Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

George Hussein Onyango Obama

I just added to the family section the information about George Hussein Onyango Obama, as published yesterday by Vanity Fair Italy. It was removed by User:Speer320. Why? I verified the information and it is correct. --Dejudicibus (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a summary style article that spins off details like this into child articles (otherwise this would be several megabytes in size). There is currently an article for this individual that is expected to be merged into Family of Barack Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so where exactly should I place that information? In any case I think it would be more correct to talk about that here rather than simply delete. If Spear320 had asked me to move the information in a more suitable position, I would have do it. Do you agree?--Dejudicibus (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The information has already been added in the appropriate place. No need for you to do anything further. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but again Scjessey, your attitude is demeaning here. Try to be constructive and offer advice so that Dejudicibus is able to be a better editor in the future. DRJ (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Please drop the "demeaning" commentary, will you? You have not been part of this particular thread, and you've just stepped in to have a go at me. Clearly you are unaware that Dejudicibus and I had a long conversation about this here, rather than filling up this talk page with tangential meta discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course I'm unaware of that. The idea that a person can't come to a page and make comments w/out having significant history on that page is ridiculous and outside of the spirit of Wikipedia. Your attitude is important, and it's not tangential. Your attitude directly affects the reliability of the wiki-process. As I said above, I'm done. You all have a good time. DRJ (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears that you have misread my comment. My objection was that you had not commented in this particular thread (George Obama) and then you came out of nowhere just to have a go at me about my "attitude" (as opposed to commenting on the subject). Rather than lecturing me, you should be apologizing. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No apology will be forthcoming as I was not out of line. DRJ (talk) 05:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Randomly chastising longstanding editors for no apparent reason isn't out of line? You've been around long enough to know better. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Last word. :) DRJ (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so I'll answer the question. We've put all the Obama minor family members in the article Family of Barack Obama. The way they all got there was that some people added them here and they got deleted as being fairly unimportant to Obama's life. They created separate articles for each family member and those got deleted often as being non-notable. Tthe information had to go somewhere (it has lots of sources, and people want to know - it is notable). The best approach, meaning the one that hasn't been deleted, is to put all the family members together in an article. Hope that helps. Wikidemo (talk) 01:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Cited works

Answer to: Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 33#Criteria of entries within the Cited works section?

The "Cited works" are book references in the article cited by shortened footnotes (WP:CITESHORT).

Newross (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the purpose of the list; it helps a lot. However, you pointing me to WP:CITESHORT illustrates that two heading names should change.

According to WP:CITESHORT, we should name the numbered list of footnotes as Notes and name the following list providing full citations as References. That is the example the shortened footnotes section prescribes. I'm not saying to change it because of the style guide, but it seems more descriptive than Cited works. Tell me what you think.

WP:CITESHORT also indicates that the two headings should be the same size, but I think that is less essential than the nomenclature.

—Kanodin 03:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of dialogue, I implemented these changes here. Again, thanks to Newross for helping to inform me. —Kanodin 08:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Religion

Shouldn't his religion list him has "Christian - unaffiliated" he has in fact resigned from the united church of christ and is looking for another church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmehrabi (talk • contribs) 05:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama did not resign from UCC, he resigned from Trinity United Church of Christ. Until which time he selects a new church it is not known if his denomination has changed. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Religion currently listed as Muslim. I think people who purposely vandalise or spread misinformation should be temporarily banned from editing. --Mcgon (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Nomination

This is an issue that will resolve itself soon, but should he be listed as the (non-presumptive) nominee after he is given the nod from the convention delegates in about 20 min, or tomorrow night when he accepts the nomination? Whatever policy we use here could be seen as a guideline for other articles on Obama's campaign, McCain and his campaign, and the election page in general. Huadpe (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

He formally accepted the nomination tonight, though the speech will be tomorrow. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 22:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

He has not accepted the nomination tonight yet, seeing that it is currently 5 o'clock in the afternoon in Denver. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

From what I've read (NYT) he is now the official nominee, so we can make the change (I see that it already has been made). --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

