Talk:Barack Obama

Website?

I think this should be in the section where it shows his website. The Obama for Illinois senator is old and outdated. http://www.barackobama.com/splash/first_to_know.html user:chasesboys

BarackObama.com is already included, I move to delete this section. natezomby (talk)

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? \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ 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. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me the fact that Obama was first elected to office (Illinois State Senate 13th district) as a result of his challenging the nominating petitions of the incumbent state Sen. Alice Palmer (and others) for the Democratic nomination in a heavily Democratic district; thus having her name (along with the others) removed from the ballot, is relevant here. Seldom is someone elected by removing their competitors from the ballot, especially an incumbent. See this post from the Chicago Sun Times http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/10/sweet_column_clinton_forces_to.html. There's probably an article in the same newspaper during the election in 1996 referencing this fact. This is also mentioned in Alice Palmer's Wikipedia entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Palmer_(Illinois_politician) and is referenced. DB1958 (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This is already covered in the child article, and going into that level of detail in the BLP would be a case of undue weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a more important point is that this article is in summary style, which everybody -- at least, everybody trying to stuff in any little allegation they can find in blogs somewhere -- keeps forgetting. In summary style, the child articles are considered part of the main article, with the level of detail that allows for the minor stuff, while the main article should only contain the major points. Unless we want a thirty page article covering the minutiae of every perceived toe-stepping incident and allegation, we have to stick to the big stuff -- and the big stuff only -- in the main article. --GoodDamon 21:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama is NOT half white

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finance Section Request

I would love to see some detailed information on Obama's finances, if someone has the time to do some digging. I don't think the 1.3 million net worth figure is still accurate, though I understand that the generally accepted value right now. 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. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, 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. --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? —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. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well... Recency matters, especially when we talk about his current net worth, but I concede that it is not the only issue. The issue is that a recent source contradicts an older source, but the more recent source is more vague than the older source. If we can't reach an agreement about what his current net worth, I suggest removing the statement altogether (or add a as of ... qualification to the statement. See also Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Words_whose_meaning_may_degrade_with_time —Kanodin 22:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Controversy re: Rezco/Ayers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Most Watched Convention Speech in History"

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

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

Hmm, I think so...[4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.39.44 (talk) 09:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Quick re-read seems to indicate the numbers aren't apples to apples. Less networks for Palin speech, but not broken out in article. Maybe undeterminable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.39.44 (talk) 09:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, to clear some of this up here is a direct quote from the Guardian[5]:

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

I would contend that the Guardian is a reliable source for a Neilsen rating quote, and even if it isn't I also found that on Neilsen's site, "NeilsenWire" confirmed that Obama had more viewers[6] even though some folks seem to have missed their fact check. Saying it was the most watched convention speech (at least since they started such ratings) still holds true and is an important part of the article, unless the numbers from McCain's acceptance speech turn out to be even more. Heres the Neilsen quote:

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

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

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

Total Viewers Of 2008 Convention Speech From 6 Primary Networks

Person	NBC	ABC	CBS	FNC	CNN	MSNBC	Totals (In Millions)
Obama	6.1	6.6	4.7	4.2	8.1	4.1	33.8
Palin	7.7	5.9	4.9	9.2	6.2	3.4	37.3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Academic

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

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

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

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

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

Because the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, and a bunch of other newspapers say he did. He graduated magna cum laude. The fact that the New York Sun says otherwise is interesting, but someone's honors on graduation are a simple matter of public record, not opinion, and the Sun got it wrong. With the preponderance of reliable sources describing Obama's graduation with honors, there's no point in changing the article based on one newspaper's sketchy fact-checking. --GoodDamon 15:11, 11 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 [7]got a discount on home loans, but I didn't see any mention of that in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.138.162 (talk) 02:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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: 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 Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 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. 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... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 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.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. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 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.[8] 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.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.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. --GoodDamon 18:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Middle Name

