [[User:LonelyMarble|LonelyMarble]] ([[User talk:LonelyMarble|talk]]) 20:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

== Bi-Racial and not African American ==

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. [[User:Valliant1967|Valliant1967]] ([[User talk: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 <font color="red">[[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]]</font> 2 <small>(<font color= "maroon">[[User Talk:Erik the Red 2|AVE]]</font>·<font color= "orange">[[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|CAESAR]]</font>)</small> 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? [[User:Valliant1967|Valliant1967]] ([[User talk: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 <font color="red">[[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]]</font> 2 <small>(<font color= "maroon">[[User Talk:Erik the Red 2|AVE]]</font>·<font color= "orange">[[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|CAESAR]]</font>)</small> 22:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2024 ==
:::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). [[User:LonelyMarble|LonelyMarble]] ([[User talk:LonelyMarble|talk]]) 23:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


{{edit semi-protected|Barack Obama|answered=yes}}
In the section "Presidency -> Domestic Policy" the subheader for "Same-sex marriage" should be formatted as a subheader. Currently it is accidentally just normal text.


In the source:
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? [[User:Valliant1967|Valliant1967]] ([[User talk:Valliant1967|talk]]) 22:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
:Only if other reliable sources said so as well. (Right?) &mdash;'''[[User:Kalathalan|Kal]]''' <sup>[[User talk:Kalathalan|(talk)]]</sup> 23:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


===== Same-sex marriage =====
:Check out the [[One-drop rule]] and [[Race in the United States]]. /[[USER:Blaxthos|Blaxthos]] <small>( [[User Talk:Blaxthos|t]] / [[Special:Contributions/Blaxthos|c]] )</small> 23:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


Should change to:
i must say that i agree with lonely marble, it is only fair. [[User:Valliant1967|Valliant1967]] ([[User talk:Valliant1967|talk]]) 23:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


====Same-sex marriage==== [[User:Barrtender|Barrtender]] ([[User talk:Barrtender|talk]]) 20:56, 10 November 2024 (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 <font color="red">[[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]]</font> 2 <small>(<font color= "maroon">[[User Talk:Erik the Red 2|AVE]]</font>·<font color= "orange">[[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|CAESAR]]</font>)</small> 23:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
:{{done}}. The error seems to have been in the article for a while, thanks for pointing it out.--[[User:Commander Keane|Commander Keane]] ([[User talk:Commander Keane|talk]]) 01:36, 11 November 2024 (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. [[User:LonelyMarble|LonelyMarble]] ([[User talk:LonelyMarble|talk]]) 23:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
::It has been reversed, correctly. The subheader level 5 looks like normal text on mobile, thus stands out like a saw thumb. Also on mobile you never get to see the nesting illustrated in the table of contents. Desktop is another story. Interestingly I checked the level of the heading directly above (LGBT rights) but didn't make the connection between the sections (probably my own bias considering same-sex marriage a civil fundamental civil right rather than an LGBT thing). [[User:Commander Keane|Commander Keane]] ([[User talk:Commander Keane|talk]]) 03:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
it does matter what i think Mr Red, i am trying to be a useful member of wikipeida. [[User:Valliant1967|Valliant1967]] ([[User talk: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"... --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 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". [[User:Spiff1959|Spiff1959]] ([[User talk:Spiff1959|talk]]) <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment was added at 03:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Because if we don't follow what the source says that would be [[WP:OR|original research]]? --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 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. [[User:Spiff1959|Spiff1959]] ([[User talk:Spiff1959|talk]]) 04:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2024 (2) ==
::: 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.[http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=ZSY&um=1&tab=wn&nolr=1&q=obama+%22african-american%22&btnG=Search+News] Obama + "biracial" has less than 600 news hits.[http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=ZSY&um=1&tab=wn&nolr=1&q=obama+%22biracial%22&btnG=Search+News] 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. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 04:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


{{edit semi-protected|Barack Obama|answered=yes}}
::::Incidentally, in addition to having this in the FAQ, perhaps we should just create a sub-page for this... [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 04:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
He was not the first African American President. Hamilton was. [[Special:Contributions/74.70.210.158|74.70.210.158]] ([[User talk:74.70.210.158|talk]]) 23:40, 10 November 2024 (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? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Spiff1959|Spiff1959]] ([[User talk:Spiff1959|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Spiff1959|contribs]]) 08:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


[[Alexander Hamilton]] was never the President.[[User talk:Crboyer|CRBoyer]] 23:50, 10 November 2024 (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. [[User:Brothejr|Brothejr]] ([[User talk:Brothejr|talk]]) 11:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2024 ==
: 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. [[User:Spiff1959|Spiff1959]] ([[User talk:Spiff1959|talk]]) 15:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