CNN has just announced that he has been fully accepted by unanimous vote. Brothejr (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann on MSNBC said that even though Barack Obama accepted the nomination today, he will not officially be the party nominee until the conclusion of his acceptance speech tomorrow night.--Janus657 (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that it's OK to list him as the 'nominee' now because acceptance does not play into it. If he refused the nomination then it would be a whole other problem. However, the convention nominated him by acclamation and Pelosi named him. I think that his acceptance is merely confirmation. Doktor Waterhouse (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Pelosi said explicitly, "he has accepted the nomination" and that under by-law so-and-so, he has been invited to make an acceptance speech, which he will do tonight. She said all that twice, actually, though the first time it was drowned out by the noise of the crowd, and besides which, her microphone seems to have been turned off. I'm not sure where Olbermann's facts come from; he might be right, but the formal acceptance has occurred. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Recording needs to be redone

I will be re-doing the Spoken version of this article and hopefully my Midwestern accent will be more understandable. .:davumaya:. 18:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead, it's a great feature to have. Hobartimus (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

A start toward shortening the Political positions section

I shortened the "Political positions" section a bit, mostly by removing information about where Obama said various things, but with some other, minor edits. I also removed this:

Obama sought to make his early public opposition to the Iraq War before it started a major issue in his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign to distinguish himself from his Democratic primary rivals who supported the resolution authorizing the Iraq War, and in his 2008 U.S. Presidential campaign, to distinguish himself from four Democratic primary rivals who voted for the resolution authorizing the war (Senators Clinton, Edwards, Biden, and Dodd).

The section still has information on his position on the Iraq war, but this part seems outdated and, now, unimportant. Others may disagree. The section is still very long for a summary of another article and should be cut further. Noroton (talk) 05:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Noroton on his recent edits. Removing various names of organizations that he spoke before is definitely good, since that lent only a false specificity. In looking at the diffs, I had initially though the Iraq war position was cut excessively; however, once I read through what remains, I am quite comfortable that there is clear and sufficient description of that. The sentence Noroton removed is basically only duplicative, and more concise is always better if concepts are not lost. LotLE×talk 16:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I reorganized it putting all the foreign stuff together and the domestic stuff together and ended it with the voting ranking (liberal or conservative). Goss9900 (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Cocaine

Is it worth mentioning that Barack admitted to using cocaine?--UhOhFeeling (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Any responses? I think it is certainly noteworthy enough to be in the article.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 05:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Also I think it is noteworthy that he supports decriminalization of marijuana and used perhaps abused alcohol in his younger days.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 05:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Not noteworthy. Wikidemo (talk) 05:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Note: I changed my mind following the below discussion, particularly due to Obama's mentioning it at Saddleback. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

How so? Seems to me it belongs in the main page look at Bill Clinton and George W Bush.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 06:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

[out] It's not that it isn't noteworthy, it's that this section of the main article has just a summary of the much longer article Early life and career of Barack Obama which does go into his teenage drug use. We are trying to keep the main article to a reasonable size and we have an awful lot to cover, so have to pick which things to include in the summaries. As for his position on decriminalization - if it is a policy he's significantly developed (please provide citations), the proper place would be the subarticle Political positions of Barack Obama, and again a decision would be made as to whether it was significant enough in the range of positions we discuss to include in the summary section here. Thanks for your input. Tvoz/talk 06:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think this article has a little room to grow yet, and maybe a mention of Obama's past drug use could fit, but I think anything new in that regard should first be worked into the articles Tvoz mentioned. Obama has said he used cocaine early in life, and that certainly seems like a biographically significant fact, but with a biography written in summary style as this one is, it's helpful to think of the subarticles as simply expanded parts of the main article. --GoodDamon 06:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(ecX2) Clinton and Bush were in a previous generation, when revelations of drug use could end a political career and got major front page press. Even so I'm not very found of the allegations of drug use in the George W. Bush substance abuse controversy article - true or not, there's not much evidence to go on so it's just speculation and innuendo of an unencyclopedic nature there. Clinton by contrast was pretty open about his pot use, only he wouldn't talk about it directly, hence the "never inhaled" comment he later claimed was a joke, mainly notable as a cultural meme. This stuff is all tangential to this main article but could have a place somewhere else. In fact, if you search the subject of Obama and Cocaine comes up quite a few times in Wikipedia.Today about half of all Americans admit to having used illegal drugs. It's not a particularly notable thing that a particular person has or has not. The subject is treated in two sentences in Early life and career of Barack Obama, out of a total of four paragraphs about his life from birth through high school - that article points out that he claims to have never used it after his teenage years. This article spends a single paragraph going over the same period in his life. It does not seem like such a notable issue in proportion to his life. Wikidemo (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that, Wiki. Tvoz/talk 06:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Can't argue with that, well put.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 07:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Not notable enough for main biography. Sentence or two in early life is good coverage. LotLE×talk 09:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Could someone say what were the laws at the time this was done? Was posession or consumption of Cocaine a crime at the time and if so what would the sentence be if tried and convicted? Also "Today about half of all Americans admit to having used illegal drugs." what's the percentage of Americans using Cocaine? Hobartimus (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