Why in the entire article was his middle name left out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.24.6 (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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. 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_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. --Eeblet (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that there is any political agenda. The lead for Bill Clinton's has his full name and another example is that the Richard Nixon article has his middle name in the lead as well. In short this appears to be a common feature of wikipedia articles and not politically notivated since I doubt that anyone added Nixon's middle name as an attack or statement of any kind. If this was only done for Obama there may have been a case but since muliple presidents have there full names as well as middle names listed there does not appear to be any case whatsoever. --76.69.165.232 (talk) 21:23, 8 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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PonileExpress (talk • contribs) 18:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The article already provides a reference to his birth certificate, stating his real name as Barack Hussein Obama II. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Before anyone reverts it

... I kind of like this addition[9] 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.Wikidemon (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting; I wonder if John McCain is described as the caucasion presidential candidate. 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.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean the previous 42 (see Grover Cleveland)--. 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. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I meant individual counting; but you're right, that's another topic. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've moved these "firsts" to the 2008 campaign section. They should probably be referenced. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No, if elected McCain will be the oldest "first term" Potus. 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. 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. 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!") 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. LotLE×talk 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. 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. This edit you made earlier seems to address Spiff1959's concerns and it seems to be supported by the source you left behind. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Would adding "widely acclaimed", perhaps referenced to [10], address this issue? -- Rick Block (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to throw an idea out, how about replacing the entire paragraph with:

Obama accepted his party's nomination on August 28 in a widely acclaimed speech, delivered in front of 84,000 supporters in Invesco Field and watched by over 38 million on television, that elaborated on policy goals that had not been mentioned in previous speeches and criticized McCain's and President Bush's policies and achievements.

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. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 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:

Please change the sentence regarding the 2008 Convention speech to the following:
"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." ? 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?--69.40.139.226 (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

How about narrowing it down to which picture you have questions about? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 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. LonelyMarble (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahh. I'm sure one of the templates got vandalized. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 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. 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? Jctw769 (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, all the pages will be fixed by fixing the one template page. Although, it took 7 minutes for this huge vandalism to be fixed. That is far too long. 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. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

How to get them blocked/banned in a hurry?

See here --Bobblehead ^(rants) 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. 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. Valliant1967 (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is a longstanding consensus on this page to identify Obama as African American, because: (1) Obama self-identifies that way in his speeches, writing, etc; and (2) the preponderance of reliable sources identify him primarily that way. As a quick illustration (not argument or proof - the decision on this is pretty firm) if you google Obama with "African-American you get 11,000+ news hits.[11] Obama + "biracial" has less than 600 news hits.[12] So obviously being of African descent is a bigger deal with the sources than being of mixed descent. This does not invalidate other things. Race and culture are complex issue and one may fit multiple overlapping categories, e.g. being Native American and Caucasian, or Hispanic and Jewish, etc. Wikidemon (talk) 04:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trying to discredit him as a black man

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

A solution, all be it semantic, to this problem

My understanding is that Mr Obama's mother is what one would call an American and his father I believe was born in Kenya? Thus he is what one would call African. Therefore by the definition set forth by almost everyone complaining that he is not African American he would be half African and half American. Thus in much the same way as an child of German mother and Arab father would be Arab-German Mr Obama is African-American. Problem solved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by James.robinson (talk • contribs) 22:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

awe-struck supporters

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of Wikipedia articles of Barack Obama in other languages

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

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

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

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

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

"Freudian slip"

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

Closed as resolved issue, with further discussion unlikely to lead to viable proposal for improving the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the Freudian slip by which Obama supposedly admits he is Muslim after all is trivial, and the phrase "it should be noted" is editorializing. One editor inserted it twice[13][14] and a second has now reverted it once.[15] As disputed content this should stay out of the article until and unless those proposing its inclusion gain consensus, which seems very unlikely to happen. I do not want to do a second revert on any issue, however office so could someone else please take care of it (and of course, if you actually think it belongs in the article, feel free to explain its relevance). Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Even without the problematic language, it's completely non-notable for a biography. It would have to be a much, much bigger story before we could even consider it. All of the candidates make verbal slips on a daily basis. We don't rush to put it in their biographies every time it happens. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Just like Tom Swayer, and the fence... white wash and call anything perceived as negative to the Prophet as "None Notable" - no matter it's attributed and correctly cited, it don't matter...It's to bad you guys are not as aggressive about this kind of think on McCain's or Sara Palin Bio, but Hey, it'd Wikipedia interpretation of of what is Encyclopedic... For the record this is what was removed and white washed....

