Talk:Barack Obama

Barack Obama is either included in the Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL images. However, if you can improve the article, please do so!

For older discussion, see archives: Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5

Articulate

I think it needs to be pointed out somewhere in the article that Barack is very articulate. He is surprisingly well spoken. Just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

WTF, is he supposed to be inarticulate? What is wrong with you???? shakam

Please tell me, why is this so surprising to you? I am African American, and I always bristle a bit when someone remarks how articulate I am. I have heard this sentiment from many others as well. Eugene Robinson expressed his unease with this very eloquently (or, should I say, articulately?) in a column in today's Washington Post[[1]].

The point is, I've never heard anyone say that Nancy Pelosi is articulate (although I've read WAY too many remarks about her clothes). I've never heard it said about Carl Sagan, who made science so accessible for laypeople, or even Ronald Reagan, the "Great Communicator." Yet I, a lowly horticulturist, have heard it more times than I can count. So has my sister, my father, etc. The implied insult is that African Americans are not capable of, or expected to utter articulate speech.

As Eugene Robinson pointed out, something is amiss when a man is graduated from an Ivy League university, earns a law degree from another one, where he was president of the law review, and people express surprise that he can fashion a decent English sentence. You are welcome to respond on my talk page.Carlaclaws

I don't know. Bush went to Yale, has been a governer, and now the president. I've never heard anyone describe him as articulate (cause he isn't). However, Ronald Reagan was described as articulate. So, I don't really think it's solely a black & white issue. It's more that today, we don't really have many articulate politicians (think the aforementioned Reagan, JFK, etc). Bjewiki 21:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The word for him is "eloquent." "Articulate" just means you don't talk like a moron. Eloquence is beyond that, into the realm of speaking movingly to any audience. Gods, it's ridiculous how impoverished vocabulary becomes when it's replaced by clichés. Wareq 11:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, Wareq - "eloquent" is exactly right - not insulting, racist or condescending. Tvoz | talk 05:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely on the money. When I first heard about the complaints of the implied underlying racism by terming Obama "articulate", I was taken aback—the first thing I had noticed about him (with half of America watching with me) was at his keynote address in '04, that he was the greatest speaker I had ever heard. I tried to explain to students that this was the kind of speaker that people used to travel two days to listen to in the first half of the 19th century. I mean, it was his speech that I was noticing. So WTF--why is it an insult to note this? Well, now I understand. Frankly, I don't think that all college educated people are articulate, but the point is, the connotation of the word is minimalist (though I think this may be a newer construction). As Wareq says, "eloquent" is the NPOV word for him ("mesmerizing", "inspirational", and others might be accurate as well, but are more POV). Unschool 05:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to make an observation. Sen. Obama's tone, timbre, and inflection are so similar to professional wrestler/actor Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson that in a side-by-side, sight unseen comparison, I could only tell them apart by the subject matter.

good grief. Tvoz | talk 19:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Race

Not that this is important, but while the article obviously mentions that he is of mixed heritage, it continually refers to him as an African-American. Now in my mind this doesn't really make sense and should be remedied. I know there is a trend as refering to people of mixed race as African-American (obviously only if they are part African-American. See Tiger Woods etc.) but it isn't really correct. Anybody know if he refers to himself as African-American? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 77.178.9.53 (talk • contribs).

Here we go again. Please read this: Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_4#African-American.2C_again. There's probably even an older one. I'll just copy the basic ending of this which sums it up pretty well:

"America is a great country, but for if someone has any visible African heritage at all--you can be 100% sure they will encounter racism during their lifetime. Barak Obama is of 50% African heritage and he is American. That is more than enough to call him African American with no hesitation and no second thoughts. Saying, in effect, that his status "doesn't count" also oversimplifies the entire African American community in the USA-- the African American community is hugely diverse-- ranging from predominantly priveledged, highly educated, hugely successful, on the one hand; all the way over to poor and struggling on the other extreme (not unlike the White American community). It encompasses both recent immigrants and those who have roots here going back hundreds of years. Sean7phil 09:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)"

Thanks, Sean7phil. And to answer your question, yes he has referred to himself as African American several times. Gdo01 21:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hooray I suppose? Shakam 06:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Obama is not considered African-american by any of the African-americans I know. Tiger Woods does not himself consider himself and African-american. For an interesting discussion compare Marshall Mathers, Tiger Woods and Obama:which one is African-american? It is not so simple that in this article we should gloss over the issue of race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.140.183.1 (talk) 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Obama is from Hawaii. Last I checked, Hawaii is part of America, not Africa, so I'd say he's simply just American. In the discussion of race, however, that's a whole other question entirely. Do you have to be from African decent to be black? H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 06:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you have to be black to be black. Shakam 06:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so then is Obama black? H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 07:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No, why would he be? Shakam 20:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, why did this discussion come up? H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 00:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

In the history of America, we have always held that if one is part black then he/she is all black. (or African American) Though this might be politically incorrect now, that's how it's always been. P.S. Barack Obama does refers to himself as African American in his books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.70.254 (talk) 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And prior to that history those idividuals mentioned were referred to as what they were, and even in parts of Florida and Georgia, even white. So, who cares about the racist history when we are dealing with 2007? Shakam 03:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I do feel it is important to mention his ethnicity. I mean if this is a page about the man and someone wants to know... and we know why not put it up there? If he is 50 percent african american it may be worth mentioning. Simply because people want to know. XXLegendXx 19:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

But you see he is not decended from the slaves brought to the US hundreds of years ago. His african stock came here in the 1950's. African-American is someone who is decended from slaves, not the recent african immigrants. Perhaps calling him a Kenyan-American would be better than African-American? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.24.48.147 (talk • contribs).

Where did you come up with that? You are an African American if you have African ancestry and you are American. I don't see any requirement for Polish Americans to have been enslaved. Gdo01 14:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely, the experiance of a person who is decended from slaves is diffrent from those who are decended from those who came here recently. To label someone who is of Kenyean decent "African-American" is stripping him of his proud culture. Those who have come here recently are also culturely diffrent than those who have been here over hundreds of years. If we were to lump all people who have african decent into the category of "African-American" we also lose the idenity of former slaves. Personally, I would not like to be called European-American, since I very well know where my grandparents came from. To label me simply "Euro-American" strips me of my grandparents Italian culture.

Is he actually related to Saddam Hussien?

Hussein is a very common name in both Africa and the Middle East. That would be like saying that everybody named Joseph is related to Joseph Stalin.

Phil

67.42.243.184 19:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Or is this just internet rumor, I feel stupid for asking this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.113.119 (talk • contribs)

RE:"Is he actually related to Saddam Hussien?" I doubt it. Gzkn 07:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Nor King Hussein. It was his father's middle name, and his father was from Kenya. Don't believe Internet rumors. Tvoz | talk 07:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Husayn (name) or Hussein is a very very common name is muslim countries, both both as first name and as a patronym. --86.71.93.155 15:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Beware, this is the far-right trying to smear Obama. He is not fucking related to Saddam Hussein or any of the other famous Husseins. Also, he is not related to Osama Bin Laden, and he didn't attend a radical muslim cleric school. These are all lies that the far-right want scared white people to believe.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.106.33 (talk • contribs)

That is true but it is also true that both his father and stepfather were born Muslims and he attended a predominately Muslim school in Indonesia. For better or worse that is going to scare a lot of Americans of all races. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.9.171.151 (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Time will tell. I personally think it's done some damage to Fox News' credibility. Of course, I've never cared for Gibson. He's a dolt. Regardless, I think the story (or scandal) is notable and should be featured in the article under Controversy. MoodyGroove 01:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

I would have to disagree with the comments above regarding "scared white-people". For starters, you cannot hide a name like Hussein in the US. The name itself has a stigma. It is not meant to "scare white-people", as I am one and am the least bit scared. Moreover, it was an internet rumor... similar to the "send this to 1 million people to raise money for so-&-so to receive a free kidney transplant". There is a lot of garbage on the web, rumors and the like. I think the point was misinterpretted as trying to "scare white-people" (racist comment if I may), when it was most likely someone saying - "Does the US want a 'Hussein' as President?" Now I understand that it is not the same family name, rather just a name... but I am willing to bet that was the initial intent. P.S. - Please stop the foul language and racial hits towards "white-people"... I believe we are officially Caucasians or Americans of European Ancestry... something more sophisticated. Thanks. Eisenmond

Political Beliefs?

From what I've seen, he is a very moderate Liberal on most issues with the exception of health care where he is more Liberal.