For those comparing to Bush. In his main article. Bush gave up alcohol in 1986 and credits his decision to stop drinking to his wife, and alcohol is not even illegal. A similar sentence should go in here as it is an important aspect of his early life. Arzel (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that the alcohol use belongs in the main biography on Bush, but one difference is that news articles about Bush have made clear that his drinking -- and the subsequent decision to stop -- were major portions of and influences on his life, which may give it more biographical weight. --GoodDamon 17:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If you look at what is known of Obama's past and the potential ramifications of his cocaine admission. I think it is noteworthy. I think that the fact he used Cocaine is more relevant than other facts in the article because of the powder keg that it is. Here is an article about. it.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Notable. I think it's relevant for this BLP article. He identified it as part of his own greatest moral failing during the previous presidential forum. If he thinks of it as a big deal, who are we to disagree? A short sentence is best. DRJ (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Not notable . It belongs in Early life and career of Barack Obama, but not here. On a related note, UhOhFeeling described it as a "powder keg" (which I think is a gross overstatement); however, I was wondering if a "powder keg" was a clever euphemism for a barrel of coke! -- Scjessey (talk)

Yeah I thought that was kind of funny. I think it could be considering it just adds to the notion of how different he is but I guess that's neither here nor there. DRJ do you have a citation for it as his "greatest moral failing". I think that would certainly make it notable as George W Bush alcoholic to teetotaler is notable for his main article.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama said it in the Saddleback Church debate/forum here is a citation [1] I find this said above "If he thinks of it as a big deal, who are we to disagree?" extremely convincing, Obama identified this as important in his life. Hobartimus (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Notable. With that as a reference I don't think there is any doubt it belongs in the main article.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Notable. Still not sure it belongs in the main article, but that quote should certainly go into the Early life and career of Barack Obama article. --GoodDamon 22:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, any objections to adding the sentence "At the Saddleback Civil Presidential Forum Barack Obama identified his high-school drug use as his greatest moral failure." To the early years article and possibly this article.[2] A more thorough link.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, considering that the Saddleback forum was not notable enough for inclusion in and of itself... Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 00:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not the point.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It's been agreed that his cocain addiction was a notable part of his early life, and that's exactly why it's in the Early Life article. That Saddleback was not notable enough for inclusion here has everything to do with your sentence: "At the Saddleback Civil Forum Barack Obama identified his high-school drug use as his greatest moral failure." The answer is that it is not notable for inclusion for the same reason the Ayers material isn't: violation of WP:DUE. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 00:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Notable Hobartimus (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Why? This is an attempt to determine consensus, or a lack of it, not a majority vote. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Why? I already wrote above before I saw everyone doing the bolding bit that I'm impressed by the argument that "If he thinks it's notable who are we to disagree" in reference to the comments made by Obama when he was talking about it in that Church forum. Hobartimus (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa -- addiction????? I'd never heard that before! What is your source for that?? I'd heard a quote by Obama mentioning "a little blow" and I always thought it was a little recreational use. If he had an addiction, that really needs to be included. But I'd support inclusion even if the just used it. -- Noroton (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What does undue weight have to do with this. This isn't a view, this is a fact.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 04:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is here to help readers understand Obama's life. His taking cocaine is a small bit of information that helps understand his life. The topic shouldn't take up more than a small sentence, so I'd call it notable enough for inclusion. -- Noroton (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed especially when Obama himself notes that it was his greatest moral failure. Seems like a pretty significant part of someone's life. Especially considering people often vote based off of morality and the President makes a lot of decisions in which morals come into play. Agreed that it shouldn't be more than a sentence. Addiction seems to be a great overstatement and if so would certainly be notable. Nothing I have read has said anything close to that."Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though" Is one quote he gave.[3]--UhOhFeeling (talk) 04:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I still feel pretty strongly that there should be a mention of Saddleback's forum as it is, so I support including the language above. DRJ (talk) 05:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the way UhOhFeeling put it - I tightened it up, which I hope is okay, and also linked the Saddleback forum. Incidentally, I see this isn't mentioned in the Civil Forum on The Presidency article. Perhaps it should, if it's important enough to mention here. Wikidemon (talk) 05:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, the wording is more succinct.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Books about Obama