It should be noted Obama, in St.Louis, Mo. at a speech, made a "Freudian slip" by his statement "My Mulism Faith". and then later, in a interview with ABC Political analyst George Stephanopoulos, Obama repeatedly interrupted Stephanopoulos, as he trying to explain to Obama the McCain campaign never suggested Obama to have Muslim connections.

I can't fight the whole DNCC gang here, but what right is right and the above was correctly cited and notable since its now being blasted on all the news outlets as well as Drudge, but HEY the concept of wikipedian "notability" is a squishy, wishy thing thats different for goose and for gander.... Remember,the world watches wikipedia and judges if Wikipedia is just a Campaign tool for the Left wingers or it's truly NPOV...now if Your right ... wikipeida continues, but IF I'm right, well, the Storm will wash wikpedida out to sea. This will be interesting to see considering the stakes. Again I'm just the messenger.Orangejumpsuit (talk) 03:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you not know what a biography is...and how ridiculously non-notable this is in the whole scope of Obama's bio? Grsz^talk 03:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

To Orangejumpsuit, if you wish to continue editing Obama-related pages, please do not repeatedly insert disputed content or make accusations against other editors. This article is under probation (see notice at the top of this page), and disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. Judging from your responses here and on the Sarah Palin talk page (where you insult other editors and accuse them of lying), and talk page history,[16] you are getting fairly close to being blocked from Wikipedia overall, and need to take some time to review the policies, guidelines, and customs of the project. A good place to start is WP:WELCOME. I am going to close this discussion down as unproductive, and not likely to lead to any viable proposal for improving the article. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank You Mr Wikidemon for that "THREAT" not that what I said was right or wrong or reasons, in polite discussion, but a dock yard bully threat... Is the customs mean Might makes Right and you got the might so your right??? Now, I don't think "YOU are getting fairly close to being blocked.." is very polite, and I read it as just bully threat by you Mr WIKIDEMON, to pull way from the real issue here is what I put up is cited and notable and relevant and you arbitrarily took it down and made a very uncivil and bold face threat to me in the process when I call you to task to discuss it. Thats the facts. Also, in real world, any way, insults are a two way street...in other words it takes two to tango... So don't lay all blame on me when you are guilty of the same as well with your bold face threat of banning, even though you not an Administer. Don't con a con.Orangejumpsuit (talk) 06:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Per [17]: "any fair-minded person will have to admit that when he used that phrase, he was replicating the language of his accusers". What are we, Beavis and Butthead here ("heh heh heh - he said Muslim - heh heh heh")? I suggest treating any further attempt to insert this as simple vandalism. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I misunderstood slightly. I thought you meant the talk page, so I reverted a further post by the editor here as "vandalism" (though it's really abuse). Sorry for taking the wrong cue. At any rate the editor has done it twice[18][19] and I reverted twice. I will not attempt to revert or engage this editor further. If anyone thinks they can help, please feel free. Otherwise I'll just take this to an administrative forum. Wikidemon (talk) 06:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Who are you say what is Vandalism or not, I seeing what happens on Wikipeida that term is applied pretty loosely...Your condescending rhetoric and unilateral censorship is not very conductive to polite discussions. Again, don't con a con.Orangejumpsuit (talk) 06:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Manipulated image - Obama's mole

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

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

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

Modifying the Main Page

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

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

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

PRO:

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

CON:

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

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

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

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

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

Black Liberation Theology

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

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

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

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

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

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

The moment you accused Wikipedia volunteers here of being bigots, you lost whatever argument you had. Let me make something perfectly clear, and then I propose this discussion be closed as unproductive: I have never edited Sarah Palin's article. I have never involved myself with the discussions on her article's talk page. I am not interested in editing in that particular biography. My lack of editing is not, and cannot be construed to be, a case of supposed "bigotry." The editors who work in that article are other people, and whatever biases or perspectives they may possess, they are not mine. And I will not stand for personal attacks and insults against wide swaths of Wikipedia editors in good standing, myself included. I hope I make myself clear. --GoodDamon 15:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

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

The Sourcing of Ayers Ties Founded on Documentation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barack - Law Review

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

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

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

Profession: Attorney?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Earmarks

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

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

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

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