67.42.243.184 19:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this is the only politician article without a simple list of his political beliefs. Unless he is a robot and has no beliefs. In that case we need to have a section mentioning that he is a robot. --MonJoe 13:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

He might just be a "democrat party" believer. -- User:Walter Humala/Best sig2 17:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Obama is concerned with saying as little of significance as possible in order to gain broad support for 2008. For example, from a recent Obama speech: "Our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, commonsense way." "Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions. And that's what we have to change first." ... That says absolutely nothing, but it's hard to disagree. This is in line with Chomsky's recent comments about Obama and NPR, quoted above: "...But they had a section on Barack Obama, the great new hope. And it was very exuberant: what a fantastic personality he is and a great candidate, thousands of people coming out. And it went on for about 15 minutes of excited rhetoric. There's only one thing missing. They didn’t say a word about what his policies were on anything. It’s kind of not -- doesn't matter, you know. He’s a unifier. He looks at you when he talks to you. He’s a really decent guy. Great background. OK, that's an election." Organ123 18:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Walter, take a look at some more articles - some have a "political views" section, some don't - across party lines and ideologies (see for example, Mitt Romney and Dennis Kucinich). Sometimes politicians' records speak for themselves, better than editors' characterizations of them. I'd prefer not to be the one to decide what part of the political spectrum a given politician falls into, but that's just my opinion. Tvoz | talk 19:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there should definitely be a political view section, listing his beliefs on such topics as abortion, gun control, environment, etc. However, it should be very tightly moderated, and every listed view should include links to an article(s) that show definitively that that's Obama's view. He is a Presidential candidate after all (or will officially be shortly), and very little is known about some of his views, so as they come up, I believe they should be cataloged here. Bjewiki 20:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about trying to guess his beliefs, but I would certainly support a run-down of significant votes from his Senate voting record. Italiavivi 23:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we should include a voting record as well as his stated beliefs. 67.141.77.1 00:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

In the external links section, there's a link to Project Vote Smart, which has his voting record. However, on John McCain's page, Rudy Giuliani's page, and Hillary Clinton's page, there's a specific section for their political views (Hillary has her own page called Political Views of Hillary Clinton). - PoliticalJunkie 01:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's sort of ridiculous to suggest Barack Obama's political views are hard to find or nonexistant. In his book, Audacity of Hope, he actually EXPLICITLY covers pretty much every political view he has, why he has it, and how it applies to the real world. Not only that, he cuts it up into convenient sections such as "Race" or "Faith." If you wish to include his beliefs, pick up a copy of his book, look at the first and last sections of each chapter. He has said such things as, there should be universal health care, there is no reason that an effective teacher at the peak of their career should make less than 100000$/year, that the gap between Rich/Middle is growing, that race problems exist, so on, and so on, and so on. It's... all there. I really am baffled exactly how people come to the conclusion it's hard to find his views... I haven't finished the book yet. After people have considered this, and if no one has the book, I'll consider a way to include his views in such a section. I'm afraid I have no idea how to format it, what to include, so forth, since there's.. so much information in the book. Perhaps this could simply be accomplished by saying..

In Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama deeply discusses his political views, categorizing them into (Names of chapters go here). (provide example belief, perhaps provided in conclusion, from each chapter).

And, is political belief an abstract concept (such as, the Gap between poor and rich is growing, and that's bad) or distinct (We need to provide X for education and it'll cost Y$)?AltonBrownFTW 01:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree and will probably start the "political views" article discussed below if someone doesn't do it first. And for the record, your username rocks. —bbatsell ¿? 02:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think something shuold be added to let it know that he has refused to respond to the 2004 Vote Smart survey. I find this to be fairly important to know. As a "centerist", I'm very interested to know if his views have changed since 1998. (Source here: http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=BS030017)69.154.2.3 20:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the NPAT is notable enough to be listed as something he has not filled out. It's just a survey. If you'd like to know about his views, you can check out his voting record (available at Vote Smart), or his book, The Audacity of Hope, (which has the same level of credibility as the NPAT survey). Alternatively, you can check out our fledgling new article about his political beliefs at Political views of Barack Obama. —bbatsell ¿? 20:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the NPAT was what vote smart based their data off of? So the current data is old (1998). If it is not then I apologize. :) 69.154.2.3 20:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, PVS provides a person's answers to the NPAT survey. But it's definitely not the only thing that PVS has in terms of data; I personally place a lot more credibility in a person's voting record. It's easy to say one thing on a voluntary survey but do another when you're actually in office. You can see Mr. Obama's voting record here. —bbatsell ¿? 20:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, just what I was looking for! 162.40.138.163 23:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to make a article edit, and I have no real idea how to start a discussion subject. However, in 2003, Obama voted in support of SB1195, which, if passed, would have banned most of the privately held hunting shotguns, target rifles, and black powder rifles in the state of Illinois. If the ban was enacted, law enforcement officials would have been authorized to forcibly enter private homes to confiscate newly banned firearms, if the owner did not turn them in. This is one of the most draconian gun control attempts on the books, and he was all for it. if you look up the Illinois bill, please read the full text, not the synopsis; any longgun owner could tell you that this was more than a simple assault weapon ban attempt.Paganize 12:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Obama Madrassa Media Scandal

Has anyone thought of starting an article on the right wing media's attempted 'swift boating' of Obama with the phony 'madrassa' claims? (which are now coming back to bite them) >

Moonie press and collaboraters smear Obama. There are similar Wiki articles : Jamil_Hussein_controversy. - Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 01:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Some people might say the lady doth protest too much. :-) Steve Dufour 15:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

CNN supposedly completely debunked the report. Perhaps we should wait to see how all this plays out, though, as all the evidence is not in, surely. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The point is this is a single source story that several media outlets have run with. It is however based on a single anonymous source. I would say that it might be a good idea to employ WP:DUST in this case. --Rtrev 03:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The question must also be raised, does Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons apply to mentioning the false story in his article? I agree with Jersysko for now, let the dust settle. A seperate article can be created later, but we wouldn't even know what to title it, right now. Italiavivi 18:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Supposing the story's been put to rest with the CNN investigation, it was rather short-lived. It lasted maybe two days after it came out in Insight, and I don't think that merits a separate article. - PoliticalJunkie 01:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree no seperate article. I personally doubt it even merits a mention here. Perhaps it should be mentioned in the Fox News article but perhaps not since from what I can tell it hasn't caused much controversy, probably because it's not unusual for Fox News to completely fail to investigate a story. 203.109.240.93 11:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well actually I found out it is mentioned in the Fox News controversies article 203.109.240.93 12:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a stupid argument to suggest that because he went to an ordinary Muslim school in Indonesia that he was attending some "Islamist madrassa"?! I can't even say how stupid and bigoted this is. Schools in Muslim countries are not officially "Muslim" schools, since they are ordinary public schools. But in some Muslim countries (like Iran) the public schools also teach Qur'an and Arabic. The other alternatives in those cases would be going to schools for a religious minority, like a Jewish or Christian school which are usually restricted (by the government or those communities) to Jews and Christians only. There is alot of times no "secular" school. But the public schools in Iran and Indonesia, for example, are not "Islamist madrassas" or any nonsense like that. The term "madrassa" itself only means "school" and is the generic name for "school" in many languages. I really wish people would stop this ignorance and go learn something. If I am not wrong, Obama also went to a Christian school. I also went to school in Iran and had to study Qur'an like everyone else. So this makes a person like me an "Islamist" or whatever neologism people can come up with?! This nonsense is not a scandal, it is a non-issue being made into something by bigoted, ignorant, and intolerant people with no proper education. Khorshid 20:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's another article that covers the false allegations, and how they have been covered by the media: Obama gets taste of campaign coverage By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer. ^BlankVerse 05:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Trying this. --HailFire 13:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

While some of the the Clinton campaign's whispers have gotten ridiculous it is undeniable that his father and stepfather were both born Muslim and Osama himself attended an Indonesian madarass for 2 years. He talks about this in his own books. For better or worse these are facts. It is also true he has been a United Church of Christ member for 20 years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.9.171.151 (talk • contribs).

There is no evidence whatsoever that Hillary Clinton was the source of Insight's false article. Italiavivi 18:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's be clear here. Madrassa means simply "school." The school Obama attended for two years in Indonesia was investigated by CNN, which found the school to be a secular, public school. Thanks. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A public school yes-but in 90% Muslim Indonesia where he lived with his Muslim born step-father. He then was transfered to a Catholic school for 2 years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.9.171.151 (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Madrassa hoax

All of the charges were made by unprofessional, unsubstantiated, sourceless accusations in Insight Magazine, a project spawned by the Unification Church. Both the Clinton and Obama camps refuted the accusations. Even the Fox News Network issued a full retraction. See the entire account in the David D. Kirkpatrick New York Times, 29 January 2007 article. ( http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/us/politics/29media.html?_r=1&oref=slogin )Dogru144 00:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Dogru144 00:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The Fox News network said that the story violated their basic rule of knowing "what you are talking about.” 29 January New York Times story. Dogru144 00:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to start an article. It's still reverberating in the press, and is as least significant as the Jamil Hussein issue . - Fairness & Accuracy For All 06:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the Jon Stewart/Comedy Central clip should be included, as it has clips of the Fox News people actually 'reporting' the story, as well addressing the misinformation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aQ63ml0XxY Flatterworld 16:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