I changed the title of the "Books authored" section to "Books by and about Obama" and added a subsection on prominent books about Obama. Here's the text I added:

Other prominent books

In 2007, David Mendell, a reporter for the Chicago Tribune, published a full-length biography of Obama, Obama: From Promise to Power. Two bestselling books by critics of Obama were published in August 2008: the controversial The Obama Nation by Jerome Corsi, and The Case Against Barack Obama by David Freddoso.

Very clearly, books about Obama that reach the best-seller list (I think there are a total of only four) are notable features of Obama's life. So I was perplexed by Bobblehead's revert, with the odd edit summary: rv most of the edits by Noroton. Books authored by others is not important to Obama's bio

How can having bestselling books about your life and opinions not be notable? If there were 18 or so, as with, say, Bill Clinton, I could understand not mentioning every one. But there are only four. And we're supposed to have prominent facts about Obama in this article. How could this set of facts not be prominent? I also added a mentionn of the David Mendell book because it's been cited by so many sources that I've seen, although if someone disputes that the Mendell book is that prominent, I won't contest it (I have other things to do).

I'm sure Bobblehead has excellent, nonpartisan reasons for thinking that way, but I don't know what they are. Anyone else think it's important enough to add in a Wikipedia biography that instant bestsellers have been published about the subject? Anyone care to explain why this wouldn't be so? Clearly, WP:WEIGHT demands inclusion, doesn't it? -- Noroton (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Please find a biography on Wikipedia that includes a bibliography of books written about the person. George Washington has had hundreds of books written about him and quite a few have been best sellers and yet, not a single one is listed outside of the reference section. The only time a book written about the subject of an article is acceptable is when that book is used as a reference. Wikipedia is not a bibliography and has no responsibility to cover the books written about the subject of an article within the subject's article itself. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

George Washington has had hundreds of books written about him and quite a few have been best sellers and yet, not a single one is listed outside of the reference section. Simply because there are so many, they can't fit into the biography article. However, look at the bottom of the George Washington article. Here, I'll give you the link: George Washington#Further reading. Thanks for helping me to prove my point. -- Noroton (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Bobblehead, but I didn't attempt to put all or even many books about Obama in the article -- just the three most prominent, added to the two by Obama, so it's not a bibliography. Other books do exist, but they're not prominetn. What's the justification for including a whole section on two books? That isn't normal for WP:BLP articles either. We have many articles about authors and others who have written boks without whole sections on two books. If a ton of books about a person were bestsellers, then it would have to become a long list that wouldn't belong in the article because we'd only be able to provide a rather uninteresting list. But we can certainly mention two that have become bestsellers. Having a nationwide bestseller about the subject of a Wikipedia article is a pretty prominent fact about that subject which, by a neutral assessment should be considered important enough to be mentioned. Having two at the same time is even more prominent. I could agree that the Mendell book should not appear, but it is a widely quoted book about Obama and for that alone it seems a prominent enough fact about Obama's life to mention it. -- Noroton (talk) 02:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Please find a biography on Wikipedia that includes a bibliography of books written about the person. Why sure, Bobblehead! This is the equivalent passage in the biography of a certain other political figure:

Over fifty books and scholarly works have been written about Hillary Clinton, from many different perspectives. A 2006 survey by The New York Observer found "a virtual cottage industry" of "anti-Clinton literature", put out by Regnery Publishing and other conservative imprints, with titles such as Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House, Hillary's Scheme: Inside the Next Clinton's Ruthless Agenda to Take the White House, and Can She Be Stopped? : Hillary Clinton Will Be the Next President of the United States Unless .... Books praising Clinton did not sell nearly as well (other than the memoirs written by her and her husband). When she ran for Senate in 2000, a number of fundraising groups such as Save Our Senate and the Emergency Committee to Stop Hillary Rodham Clinton sprang up to oppose her. Van Natta, Jr. found that Republican and conservative groups viewed her as a reliable "bogeyman" to mention in fundraising letters, on a par with Ted Kennedy and the equivalent of Democratic and liberal appeals mentioning Newt Gingrich.

Will that do? -- Noroton (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What about:

• Nelson Rockefeller#Bibliography
• Henry Kissinger#Further Reading
• George H. W. Bush#Further reading
• Jimmy Carter#Further reading
• Rudy Giuliani#Books
• Neil Kinnock#Further reading
• Jacques Chirac#Bibliography

-- Noroton (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This effort to somehow, someway shoehorn in the attack pieces against Obama is a pretty obvious bit of bad-faith soapboxing. Let's keep an eye on this to make sure this absurdly tenuous and contentious addition doesn't get in. These bad faith edits are so far past the terms of the article probation as to make all sincere editors weep. Can't we please get some kind of action taken to actually enforce the probation?! LotLE×talk 02:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

LotLE, please dial back the rhetoric and discuss the content of the article and not the editors themselves. Regardless of your opinion of Noroton, it is immaterial to the subject at hand. If you have a concern about the enforcement of the probation on this article, you are welcome to make a post on the incident page for the probation, or if you feel that is unacceptable or doesn't get an appropriate response, make a posting on WP:AN/I. Personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith are not productive and is just as likely to get you a block/ban as it is to get the person you are complaining about. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the inclusion. BLP has been violated in leaving these out. Also Lotle seems to be assuming bad faith. So don't assume that LotLe. DRJ (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

And the addition of these three books just happens to include two partisan attack books designed to defeat Barack's presidential candidacy, one of which is an utter hack? Forget it. Wikidemon (talk) 06:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

And your comment is contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:WELLKNOWN. You are objecting that the section, which is very pro-Obama, should not be neutral by including even a short mention of books that are critical. The addition isn't even critical of Obama, but it might provide links to Wikipedia articles that are themselves neutral. But they are articles about a subject that you think is harmful to Obama. The implication of your comment is that you oppose our readers getting any more information that might lead them to a more critical opinion about Obama.We're not here to think for the readers, we're here to help the readers get information so they can think for themselves. Why do you think we should be concerned whether readers get a link to "two partisan attack books designed to defeat Barack's presidential candidacy" when Baracks two books were each associated with his runs for office and are themselves partisan books designed to promote his candidacies for various offices? Because there are other, encyclopedic, reasons for keeping mention of those books, I don't want mention removed from the article, but -- for encyclopedic reasons -- I want balance and additional information for the readers. We're supposed to be here to do that. What legitimate encyclopedic purpose is there for your 06:02 comment? Noroton (talk) 13:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This has been one of the most startling examples of agenda-based editing I have ever seen. There is absolutely no legitimate justification for putting political attack books into this article. These campaign-related books, one of which has been completely and universally discredited, have no biographical relevance. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The assumptions of bad faith aside, a complaint about the content of relevant material does not make it irrelevant. It just makes it irritating for you. And it is relevant content. This shouldn't even be a debate. Put it in. DRJ (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You are right, it shouldn't be a debate. Attack books do not belong in BLPs except in those extremely rare cases when they are used as references. Case closed. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