{{edit semi-protected|Barack Obama|answered=yes}}
::Sadly, your Sandy Koufax analogy does not fit here because him calling himself a pitcher 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. [[User:Brothejr|Brothejr]] ([[User talk:Brothejr|talk]]) 15:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


Check this particular edit: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=1227582894].
::: Don't put words in my mouth, or twist what edit it is that I am advocated. 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. [[Special:Contributions/216.170.33.149|216.170.33.149]] ([[User talk:216.170.33.149|talk]]) 15:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


{{quote|As a member of the Democratic Party, he was the first African-American president in U.S. history.}}
== awe-struck supporters ==
Am I alone at thinking that this sentence is slightly confusing because it lacks the logical flow that is expected in a sentence starting with "As"? "As it's late, I'm going to bed". Or compare with these two examples that make a lot more sense in my opinion:
{{quote|As the son of a Kenyan national, he was the first African-American president in U.S. history.}}
{{quote|As a member of the Democratic Party, he was elected U.S. President.}}
I would suggest to go back to the original:
{{quote|A member of the Democratic Party, he was the first African-American president in U.S. history.}}
Thanks. [[User:Truc Bizarre|Truc Bizarre]] ([[User talk:Truc Bizarre|talk]]) 11:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)


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. [[User:Crd721|Crd721]] ([[User talk:Crd721|talk]]) 03:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
:@[[User:Truc Bizarre|Truc Bizarre]] I think it is fine as is, it implies he was a member of the Democratic party when he was president, he still is, but I think it is fine. [[User:Seawolf35 HGAV|Seawolf35 HGAV]] ([[User talk:Seawolf35 HGAV|talk]]) 17:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> I'm actually going to agree with {{u|Truc Bizarre}} here, the "as" infers a correlation between the two clauses that doesn't exist, so I removed it. [[User:DrOrinScrivello|DrOrinScrivello]] ([[User talk:DrOrinScrivello|talk]]) 20:17, 12 November 2024 (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. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 04:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
::Or the heat. <strong>[[User:Tvoz|Tvoz]]</strong>/<small>[[User talk:Tvoz|talk]]</small> 04:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:48, 26 November 2024

Former featured articleBarack Obama is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 18, 2004, and on November 4, 2008.
In the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 12, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
August 18, 2004Today's featured articleMain Page
December 21, 2007Featured article reviewKept
January 23, 2007Featured article reviewKept
July 26, 2007Featured article reviewKept
April 15, 2008Featured article reviewKept
September 16, 2008Featured article reviewKept
November 4, 2008Today's featured articleMain Page
December 2, 2008Featured article reviewKept
March 10, 2009Featured article reviewKept
March 16, 2010Featured article reviewKept
March 17, 2010Featured article reviewKept
June 17, 2012Featured article reviewKept
October 22, 2012Featured article reviewKept
December 4, 2021Featured article reviewDemoted
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on November 5, 2008.
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 5, 2013, November 4, 2016, and November 4, 2022.
Current status: Former featured article

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2024

[edit]

In the section "Presidency -> Domestic Policy" the subheader for "Same-sex marriage" should be formatted as a subheader. Currently it is accidentally just normal text.

In the source:

Same-sex marriage
[edit]

Should change to:

====Same-sex marriage==== Barrtender (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. The error seems to have been in the article for a while, thanks for pointing it out.--Commander Keane (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has been reversed, correctly. The subheader level 5 looks like normal text on mobile, thus stands out like a saw thumb. Also on mobile you never get to see the nesting illustrated in the table of contents. Desktop is another story. Interestingly I checked the level of the heading directly above (LGBT rights) but didn't make the connection between the sections (probably my own bias considering same-sex marriage a civil fundamental civil right rather than an LGBT thing). Commander Keane (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2024 (2)

[edit]

He was not the first African American President. Hamilton was. 74.70.210.158 (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Hamilton was never the President.CRBoyer 23:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2024

[edit]

Check this particular edit: [4].

As a member of the Democratic Party, he was the first African-American president in U.S. history.

Am I alone at thinking that this sentence is slightly confusing because it lacks the logical flow that is expected in a sentence starting with "As"? "As it's late, I'm going to bed". Or compare with these two examples that make a lot more sense in my opinion:

As the son of a Kenyan national, he was the first African-American president in U.S. history.

As a member of the Democratic Party, he was elected U.S. President.

I would suggest to go back to the original:

A member of the Democratic Party, he was the first African-American president in U.S. history.

Thanks. Truc Bizarre (talk) 11:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Truc Bizarre I think it is fine as is, it implies he was a member of the Democratic party when he was president, he still is, but I think it is fine. Seawolf35 HGAV (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I'm actually going to agree with Truc Bizarre here, the "as" infers a correlation between the two clauses that doesn't exist, so I removed it. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&oldid=1259705772"