While I have to thank you for posting the link to that video here at talk, I regret to say that it probably shouldn't go into the article ;) · j e r s y k o talk · 16:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Even the Fox News Network issued a full retraction. Not true, and it remains on the websites of several of their 'pundits'. btw - the link was posted in the Insight magazine "madrassa" media controversy article after that was created. Flatterworld 06:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the import of the "madrassa scandal", I do find it rather interesting that, when searching for "fox news controversies" on wikipedia, you will find four or five topics that contain all of the search terms. When searching for ABC, NBC, CBS, or CNN news controversies, their is nary a one entry that corresponds. I personally believe that the politicians on both sides of the isle are, in the great majority, disingenuous in the least and corrupt and evil in the main. I also believe we live in an oligarchy whose producers put on a play of democracy in the form of a represented republic to the masses, with both sides greatly desirous of implementing their own specialized plutocracy. That said, whether you are a cynic of contemporary politics as I am, whether you are a partisan of one side or the other, or whether you are something else, do you not think it is laughably absurd that only fox news has numerous pages dedicated specifically to supposed and real manipulations of the news? Such instances like this lend credibility to the proposition that Wikipedia, when dealing with political, social, moral, religious, and, to some extent, philosophical subject matter, is much more an oracle of the Left that imports a biased view rather than a neutral encyclopedic source that seeks to realistically inform. I am a cynic only when it suggests itself as the most rational position, and so, here, I am a cynic. If you seek dispassionate information or debate about the arrow frog to ice cream, the nucleus to nebulae, Wikipedia is a wonderful, superficial start. If you seek to understand the intellect, morality, and wisdom of Man, Wikipedia, more often than not, only offers an education into one side of the dissimulative nature of Man. I'm curious, is their a website of this stature that opposes this one and offers up the hypocrisy of the Right?

Pronunciation

Would it be useful to include the pronunciation of his name in the opening paragraph of this article? The BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/magazinemonitor/2007/01/how_to_say_barack_obama.shtml) has published a guideline on the matter. They say it's 'buh-RAAK oh-BAA-muh', which translates to [bəˈrɑːk oʊˈbɑːmə] in IPA. —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your

posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by 82.34.120.8 (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Sure. Can someone with IPA experience confirm? · j e r s y k o talk · 17:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

About to add this, although I believe it is more accurately represented by: [bəˈɹɑːk oʊˈbɑː.mə] —bbatsell ¿? 03:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Listening to various installments of his podcast [2], it sounds like he himself does not lengthen the ɑ vowel in his first name (thus giving [bəˈɹɑk]), which is consistent with GA pronunciation (see the IPA chart for English). If anyone with a deeper knowledge of phonological format and standards wishes to revert this (or do the same for his surname?), please do so! Ninly 01:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

He is a smoker.

Wow, this is interesting (not!)--I wonder what kind of ashtray he uses. You know maybe we can figure out whatn kind of President he would be if we analyse his ciggarette butts.

67.42.243.184 19:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone should make mention of this, its an interesting fact. Unsigned comment by User:68.83.158.204

Does anyone know what brand he smokes? There are a few of us out here who are curious...is he a marlboro man, or does he smoke virginia slims menthol 100's or what?

-no agenda here, just genuinely curious

Good heavens, does he curse too?? Tvoz | talk 23:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I heard he once ran a red light! H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 23:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

He cursed in Dreams from My Father, oh dear. - PoliticalJunkie 01:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm aside, Laura Bush's article makes note of her being a smoker. Italiavivi 12:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't. Have you read the sentence itself? The mention of her smoking is completely broken off from the rest of the paragraph. It sounds like a side note and really doesn't need to be there. Now, if she was an avid supporter of Anti-smoking campaigns, then it would make sense. The source itself reads Even Laura Bush has her vices, such as a smoking habit she can't quite shake. Kessler says the first lady bums a cigarette once in a while: "She goes out on the balcony and smokes a little bit every now and then." It's far from important. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 14:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the sentence about her smoking and one about her being treated for minor skin cancer. Together they formed one paragraph. Steve Dufour 15:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, kidding aside - I agree with H2P - the only reason anyone's being a smoker would be relevant to his or her article is if that person was otherwise identified with an anti-smoking campaign and made statements like "I don't smoke, you shouldn't either". One's personal vices don't necessarily mean one shouldn't advise others not to engage in them, unless you're Mark Foley or the like, but blatant lying about them would be problematic. In any case, I see no relevance to include here. Tvoz | talk 18:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, just wow. Shakam 03:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you ever hear the story about Lincoln and General Grant's drinking problem? Steve Dufour 15:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I just said in an edit summary removing the fact that Obama is trying to quit smoking. Just because something is true, and has a citation, does NOT mean it is notable for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. There are regular reminders of length concerns on Wikipedia, which I don't personally necessarily agree with but they are indeed the environment within which we work - especially for a Featured Article which this one is. The fact that Obama smokes cigarettes and is trying to stop is utterly absurd to be included in this article, cited, quoted, and wrapped up in a ribbon and presented. Tvoz | talk 21:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

What is notability, can it easily be defined without pushing our own biased views and opinions? I don't think it should be included in the article if you're wondering, I think because I feel it is insignificant. Shakam 06:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It probably should be on there, though written in an unbiased way. This is a potential presidential candidate and smoking is something which people will want include in their decision. Insignificant? I don't think so. Though not as grave a habit as getting frisky with interns, smoking is still a habit about which many people feel strongly. How I feel about the issue IS however insignificant. Erik

But this article is not part of anyone's campaign, pro or anti Obama- its purpose is not to give people information so they can decide if they want to vote for him. I don't think his smoking at all rises to the level of notability for this individual,for this article, for the reasons I outlined above. That's why I facetiously asked does he curse - or does he socially drink - these have a similar level of insignificance to a Wikipedia article. Let his opponents use it in their campaign literature if they want to - it doesn't belong here. Tvoz | talk 17:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right. Let me pose this question: if he had a drinking problem would that make the wiki? I know we are getting in to degrees of abuse and thats very subjective. Let me point you to Paula Abdul's page. Her incidences of weird behavior are noted as being a suspected substance abuse issue though she has not publicly stated it. Aside from the smoking topic, people will use this as a source for voting whether you want them to or not. Have it your way Tvoz, you spend more time on here than I do. Erik

I'm not trying to have it my way, I'm just saying what I think. My only interest is in presenting notable material in as fair and neutral way as possible, and not on behalf of one campaign or another. I've spent a fair amount of time on Nelson Rockefeller and Hillary Rodham Clinton too, among others, so I'm not taking sides here. And yes, if someone had a drinking problem that affected his or her behavior and job functioning, I would say it might be appropriate here (subject to the wikipedia libel concerns of biographies of living people, that is). That was my point - it's notable if it is in direct contradiction to something he says - meaning he's lying - and it's notable if it is somehow affecting his performance- that kind of thing. On its own, it is being presented as if it has some inherent meaning, and I don't think it does. That's all. Tvoz | talk 18:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Why must a vice illustrate hypocrisy or suggest a problem to be relevant? You're (understandably, given today's political culture in the US) looking at this from only one direction. Consider that the fact might be interesting - even important - to those of us concerned about puritanism in this country and its government's attacks on industry & personal freedom. I doubt I'm the only voter more inclined to trust the man for the fact that he enjoys a few vices and doesn't work to conceal them. --einexile 11:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

First things first, does anyone actually have a credible source to confirm this? If someone mentioned one early, I apologize, but I didn't see one above. I don't think it would be appropriate to include this fact if you can't site a source. But, if you can find a source, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't bee included, despite it being a triviality. Stop Me Now! 14:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

http://news.google.com/news?q=obama+smoking&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&sa=X&oi=news&ct=title

Not like it matters a whole lot, but it's pretty well confirmed that he's trying to quit smoking for the presidential run. --69.244.153.46 22:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

So what? Bill Richardson lost weight for his run. I haven't looked, but I sure as hell hope it didn't make it onto his wikipedia page. Again, just because there is a citation does not necessarily mean it passes the notability standard, especially on a page where we are constantly struggling to keep it within a reasonable size. Tvoz | talk 19:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

New Page: "2008 Presedential Election Campagn"?

I think the 2008 presidential run should be broken out into it's own seciton. The Obama page is already quite long, and the information about the 2008 presidential election is just going to continue to grow and grow. Plus, this would allow his basic "biography" to become pretty stable, while most of the new stuff would be going into the election run article. Anyone agree? Bjewiki 23:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, once Obama formally announces his intentions on February 10th. The page would be Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, following standard naming procedure. - PoliticalJunkie 23:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. Should {{splitsection}} be added to the section now? -Fadookie ^Talk 12:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The page has been created. - PoliticalJunkie 22:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

book deal-Harvard Law Review connection?