And you are wrong. These books are relevant and the case is not closed. Nice try. DRJ (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As opposed to autobiographical books written to promote him? Excluding books critical of Obama that have a negative POV, when other books mentioned in the article have a positive POV is an opposition to NPOV. If the "attack books" as you call them are excluded, then exclude his self-promotional books either. As to why the 3 books cited above would be included, they are the top-selling and most notable books about him. If it gives you the warm and fuzzies, keep in mind that the article would still have 3 positive books compared to 2 negative ones. -- Atama^chat 16:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point. It is quite normal to find a list of works by the subject on their BLP, but the attack books are not significant to Obama's biography. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(Resetting indent) Could someone please explain the relevancy of the attack books to Obama's biography? I'm not saying that positive books belong here either, but these attack books hardly seem relevant to the man's entire life, especially considering they -- along with books that have a positive spin, too -- will fade from all memory in a couple months. This seems a rampant case of recentism to me. --GoodDamon 17:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. These books are not biographical in nature, they are political. They are political attacks in hardcover form, basically just long-form editorials, and it is highly unlikely that they will ever be read or mentioned once the campaign has concluded. They are notable to the campaign not the biography. They certainly warrant a mention in the campaign article, if they haven't been already.

By way of example, an editorial in the Wall Street Journal about Obama is certainly noteworthy, but not notable to his biography. Adding words doesn't change that fact. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

and it is highly unlikely that they will ever be read or mentioned once the campaign has concluded. [...] They are notable to the campaign not the biography -- no more or less than much of the other information now in the article. And, frankly, you really don't know how much they will or won't be read after the election. I think everybody expects this article to change after the election, especially if he wins. If he doesn't win, the books are going to remain important as his possibilities in the next election remain important. So we just don't know. And the books are close to being biographical in nature, but that's also not material. They are books about Obama, they are most of the books ever written about him, and they are instant bestsellers or very influential. -- Noroton (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, while the "positive" 3rd party biography was obviously only added as an afterthought in an effort to shoehorn in the attack books, as a general principle there is also no reason to include a positive or neutral biography. Obviously, if a source is used to support particular facts in the article, we need to footnote it; there is no need, however, to list 3rd-party descriptions of the bio subject in the main text (whether book length or shorter). Books written by the bio subject are very different (even if they happen to be autobiographies or memoirs): in that case, it is the act of writing or promoting the book that is important to a subject's biography (in this case the fact that the subject's primary income has been book sales adds to the biographical significance of authorship). LotLE×talk 17:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I can accept that autobiographical books can be mentioned solely because the article's subject wrote them. But then why is it necessary for there to be so much information about their content in the article? Including the glowing reviews about the books that talk about how Obama is able to "speak in some way to the fissures of race that have characterized the American experience", and that he is "a man of relative youth yet maturity, a wise observer of the human condition, a figure who possesses perseverance and writing skills that have flashes of grandeur" and he has a potential to "construct a new politics that is progressive but grounded in civic traditions that speak to a wider range of Americans"... How can anyone not see this as a way to slip in a positive POV? -- Atama^chat 18:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

In this respect I agree with Atama completely. I've never been a fan of the expansive book section, which I regard as nothing more than puffery. The books have their own articles, and I see little reason to do anything other than list them (as is usual for politicians) - particularly because this is a summary style article. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

as a general principle there is also no reason to include a positive or neutral biography For general principles, see Wikipedia:Layout#Further reading. This is in the "Standard appendices" section of that guideline. The Hillary Clinton article has a passage on books, and it even focuses on the attack books. In Barack Obama's short turn on the national stage, he's had two critical books that are best sellers. We don't normally devote as much space as this article does on books that a political candidate has written about himself and his beliefs, although I don't oppose including that extremely positive information about Obama. After all, his books were bestsellers and they contribute to the public's preception of him. Just as these books are bestsellers (and Mendell's book is influential) for the same reason. As to being a part of the activities of Obama's life, that adds to the reason to keep information about them in the article, but not to the extent this article does. And none of the reasons to include the Obama-written books are arguments against including these other books. Noroton (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• I can't help but notice how impervious the opposition here is to

1. Arguments about WP:NPOV and WP:WELLKNOWN -- it's as if I never brought them up or as if they never existed. Editors are supposed to try to transcend their own POV and look at these questions with as neutral an eye as possible, and there is no evidence whatever that the editors opposing this have done so. Some arguments appeal to neutral standards, and I've countered them (examples from other articles, for instance, and I've just now pointed to the Layout guideline)
2. Arguments that this subject should be treated generally the way we treat other subjects. We commonly include information on books about other subjects (I list a good number of examples above), including mentining books that are not favorable to other subjects (see Hillary Clinton quote above), but somehow it's OK to have a whole section about two books this subject has written and to include fawning praise for it, but it is grossly unfair -- shockingly unfair -- to even mention that there are these critical books out there. What an incredible twisting of WP:NPOV into the idea that to include negative information about Obama in this article is somehow unfair to him.

-- Noroton (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What "opposition"? If you are arguing that editors always seem to find a rule to fit their content position, that's hardly limited to one side of this discussion, and in fact seems endemic to editing Wikipedia. WELLKNOWN does not apply here - this is an NPOV question. WELLKNOWN is a limited exception to BLP, although you have argued an idiosyncratic, expansive interpretation of WELLKNOWN as an exception that swallows the entire BLP rule in terms of who is covered, for what purpose, and what derogatory content it allows through the gates. However you look at it, it certainly does not leap of the BLP page and start swallowing the NPOV rule, where it has no bearing. The NPOV objection is real, regarding adding a new section comprising mostly partisan attempts to defeat Obama's candidacy. If someone proposed to add a short list of Sudoku books we could talk about style guidelines and relevance. But when the proposal is to add campaign attack literature there's a threshold NPOV issue before we even get there. The arguments that this article is too positive and needs to be spun to be more critical of Obama are getting rather tired at this point - an attempted re-spin of the article is another NPOV issue. Anyway, does this look like it has a reasonable chance of gaining consensus? If not there are some better uses of time and energy.Wikidemon (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The NPOV objection is contrary to Wikipedia standard practice of including mention of books favorable, neutral and unfavorable. I've shown that this is the way we treat Hillary Clinton and plenty of others. I've shown that it's completely within our standard practices to mention books about BLPs. What's outside our standard practice -- what's unusual, not that it's wrong -- is to have so much information about a politician's two books.

We're not adding the arguments from Corsi's or Freddoso's books, we're mentioning that these prominent bestsellers exist and pointing to our neutral articles on them. It's not a question of spin, although that's how I see you arguing this. It's a question of approach. I support having information on Obama's two books in the article partly because, as LotLE points out, his having written them is a feature of Obama's life. The fact that simply mentioning them is to tell readers a positive thing about Obama is immaterial since they are important. But that isn't the only reason to include mention, and if it were the only reason, we'd have maybe a couple of sentences about each and be done with it.

The other important reason to include mention of those books is that we point readers to one of the resources that exist and are widely known to exist and are influential in public perceptions of Obama. This neutral, encyclopedic reason is exactly the same for the Mendell, Corsi and Freddoso books. Just as the positive nature of mention of Obama's books is not an important consideration, the negative nature of mention of the two books that criticize Obama is not an important consideration. In each case, for four books, we point the reader to neutral Wikipedia articles about those books. THAT is encyclopedic, nonpolitical justification. YOUR arguments should address it.

The reliability of the Corsi book is immaterial to mentioning its importance and pointing readers to the Wikipedia article on it. No reliable source that I know of has called the Freddoso book unreliable, but again, that doesn't even matter. What I've described is essentially the way this encyclopedia is supposed to be built. It is not "derogatory content" to mention that the books even exist -- let's call it what it is: content in terms of POV that shows that books critical of Obama have become bestsellers, call it "negative POV", but the material I propose adding is not critical of Obama in any other way, simply because I haven't proposed describing the books in any way that actually criticizes Obama -- and even with my proposed addition, the section would still be heavily POV weighted toward Obama. Looking at that section with a neutral eye, you'd have to look at the positive POV, and I invite you to do so. -- Noroton (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC) (((clarified comment about "derogatory" with material within dashes)))' -- Noroton (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC); broken up into paragraphs -- Noroton (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• WP:WELLKNOWN: In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

The sources you've been quoting for some time are partisan blogs and opinion columns. When they're not partisan blogs and opinion columns, they're news articles about the attacks from partisan blogs and opinion columns. WP:WELLKNOWN specifically requires the sources to be reliable. Your sources aren't. Look... If someone starts a rumor that I fly to the moon every Saturday, and it gets picked up by enough nutballs that the rumor makes the nightly news, that doesn't mean the nightly news has verified the rumor, and it doesn't mean the rumor goes into my WP:BLP page (assuming I had one). If, on the other hand, the nightly news played verified video of me in flight, then it could go in my bio.