Obama became president of Harvard Law Review in 1990 and graduated HLS in 1991. As I said in edit summary, obviously being presisdent of HLR is a good credential for anyone wanting to get a book publishing contract - Law Review is a writing gig, and editing it and being elected president indicates writing skills, and his election brought hi some notice as was stated in the section about his HLR presidency. Dreams was published in 1995 - I just don't see a clear connection to HLR presidency, nor any relevance to it - so is there a citation that can illuminate why his HLR presidency should be juxtaposed with the book deal? It sounded to me like something was being implied by the juxtaposition and I don't know what that is, or if it should be there. So I removed it, but am interested to know why it was put in and then reinstated. The edit summary said "Harvard Law Review part is relevant, it's how he got his book deal to write Dreams from My Father" but that's not self-explanatory. Thanks Tvoz | talk 23:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

In the preface to Dreams he says that he got the deal as a direct result of his presidency. I'll quote the relevant section later tonight. —bbatsell ¿? 23:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It's actually the introduction, not the preface, and I'm not sure how much I can quote (if any at all) in talkspace, so I'll summarize that page xiii states that he received offers from "a few publishers" during his third year at Harvard Law, and agreed to not seek employment for a year after law school during which he would write a book. I haven't re-read the whole introduction, but to my recollection there is no explanation for the large disparity in time between graduation and publication. —bbatsell ¿? 23:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks - but I'm still not clear on why it's notable for inclusion here. I hope User:Political Junkie or anyone else will weigh in too. I do think the section reads well now, with just the straightforward facts about the books. 23:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it reads fine now but I don't have a problem at all saying that he was offered the book deal because of his presidency of HLR. Otherwise a reader could be left wondering why a Chicago lawyer got a book deal about his childhood and adolescence seemingly out of the blue. (That is to say, I think that needs to be explicitly stated with the book cited as the source rather than the other text, as it is equally as unclear.) —bbatsell ¿? 23:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

At this link, it says "the opportunity to write the book came while I was in law school, the result of my election as the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review . In the wake of some modest publicity, I received an advance from a publisher...". However, I can't explain the time discrepancies. Still, I think it is an important fact to put it in for the reason Bbatsell put forth. - PoliticalJunkie 20:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Occidental College

I don't know if any of the info is usable in this article, but the LA Times had nice story about Obama's two years at Occidental College. See Occidental remembers ‘Barry’ Obama. ^BlankVerse 06:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Added in this footnote. --HailFire 14:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

In 1996 Obama was elected to the Illinois state senate as a Democrat.

Did he ever run as anything else prior to or afterwards. I took the liberty of making a minor change (Obama was elected to the Illinois state senate in 1996.) but, it was reverted by someone. So I just thought I'd ask to clarify. Shakam 06:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are you wanting to remove it? —bbatsell ¿? 20:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It was his first race, and it's helpful to note what party he ran under. Remember, we're writing for a theoretical reader who knows nothing about Obama, not somebody who knows everything about him. —bbatsell ¿? 20:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Lol, don't get me started on "writing for a reader who doesn't know anything." But I was just asking because it refers to him in other parts of the article as running as a Democrat. So, I just thought it was superfluous; but whatever, no biggie. Shakam 21:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Started new article: 'Obama madrassa media scandal'

Lots more to add. Any of you who know how to format the refs could help. I promise to learn how to so properly soon. Obama_madrassa_media_scandal Are we allowed to use a vid cap from the CNN report showing the school? - Fairness & Accuracy For All 08:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably. Perhaps the fair use police would cause a stir, but I doubt any free use pictures of the school can be created or found anytime soon. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, a link to the media scandal article really needs to be worked into this article. After a brief glance, I'm really not sure where it would fit best. · j e r s y k o talk · 16:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Article moved to Insight magazine "madrassa" media controversy. --HailFire 15:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I added a link within the footnote, pointing to the above article. 5 February 2007

obama iraq speech

[this was inadvertently placed in my talk page archive, but I think it belongs here]

Hey

You're absolutely right. I'm sorta new to the editing game. As you can probably tell all I want to do is add portions of Senator Obama's Oct. 2002 iraq speech to this page. I believe it belongs and I think I did a good job with the content just not with the formatting, as you point out. User:208.46.38.66 19:09, 31 January 2007

User:Gdo01 and I have each removed the posts - it was not properly posted (see [3]) as it stepped on text and notes. But do we include it due to length considerations? We do include his early opposition to the war, appropriately - I'm not sure that we need the speech excerpts. ANyone else? Tvoz | talk 05:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the length concerns. I wouldn't be opposed to linking to the speech, however, and agree that the article should discuss his early war opposition. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Joe Biden's "support"

Any ideas about how to write up Joe Biden's effusiveness the other day, when he said Obama was "well spoken ... and ... clean?" Biden has really been taking a beating over the gaffe. As he should. ObamaNation 01:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ehh. Seems like a case of recentism to me. If it's going to be somewhere, Biden's article would be more appropriate, though maybe not even there. Certainly not here. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If anywhere, it would go in an article about the 2008 presidential election (assuming it covered primaries). Don't think it belongs either here or at Joe Biden (except maybe to note that his announcement got off to a rocky start, citing the NYT and other places that covered that aspect of it). —bbatsell ¿? 02:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Belongs at Biden's article, given the notable controversy it created during his announcement, for sure. Italiavivi 17:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's move "Political Advocacy" section outside of "Senate Career" section

Obama's political advocacy is not merely a subset of his Senate Career. For example, the following is more about his presidential ambitions than his Senate career: "Obama said, 'The time has come for universal health care in America . . . I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country.'" I propose making "Political Advocacy" Section 7 instead of Sub-Section 5.3, where it currently is. As a precedent for this, see Hillary Clinton's page. Organ123 20:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Took out joke

I took out:

In 2004 , the NBC sitcom Will & Grace played on then-Senator-Elect Obama's charisma and appeal when Grace mentioned having a dream about being in the shower with Obama in which he was "Ba-racking my world!"

I don't think it added much to the article. Steve Dufour 20:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur. I think it used to add something to the article when Obama was a relative unknown - the fact that his name was mentioned on Will & Grace was notable. Now that his face regularly appears in Time, I think one sitcom joke no longer seems very important to the article. --TheOtherBob 20:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I also find the joke offensive since Senator Obama is a married man. However I didn't think that would fly as a reason to take it out. :-) Steve Dufour 17:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Football season is over

So I cut out:

In 2006, Obama was featured in a television commercial for ESPN's Monday Night Football game between his hometown Chicago Bears and the St. Louis Rams. The faux political announcement played on the frenzy surrounding him and his possible presidential candidacy. "So tonight I'd like to put all the doubts to rest," he said. "I would like to announce to my hometown of Chicago and all of America that I am ready... for the Bears to go all the way, baby."

Nothing wrong with it, but when Obama makes a formal announcement of his candidacy it will seem kind of trivial. The same if he decides not to. Besides the Bears didn't win the Super Bowl after all, although I was rooting for them too. Steve Dufour 20:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC) p.s. I have working to keep the article to a readable length by removing things here and there.

comments from visiting editor

Excellently put together. One suggestion: I think Barack_obama#Controversy is a bit thin air, and even admits as much: "The Tribune's report does not accuse Obama of any wrongdoing or unethical conduct and no evidence to the contrary has been uncovered." I think we need to either slim this down or remove it entirely (I'm sure we'll have enough mud in the air to satisfy those who require a "butontheotherhand" section when the race gets going!) I don't want to remove this because I'm sure a heavily-watched article will require plenty of horse-trading which I don't have time for (right now.) Sdedeo (tips) 08:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this comment - it's a non-controversy. Tvoz | talk 08:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I also support the removal of this non-notable non-controversy, should debate come up over it in the future. Italiavivi 17:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, darn, I dipped my toe in. I'm happy to be reverted, but I can't help pretending that wikipedia still works the "old way" (no elaborate discussion needed for large but obvious edits.) Sdedeo (tips) 08:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If it is taken out the Republicans will say you are "whitewashing" the article. No harm is done by letting it stay. Steve Dufour 17:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd argue that it hardly holds up to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, receives undue weight with its own subsection/two-paragraph length, and seriously reeks of turning thin air into "controversy" simply for controversy's sake. Baseless, politically-motivated accusations of "whitewashing" from blatant partisans matter little to me when considering an article's content. Italiavivi 00:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Speaking the bahasa

Does he still retain the language? Or has it sort of faded away? Does anybody know? Wareq 11:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Next time he speaks to an audience of Indonesian Americans we will find out. :-) Steve Dufour 17:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Remove this paragraph?

"Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Illinois State Comptroller Daniel Hynes were early advocates for a 2008 Obama presidential run. Commentators have suggested that Obama's chances to be elected president would be better in 2008 than in 2012 or later. In an October 2006 editorial published in the Chicago Tribune, Newton Minow compared prospects for a 2008 Obama presidential bid to John F. Kennedy's successful 1960 presidential campaign. A December 2006 op-ed by conservative columnist George Will detailed four reasons why he thinks now is a good time for Obama to run for president. In a December 2006 cover story headlined "The Race is On", Newsweek magazine columnist Jonathan Alter asked: "Is America Ready for Hillary or Obama?""

This seems to be last year's opinions. I'm not sure it is of much interest anymore. I will remove it in the next day or two if no one objects. Steve Dufour 01:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure about this one - I think we sort of do a dance between having very current up-to-the-minute information and having some longer perspective. Of course we need to be current, but we can't and shouldn't try to be a news-source - I don't think the article needs to list his day-to-day schedule of appearances as we are veering toward, and perhaps some of the older information gives a needed perspective on his candidacy or potential candidacy. So I personally wouldn't be so quick to remove last year's news if it gives insight into how he came to be in the position he now is in - maybe shorten it, but I wouldn't want to completely lose all of the nuance of the lead-up to his announcement. An encyclopedia should have that depth, I think. I know some are concerned about length issues, but let's not let that get in the way of keeping some historical perspective. I mean this as an over-all comment, actually - I'm not saying this particular graf is necessarily essential. Also, we do want some stability in the article - especially in light of the FAR discussions we just came out of. Let's see what others think. Tvoz | talk 02:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs to talk about his whole life and career. This one paragraph seems to be mainly other people's opinions about his possible presidential run. When this really starts their opinions will not be so important. Steve Dufour 04:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I left the first sentence which tells about support from two politicians and took out the rest which was the opinions of commentators. The first sentence then fit in well, I thought, with the next paragraph which is about support from celebrities, etc. Steve Dufour 20:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Steve, you didn't want to wait to see what others thought? Tvoz | talk 21:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I read the paragraph again, in the context of the page, and reinstated it. Yes, some of it may technically be "last year's" opinions, but they're essentially just over a month ago - and the Alter article is needed if we are to keep the Time cover which I think we should. We're talking about only four sentences, and they illustrate exactly what has been going on in the run-up to Obama and Clinton's announcements, still relevant and giving some perspective. WP:DUST - an essay, not a policy - might be worth reading in this context. Also, the article just passed an informal Featured Article Review, and stability is considered a virtue in that realm. Obviously we need to update the article as events occur, but do we need to constantly rewrite the portions that actually have not changed? Again, let's see what others think. Tvoz | talk 02:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I acted too fast. I do think there is a danger of the article becoming unreadably long. Steve Dufour 06:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Future items in this article - specifically presidential run

There are future dates supplied in that paragraph along with citations. The election is months off. The future tag should not be removed until events play out. Ronbo76 00:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

He is not African American

My God this is a stupid title. Most African Americans have some White ancestry and 1 out of 6 White Americans have some non-White ancestry. You know what-- he is 100% American, Can we get over this idiocy and focus on what the man has to offer as a potential President?

67.42.243.184 19:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

67.42.243.184 19:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

He is a mulatto, or mixed race, which ever you prefer.Ernham 01:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Race is self-identified here in the U.S., and he identifies himself as African-American. That he is biracial is discussed in the article, though. Italiavivi 01:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity is self-identified, not race, sorry, not even if it's "politically favorable", as in the case with this guy's phantom race. Additionally, African-american is often reserved only for those that are the descendants of the orignal slaves brought here from Africa hunreds of years ago. I see two strikes against him for the supposed label of "african american"Ernham 01:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed a lot and a compromise was finally reached. He is an American, for sure. He is also "black", as that word is used in the USA. The article does not say he is African American, it only quotes the Senate Historical Office. Steve Dufour 05:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the article does state that he is African-American: "In February 1990, he gained national recognition for becoming the first African American to be elected president of the Harvard Law Review." He is also included in the Wikipedia categories Category:African American politicians and Category:African American Senators. -Silence 06:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That sentence could be tweeked a bit. As for the categories, I don't think we want to say that he is NOT an African American when he says he is one. Getting back to Ernham's post: A "mulatto" or a "person of mixed race" can be a member of the group of people called "African Americans".Steve Dufour 06:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Then it would be superfluous to have the words "mulatto" and "mixed-race" if the aren't really definitive. I know one thing for sure, if/when the exploratory committee decides he should run, the article should read, "If elected, he would be the first African-American (I know I'm not going to win this on here so I guess I'll let you all have your little fun), as well as the first biracial president." Shakam 06:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The ironic thing is that if he had tried to distance himself from being labeled an African American he would have been strongly criticized for that. So he just can't win with certain people. Steve Dufour 20:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

His father was born in Alego, Kenya, Africa, and his mother was born in Wichita, Kansas, America. Sounds African-American to me. Ground Zero | t 21:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

GZ, exactly correct. I made the same point in one of the thousands of earlier rounds on this. I can't believe this is still being "discussed" - frankly, it makes me sick. Tvoz | talk 22:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand where people are coming from on this? Are they saying he shouldn't be elected president because he isn't black enough? (anti-Obama statement) Or are they saying that someone so talented could not really be black? (anti-black statement) Steve Dufour 06:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

When one refers to something such as "african amrican", you are refering to a cultural element that is found in north america. This unique cultural element is completely different on an ethnic level than someone that is the first generation son of an African immigrant(with a phd no less) raised in upper middle-class suburbia. To correctly refer to him in a "racial way", you would have to call him half caucasoid and half negroid. We don't usually use terms like that. Someone said that because he is "black" and lives in the US he can use the term "afircan-american". That's interesting because I have an Indian(ethnically indian!) friend at college that is at least two shades darker than Barack. Here's the kicker: he also came from african immigrants(south africa). Is he really African American too? HmmmErnham 15:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Obama is what he is. The article gives all the facts needed for a person to make up his or her mind about what label to put on him. If you like you can write an op-ed type article expressing your views and if you get it published I will cite it in the article. Just leave a note on this talk page. Steve Dufour 16:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The article should not mention race, period. Give the facts and let people decide. You have already declared him african american in the first paragraph. That's absurd POV pushing nonsense. This wiki is already an "op-ed", unfortunately. Ernham 18:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Part of his importance is that he is a black (as that word is defined in the USA) American. The opening paragraph only quotes the Senate Historical Office on his African American-ness. Steve Dufour 18:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

We'll just see what happens on 2/10. Shakam 05:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

So, he can call himself African American, even if he's not? Seriously, he's half white, half black. He's no more African American, than he is white. How do you think people would react if he called himself white? It's amazing how reverse racism works. Anyone can call themselves African American, while it's a crime to be white.

That doesn't make a modicum of sense, but that's irrelevant. Can we please keep political posturing OFF THIS PAGE? This talk page is meant for discussing changes to the article, not to debate his candidacy. Thanks. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on IP edits

Note: Discussion restored from Archive 5; editorial consensus has not yet been reached. --HailFire 09:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Two weeks have passed since the most recent semi-protection was added blocking IP edits. Here in a nutshell is my personal view as an active contributor to this article since September 2006:

Presidential candidates ought to take sustained and preemptive measures to protect their security, but their Wikipedia articles should not.

How about we try to reach a consensus approach on contributions from editors who choose not to set up user accounts or log in? I think it warrants a full discussion here. --HailFire 03:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I buy that, HailFire. If vandalism persists after protection is removed, I can always re-semi now that I have the tools (I watch the page, of course). · j e r s y k o talk · 03:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hail in that openness is the hallmark of wikis everywhere. The catch 22 is that because Obama is now a presidential candidate there should be more openness in editing and there will be a larger desire for anonymous editing (whether purposefully anonymous or "drive by" anonymous). However, at the same time, there will most certainly be a significant rise in vandalism because of the interest generated by the move. The truth is that there may be very valid reasons for anonymous editing and even if there is no reason other than sheer laziness that does not make the contribution of an earnest, anonymous editor any less valid than an earnest, registered editor.

My personal view is that sprotect should be used temporarily and infrequently in that it is not aligned with the ideal of an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit." I say lift it and we (the editors with this article watchlisted) can deal with vandalism until it really and truly gets out of hand. In a certain sense I feel a bit shameful when and article I keep tabs on gets protected because it signifies a breakdown in the vigilance of the editorship (I know this is an unrealistic view... but still). I say we give it a go... the worst that can happen is a re-addition of protection (and hey.. Jersey is pretty vigilant right?). --Rtrev 03:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to spend your time defending the article go for it. Thanks. Steve Dufour 04:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well we can always open it up and see what happens. I have a feeling we'll be asking for semi-protection again quite soon afterwards. Gzkn 05:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully not but I say we open it up and see... --Rtrev 05:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree about this - we already tried that, Rtrev, just a few weeks ago, and as predicted the extreme vandalism returned. Nothing has happened to change that likely trajectory - if anything, I expect it will be even greater now. The fact is that no one is prevented from editing here, as long as they take the few minutes it takes to create a user ID. That user ID need be in no way identifiable to any individual person - in fact, IP addresses are more identifiable than user IDs, because they can easily be traced with WHOIS by anyone. User IDs can be traced by admins, but it requires a special request to do so, and those are not granted frivolously. So in fact the user ID editor is more anonymous, not less. We have seen recently that the level of vandalism, and the nature of the vandalism, is such that it is damaging to the article to allow IP editing. This article is certainly watched by many people, but it is a small number who diligently montior it and revert vandals. When IP editing was going on, it was an unfair burden, in my view, as it made it difficult to keep track of, and assess, legitimate edits when one is drowning in a sea of vandalism. Further, the nature of the vandalism - as I have said in the past - has not been the annoying "HI MOM" type, but instead has been a targeted, often vicious, vandalism that does damage to the hard work that numerous editors have done here and makes a mockery of the serious attempts that are made to keep the article factual and neutral. I am all in favor of an open system, but requiring usernames that do not have to bear any resemblance to one's real name, and do not have to have an email address attached, are certainly protective of the editor who wishes to remain anonymous, but also protective of the integrity of the article. This article, in my view, is a classic case where sprot is legitimately used to avoid the worst of the vandals. It won't eliminate them all, but it certainly will make it manageable to maintain the quality of the article. The fact that we've had some relative - not absolute - calm due to the latest sprot has allowed the article to be edited and improved without placing an undue burden. I haven't heard any argument that is convincing as to why IP editors should be allowed to return and, I believe, start doing their damage again. Tvoz | talk 05:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tvoz, I believe the semi-protection should be reinstated. This will continue to be one of the most high profile pages in the coming year, and with thus be most vulnerable to vandalism. I further agree that s-protect doesn't prevent people from editing (thus not violating the "anyone can edit") because it's extremely fast and easy to register for a userID. Bjewiki 12:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It should be removed temporarily to see if vandalism persists, and if so, extend the length of protection each time. It will give an opportunity to be edited by anons; however, they decide if it stays unprotected and how long. shakam

There are well-meaning anons and malicious vandals. The vicious ones will decide if it stays protected and for how long - not the well-meaning ones. That does not seem right to me. I think we've already seen it, and we should make the decision now. We had sprot for 8 days and needed it back pretty quickly. Now we've had it for 2 weeks and I don't hear anything suggesting why this time would be different - I doubt this is a case of vandals getting tired of waiting and moving on to another target - that's true when it's my example of Joe from Milwaukee. This has been targeted at Obama, a combination of POV-pushing on the one hand and malicious troublemaking on the other - and he's moving up in visibility, not down, by all indications. Why this bothers me is that I think it is difficult to monitor and edit the well-meaning entries that are added when there are so many malicious ones to sort through. Yesterday there were well-meaning additions about the exploratory committee, but they needed editing - if it had been intermingled with vandalism on top of real edits, I think it would have been difficult to sort through (I've seen this happen before), and with the changing base of facts that I expect will be needed in this article in the months to come, why not decide now for an extended term, rather than a longer term by only 5 or 6 days? Articles with sprot are not immune to vandalism but it becomes manageable. The benefits to me outweigh the cost. But if everyone feels that we should go through the motions again, I'll of course cooperate. Tvoz | talk 18:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please share your thoughts about managing incidents of vandalism on this article, which has remained open for IP edits since January 31. --HailFire 09:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It will come as no surprise that I have not changed my opinion on this. I haven't looked closely at today's edits, but yesterday there were times when garbage stood on the page for 11 minutes, for 14 minutes, for 6 minutes, possibly some longer - in the middle of the day - and there were no doubt dozens, hundreds, maybe thousands of people reading the page at those times. The prinicple of "open editing" is not the only principle we work under here. Jimbo Wales himself has stated that sometimes semi=-protect is needed. I'll get the reference again if anyone wants it. Everyone in this discussion knows that - we've been around and around and around the block on it. Yes, edits are fairly quickly reverted when a lot of editors are monitoring the page. But there are times when we're not so fast, and that's when Wikipedia looks amateuristic at best, racist at worst, juvenile in the middle - and I am disappointed that the desire for "open editing" has trumped all other concerns. Furthermore, I myself - I thnk a pretty diligent editor, who does at least her share of reverts - have had several instances in this latest round when I've missed real edits that I might want to question because of the sea of crap edits and reverts. The result? Some edits that are legitimate, but I or any editor here might want to discuss or tweak or remove, are overlooked. The end result? A weaker page. If that's what you want, that's what you'll get. I know it's not what many of the people who regularly edit here want - I and they want a great page. A page that when the thousands of people descend as we know they will, that we can be proud of. Our names are not associated with this - this is pure pride of anonymous accomplishment, but it's thwarted by the ideal of open editing. There were almost no IP edits in the last few days that were worthwhile. Again, I haven't llooked today, but I recall maybe one yesterday. All of the rest were vandals having fun, throwing crap on the page, and making us clean it up. I don't know about the rest of you, but I edit lots of pages here and I feel like my time is being grossly wasted by having to watch out for idiocy that could be reduced, if not eliminated, by sprot. All for some principle that has been blown out of proportion into a more important notion than accuracy and professionalism. I am tired of being made to jump through the hoop, when it could be reduced. Hey, guys - I'm just one editor. I've been described elsewhere as the one editor who wants permanent protection - that's not exactly true: I don't want full protection, but I do think we should have longer-term sprot. Just like many other pages have, including some involved in this Presidential campaign. That is, if we want this page to be a good reflection of what Wikipedia can be - a collaborative effort by dedicated people who work together and create up-to-date, compfrehensive articles about everything. Or, we can be seen as a bunch of kids who play here, producing unreliable material that professors shouldn't allow their students to quote from, and mostly only good to joke about regarding Anna Nicole Smith's page having 300 edits in an hour. Other than being amused at being thought of as a kid, which I am quite certainly not - I'd like more than that. No one has yet given me an argument that even began to convince me that this page should not be semi-protected. Forgive my typos - I am late and have to leave. Cheers, folks - this will likely be a big weekend for this article. I hope we're not embarrassed. Tvoz | talk 22:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of words! Let me just add, "I agree." This page is too high profile and too juicy a target not to have semi-protection on it. I only see four reverts of IP or new user edits today (after a quick glance), but the numbers above are disturbing. Unfortunately, with Obama being a major player in the upcoming election his article will be a continuous target for months to come. --StuffOfInterest 23:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz will certainly have a heart attack, but I agree as well. Italiavivi 17:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No one ever accused me of being succinct. Tvoz | talk 17:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well, from my point of view, I think semi-protection does in fact need to remain on this article. Only after a decent period of time should it ever be removed to see if it will subside. However, the fact that the vandalism was worse today than yesterday (you think it'd be worse yesterday due to the announcement), I think semi-protection should pretty much stay up unchallenged. Almost every IP that's posting on this article is posting vandalism from the looks of it, and I'd much rather finish up a paper then constantly re-sp this.--Wizardman 17:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• I tend to think that all articles on all announced candidates for the GOP and Democratic party nominations should be SP'd. Granted, some are going to draw more vandalism than others (particularly from racists and misogynists), but a unified standard like this would save a lot of people a lot of time (less reverting). Look, SP does not stop anyone from editing, and it exists for articles that are natural targets. I say SP 'em all until the conventions, then continue SPing the nominees. Unschool 17:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Obama "User Supporter" Template??

Just wondering if there's an Obama supporter template for me to add to my user page?? thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mattbray (talk • contribs) 09:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Just made one at User:Wizardman/Obama.--Wizardman 17:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Religious upbringing

Of course the "madrassa" nonsense was an ugly smear, but Obama was raised in Islam as a child, wasn't he? Doesn't this deserve some minor mention?--Pharos 14:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No, so no. Tvoz | talk 17:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, so he didn't have any kind of Muslim religious upbringing– the family never belonged to a mosque etc.? Just wanted to be clear.--Pharos 20:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe Obama's father was an agnostic or athiest by the time Obama was born, and I believe his mother did not have an Islamic background. I'm not sure if his step-father, whose religion I'm not certain of, had any influence on Obama's early exposure to religion or not. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

His stepfather was Muslim, but Obama was never raised under Islam. His father was an atheist. His grandparents were non-practicing Baptist and Methodist, and his mother disliked organized religion. He did not ascribe to any religion until he was an adult. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I recently read the Faith chapter of The Audacity of Hope and if I remember correctly his mother wasn't very religious; she was just pretty wise. His father left when he was two he couldn't have possible had any effect on his religion. And even though he went to a majority Muslim school, when he lived in Indonesia, he said it didn't really effect him. He came to beliefs he have now on his own, through the "black" church. (I think that's what he said, I can't really remember verbatim) Shakam 05:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The stepfather has been described as a non-practicing Muslim - I have a ref somewhere on that. My understanding is that he went to a public school in Indonesia that was majority Muslim because Jakarta was majority Muslim. Yes, Shakam, I think you have it essentially right, Bbatsell and Jersy too. Tvoz | talk 06:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Most of the confusion here is which man you consider his father. Obama's real father was from a Kenyan tribe, and I couldn't find a reference to his religion in the book Dreams from My Father (published 1995, long before Obama was a prominent figure). However, Obama was raised by "Lolo" from the age of two onward. Lolo was a native Hawai'ian, and he was NOT a Muslim. In response to the "Madrassa" claim, everybody who has gone to a school, ever, in their life, has attended a Madrassa. It's the Arabic word for "school", whether secular or religious. Though in modern english usage it usually carries a negative connotation, most major news organizations have stated that it was a "smear" and a lie [4][5][6] [7][8] [9]

It sickens me that two democrats would go at each other like this. Hillary is being a sleazy, evil liberal and further acting her stereotype, and Barack will definitely suffer bad publicity. --Hojimachong^talk_con 18:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobody knows for sure that Senator Clinton's people were behind the rumor. Steve Dufour 18:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it isn't likely that Clinton was the source. As per Lolo, I'll admit it's been a while since I've read Dreams, but I distinctly remember Lolo being Muslim (though not very active). I, of course, could be wrong, but that's what I had filed away in my head. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence whatsoever that Hillary Clinton was the source for Insight Magazine's false article, and Insight refuses to in any way reliably verify their story; both Obama and Clinton have stood together against the resulting smear. Italiavivi 18:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It also might well be that this incident will turn out to be the thing that helps him the most to become president. :-) Steve Dufour 22:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

In Islam one does not need to practice it and would still be considered Muslim. So Barack's father was a Muslim. Zidane is not religious and may even be atheist. Yet he is considered a Muslim. Obama also went to a madrassa school for sometime. If he was not Mulsim I fail to see what he was doing there. So Obama is a convert from Islam to Christianity.

Here's a direct quote from an official press release: "To be clear, Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim..."--Pharos 08:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It's incorrect that Obama attended a "Muslim" school from ages 6-8. Obama's note in Dreams of My Father (in addition to Insight Magazine et al's exposition of that tidbit) was simply wrong, as demonstrated by this CNN report. The school is nominally secular, public, and non-religious. I'm posting this here in an attempt to stave off further additions to the article regarding his early schooling (and hopefully to serve as as a short talk page subsection that we can link to in edit summaries). · j e r s y k o talk · 00:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

*Watching page to protect against this addition* Chris M. 17:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Wikipedia has certainly failed on the Obama article. Obama himself had admitted that he was a Muslim "in his childhood years." This story has been picked up by the AP (e.g, here: http://asia.news.yahoo.com/070211/ap/d8n7n7bg0.html). But when we come to the Wikipedia article about him, there's nary a mention of this -- even to refute it. This is something that's going on out there right now and people want to know about it. I wonder why this isn't even addressed in the article. Are the people who regularly edit this article trying to suppress this fact? Gnossie 09:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The Sydney Morning Herald writes "In his books The Audacity of Hope and Dreams from My Father, Obama indicates that he was brought up a Muslim and converted to Christianity." Can someone please check in the books and proves or disproves this point? Emmanuelm 15:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is it so difficult to get a straight answer to a very simple question? Can Obama please answer yes or no to the following questions : Is he circumcised? Did he ever pronounce aloud the shahadah? Did he ever pray while kneeling towards Makkah? Emmanuelm 15:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't like to double-post but in this case I think it's necessary. The AP story was apparently a misunderstanding. Here's a direct quote from an official press release: "To be clear, Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim..."--Pharos 18:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Partial birth abortion

Has Obama taken any stance on this? if anyone knows. Chris M. 17:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If he is smart he will not take a stance. :-) Steve Dufour 18:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, true. Chris M. 06:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

He's pro-choice, if that's what your asking. I recall a TIME article hosted at CNN.com wherein Obama addresses other Christians about his abortion stance, but cannot find it right now. Italiavivi 18:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Edit: Found it. [10]

"So how can you support murdering babies?"

I told him I understood his position but had to disagree with it. I explained my belief that few women made the decision to terminate a pregnancy casually; that any pregnant woman felt the full force of the moral issues involved and wrestled with her conscience when making that decision; that I feared a ban on abortion would force women to seek unsafe abortions, as they had once done in this country. I suggested that perhaps we could agree on ways to reduce the number of women who felt the need to have abortions in the first place.

The man listened politely and then pointed to statistics on the pamphlet listing the number of unborn children that, according to him, were sacrificed every year. After a few minutes, I said I had to go inside to greet my supporters and asked again if the group wanted to come in. Again the man declined. As I turned to go, his wife called out to me.

"I will pray for you," she said. "I pray that you have a change of heart."

Neither my mind nor my heart changed that day, nor did they in the days to come. But I did have that family in mind as I wrote back to the doctor and thanked him for his email. The next day, I had the language on my website changed to state in clear but simple terms my pro-choice position. And that night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own--that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me.

No specific mention of the procedure you're asking about, though. Italiavivi 18:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I believe his comment about the fact that women don't make the choice casually implies that he probably wouldn't think it was reasonable for a woman to wait til that late. Although, I could be stretching his words obviously, that quote is very good, thank you. Chris M. 06:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Obama's new stylized "O" logo.

As seen at his site and online store. [11] Any idea what the copyright status on this campaign logo with regard to Wikipedia use would be? Have past articles made use of campaign yard signs/bumper stickers or logos? Italiavivi 18:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Under US law a creative work is copyrighted as soon as it is made. If other people start using it a work can lose its copyright. This happened with the "smiley face". I am not a lawyer however. Steve Dufour 18:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not public domain as works of the federal government are because a political campaign is not a federal government entity. It's almost certainly protected by copyright (possibly even trademark). We would have to claim fair use to use it here. And I am an attorney, though this is not legal advice, yada yada yada. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Put a bumper sticker on your car and photograph it. Obama will not sue you. :-) Steve Dufour 18:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It is, indeed, copyrighted, so a fair use claim would have to be made. However, if you look closely at Obama's new website, you'll see a Creative Commons licensing symbol along the bottom. It does not link to any legal pages yet, but it's entirely possible that Obama is licensing all content on the website under a CC license, which, depending on its iteration, may be compatible with Wikipedia. Someone would need to contact their legal team for clarification. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It is highly unusual for them to display the "CC" logo without clarifying the license. Reading their terms page one finds copying restricted to "personal use" only, and "bulk uses" are verboten. This is more restrictive than the strictest CC license, which only bans commercial use. It's pretty clear they don't understand what the Creative Commons is, and just thought it would look cool on the webpage. Too bad.--Pharos 19:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not very clear at all. The site launched at 12 AM this morning, and discrepancies in text (that very likely was copied from prior websites) isn't at all out of the question. I'm going to shoot them an e-mail to ask to clarify their licensing. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. And please point them to this page. And remind them that if they want their photos on Wikipedia, they'll have to be cc-by or cc-by-sa. Thanks.--Pharos 19:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll update when I have a response. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the senate campaign sign here on Obama's article, Ken Salazar's old Senate election logo is used at his article, with a Fair Use claim on the image itself. Hillary Clinton has the same, with her "Hillary" logo. I know George W. Bush used a stylized "W" logo for some campaign material, but can't find that one in use on Wikipedia anywhere. Italiavivi 19:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

We're still awaiting the board's official declaration, but based on Kat's letter summarizing policy, a fair use claim for a campaign logo would not be permissible unless there is scholastic value in including the logo (in other words, using it merely for decoration is not permitted). —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with who/what you're referring to. Kat's letter? Italiavivi 19:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[12] —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Italiavivi 20:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion at "In the news" over Obama/Rudy/Hillary announcements.

There is a debate here over whether candidate announcements for President of the United States are notable for inclusion on the Main Page's "In the news" section. I believe that the opposition in this discussion (and the previous discussion when Hillary's announcement was made) is in no way based upon the actual ITN candidate guidelines, and would appreciate further input from editors here. Obama's announcement is the main story not only within all U.S. news outlets currently, but also the BBC and France's Le Monde currently. Italiavivi 20:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The black Kennedy?

Foxnews used the Kennedy comparison today. He reminds me of JFK in some ways, he is handsome, youthful (JFK was one of our youngest Presidents) and something about his personality reminds me of JFK. A similar charisma leavened with sensitivity.

67.42.243.184 19:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've read at some Dutch news sites that Mr. Obama is being called the black Kennedy? Anyone knows if that is true, because i haven't read anything about it on American sites —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.105.35.109 (talk • contribs).

I've never heard him called that, but I can see how a parallel might be drawn. Steve Dufour 21:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Chris Matthews made that comparison this morning, though I don't think it's notable enough for inclusion in the article (at least not at the moment). —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope the expression doesn't catch on. :-) Steve Dufour 22:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

drug history

Why isn't there a section in "personal life" which speaks about his struggles with drugs and tobacco like in the Bush wiki page? --69.244.153.46 22:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably because Bush was still having "problems" when he was 40. Gdo01 23:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Or because Obama doesn't appear to have "struggled" with substances, just played with them as a teen. 71.198.52.89 23:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Another reason is that Bush was actually arrested and recorded while under the influence of substances. Most people didn't even have any concrete proof of Obama's drug use until he admitted it in his books. Gdo01 23:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The "Personal life" section does make mention of his past marijuana use. While I wish editors here would make his (very notable) "I inhaled frequently that was the point" quote more easily located, it's covered. So far's his tobacco use goes, see the discussion at WP:SMOKERS. Suffice to say, consensus appears to be against including tobacco use in most articles by default. Italiavivi 23:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

I could have sworn this page used to have a section for criticism. Most politician's pages have a spot for it, as well they should. I think one should be included here, with the bit about him purchasing a house and a developer purchasing the property next to his, and with the story of his "fundamentalist madrassa" education, followed by the debunking of the madrassa story. The madrassa story should definitely be mentioned here, as the story made it to national news outlets, and people who have heard the story but not it's debunking will visit this article and assume this page is maintained by Obama fans who don't want the "dirt" on Obama revealed. The information should be there. 71.198.52.89 23:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

With regard to Insight Magazine's false "madrassa" smear, Obama's Wikipedia article is still bound by Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons, and the section would have to be very carefully written. As for the non-story concerning his house, it was determined to be non-notable, and placing it under a "controversy" section (when no wrongdoing was alleged) could be seen as a POV maneuver. I can see a good argument for the "madrassa" bit included as a controversy (not a criticism), but agree with past editors that the non-story on his house is not notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Italiavivi 23:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There is an article about the madrassa claim and debunking here: Insight magazine "madrassa" media controversy. Gdo01 23:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

And that article will soon be merged with Insight's main article. Italiavivi 23:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "controversy" would be a better title, but I still think both stories should be mentioned. This is the first Google hit I got for "Obama house." That story quotes the original Chicago Tribune article saying "...the hows and whys of a real estate deal, and a train of subsequent transactions, are raising questions about the relationship between the two men, as Obama struggles to distance himself from Rezko, and Rezko strives to stay out of prison." The story doesn't have to outright allege illegal doings to be critical or controversial. Same with the madrassa story. I guess this seems important to me because these are the two criticisms I have heard people make about Obama in real life. If somebody wants information about Obama, they may come here, and I think they should be given, or at least directed to, the correct information. The madrassa story, especially, should be included, because it wasn't just Insight that published it. The story was all over FOX news, and how many people do you suppose saw the story there, but never saw the follow up on CNN or in the New York Times? The whole story should be covered. 71.198.52.89 07:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the house non-story, you knew specifically what you were Googling for, and I stand by my assertion that it is not notable enough for inclusion. If the words "drugs" and "cocaine" are not present at George W. Bush's article (with the link to "substance abuse controversy" being in a single paragraph), this house non-story doesn't belong on Obama's in two paragraphs. I also wonder if there's a degree of recentism here -- of what notable consequence will this house non-story be a year from now? In five years? Ten?

I do not necessarily disagree with your evaluation of the madrassa controversy, though, but will wait for input from other editors. Italiavivi 16:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The madrassa hoax undoubtedly deserves a reference here, but we must make it clear that it was indeed a hoax and a smear. --Hojimachong^talk_con 07:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism sections, in my opinion, tend to give undue weight to criticisms because they tend to be turn into dumping grounds for everything that is unleashed on the article's subject. They are equivalent to Trivia sections, IMHO. If the criticism is worthy of inclusion in the article, then they can be worked into the existing prose. As for the madrassa hoax and Howard's criticism, perhaps the presidential article is a better place for them. Howard's comments are too new to judge the impact, but the madrassa hoax has gotten several weeks of play in the media and will probably make re-appearances throughout the campaign. --Bobblehead 19:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Obama criticized by Australia's Prime Minister

(Cross-posted to Talk:John Howard.)

Today, Australian Prime Minister John Howard unleashed a pretty scathing criticism of Senator Obama, including saying that "If I was running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats" and "I think that would just encourage those who wanted to completely destabilise and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and victory for those terrorists, to hang on and hope for an Obama victory." Australian Labor Party opposition leader Kevin Rudd's response can be found here.

This is an unusually partisan criticism from a foreign head of state, is it notable for inclusion? Italiavivi 17:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I imagine it probably should be included somewhere. Perhaps in Howard's article as well as Obama's. As a side note, wow, that's an absolutely . . . idiotic statement by Howard. I wonder which Bush staffer wrote it for him? · j e r s y k o talk · 18:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Since this is in direct response to Obama's Iraq War bill, it should be noted directly after that in the article. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

And Obama's response can be found here --203.214.52.179 12:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

i think howards comments should be included. its been a major point on both sides. also to Jersyko. keep personal comments out of it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eevo (talk • contribs) 15:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Agreed, though it's hardly a "personal comment" if I'm talking about a public figure. Regardless, Wiki is not a soapbox, so I struck the relevant portion of my comment. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

Appears to be some vandalism on the first line. Could someone please fix this?

Thank You —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.108.253.233 (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Signature

I don't think it is wise to put the Signature of him (or anyone else for that matter) on Wikipedia. It's too much of a risk. Someone can use that in forgery/identity theft attempts. It's a liability, unless given permission by the person (who acknowledges the risks involved in such an action) I think the signatures should be taken down.

-theropisssed@yahoo.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.78.228.43 (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

It's common practice for politicians, and because they sign so many autographs anyway, there's little to no reason to believe that a picture of a signature in a Wikipedia article will increase the risk of identity theft. But mainly, it's hosted on his own senate website here, so clearly there's no reason to believe Obama is worried about ID theft. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I see. Well that's a very good point. You can see where i'm coming from though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.78.228.43 (talk • contribs).

Of course. The situation would be different if Obama weren't a public figure, and I know I wouldn't want my signature posted here, for example. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Muslim ???

Hello, Some people say that he was Muslim but left Islam. I wish to know that how much truth this thing has? I am not able to find anything of this kind in the article. I will be thankful with some answers. regards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.230.150.178 (talk) 11:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

He isn't muslim and hasn't been at all, at least not in his adult life. His father was, but turned atheist either when obama was very young, or before he was born. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mason11987 (talk • contribs).

It's not in the article because he was not raised as a Muslim - was never a Muslim - not as a child or as an adult. Tvoz | talk 18:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sworn in on a Quran?

NO

Worth a mention? For those of us that live outside the US, that was the 1st time he graced our TV sets. And what exactly was the occasion. (Looked for it on google and youtube, can't find it now).--nocturnal omnivorous canine 13:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This was a mini-controversy about someone else. Nothing to do with Obama at all. Steve Dufour 13:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A very long article about it here. Rather shocking it was such a big issue IMHO Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress. I would think in most other modern demoracies, people would say the commentators who complained were idiots, ignore them from now on and move on right from the beginning. Nil Einne 17:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but it WASN'T OBAMA. Tvoz | talk 18:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Biracial

I cut out: "If elected, he would become the first biracial president of the United States of America." I don't think he is especially noted for this. Besides the word "biracial" is so vague. I'm sure that some past presidents have ancestors of more than one race. Steve Dufour 14:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"Biracial" is a very vague, agreed. Chris M. 14:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I would have less objection if it said the first "black" or "non-white" president, or even "the first president of color". :-) Steve Dufour 14:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think sayign non-white would work best, since at least we can all agree that that's true.--Wizardman 18:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think having the sentence removed completely as it is now (last I looked) is the best solution. I'm sorry I didn't do that last night, but there were so many edits and reversions that I couldn't quickly see when that line had even gotten into the graf (one of my prime reasons for supporting sprot as everyone here has read me say too often) - so I removed the ridiculous redundancy of "biracial" and "non-white", and intended to come back today and see how it got there. So again, I think taking the line out completely, leaving the text as we have had it, is the correct way to go right now. Tvoz | talk 18:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was the one that added the line at first. It initially read, "If elected, he would become the first African-American, as well as the first biracial president of the United States. But I agree, it should be left out. And, I'll be damned if it solely states African-American/black/or whatever. shakam

Drug Use

Should we include in this article that Obama is the first mainstream Presidential candidate who has admitted drug use, marijuana and cocaine? I think this is an important piece of information, considering the federal regulations refusing special security clearances, such as those needed by a President, to specific types of drug use. This may be a major issue during the race. This is the very reason that Clinton "did not inhale" and Bush "did not use cocaine".

Any Thoughts? - Eisenmond 18:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the idea that a serving President of the United States (the man with his finger on the red button, let's remember) would be denied security clearances is bizarre and totally a non-issue. The denials of previous presidents (presuming they actually were users) would have been for purely political reasons, and nothing to do with security clearances.--Pharos 19:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The article already discusses Obama's admission of marijuana and cocaine use as a teen. I don't see a need to give that fact any more weight by labeling him the first presidential candidate to admit as much (and wasn't Clinton's statement essentially an admission? What about Bush's declining to discuss whether he used any illegal drugs before 1974? my point is that the lines are probably a bit fuzzy here to label one of them a "first"). Are reliable sources discussing Obama's alleged "first" in respect to it being a "first"? I haven't seen any. And I completely agree with Pharos in re the security clearances non-issue. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

New American Flag

This will be the new American Flag after he becomes president.

File:Americanflagnewug8.jpg