• Now, as for wikilinking the attack books, I'm against it. I'm also against it for Clinton, McCain, and just about any other living person, and think those should be removed from the subject's biography articles, because I don't think they pass muster with WP:BLP. But then, I'm an exclusionist. You described yourself in an earlier edit (can't find where at the moment) as an inclusionist, but I respectfully disagree, especially when it comes to areas treading close to libel.
• And finally, WP:NPOV. I think this is the most sorely abused policy in Wikipedia, because people always misread it to mean positive and negative content must be balanced. It doesn't mean that. If 99% of reliably sourced content on a subject is negative, and 1% is positive, it would be extreme POV-pushing not to match roughly that ratio in the article. The neutral POV in that case is overwhelmingly negative. Likewise, if the sourced content is mostly positive, the neutral POV is going to appear positive. Sure, the article must be written without judgment as to the "truth" of any viewpoint, but that doesn't mean we need to strive to find positive quotes about Pol Pot.

There's also WP:WEIGHT to be considered, which I should remind you is part of WP:NPOV:

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article... Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.

Like it or not, the viewpoint you've been pushing is held by a very small minority. That they've made enough noise to themselves be reported on by news organizations is interesting, but does not go in Barack Obama's WP:BLP. --GoodDamon 19:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

GoodDamon, much of my reply at 19:56 to Wikidemo applies to your post, as well.

• WP:WELLKNOWN: the part about sourcing doesn't apply to this, since we're not using those books as sources, but mentioning that these prominent bestsellers and influential book (Mendell) exists. The part that applies is this: If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article The fact that influential books have been published is notable and relevant to this subject. I can go about documenting how influential Mendell's book is, if that's necessary (it isn't a negative book about Obama at all, incidentally). If the rumor that you fly to the moon is the subject of two bestselling books, mention that those books exist should be in your BLP article and those bestsellers would be worth their own article or articles. They would be important.
• You're an exclusionist. Fine. Exclude all but a couple of sentences each on Obama's books. Then you'll be consistent.
• Percentages of positive and negative content is -- obviously, very roughly -- a way that we balance reliably sourced opinions, but we are supposed to approach content about facts by looking at the most important features of a subject. The inclusion of the books is based on the fact that books influential about Obama have been written, that the fact that these prominent books have been written is important to understanding his life. To exclude mention of the fact that the books exist because they reveal a negative fact about Obama is inconsistent with the mention of the fact that Obama's two pro-Obama books exist which reveal a positive fact about Obama. The objection on the grounds that they are critical of him runs against WP:NPOV policy and WP:WELLKNOWN policy for that reason.
• Like it or not, the viewpoint you've been pushing is held by a very small minority -- that's why they're bestsellers? A political candidate gets opposition. Mentioning that opposition in the BLP of that candidate is not to violate WP:NPOV, but to follow it.

-- Noroton (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• It's worth noting how we treat Rudy Giuliani in his Wikipedia article. Some examples in the Rudy Giuliani#Books section -- these are just the negative books with negative titles (it's important to understanding Giuliani that we mention at least some of these books):
  • Barrett, Wayne, (2000). Rudy!: An Investigative Biography of Rudolph Giuliani. Basic Books, ISBN 0-7567-6114-X (Reprint by Diane Publishing Co.)
  • Barrett, Wayne & Collins, Dan (2006). Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11. Harper Collins. ISBN 0-06-053660-8.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Koch, Edward I. (1999). Giuliani: Nasty Man. Barricade Books. ISBN 1-56980-155-X. Reissued, 2007.
  • Newfield, Jack, (2003). The Full Rudy: The Man, the Myth, the Mania. Thunder's Mouth Press, ISBN 1-56025-482-3

-- Noroton (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The NPOV argument does not pass the straight face test. Of course when the subject of the article publishes autobiographies we mention them - we don't need to include books disparaging him for balance. The routine opposition to a candidate's election efforts is mildly notable, and goes in the election article. Thanks for pointing out the Giuliani article. I see some of the frequent editors here also worked on that article. What a mess. I've trimmed some of the inappropriate external links but the book section is too formidable for me to get into it. Perhaps the whole thing should go. That people have published anti-Obama books is not even an allegation it is a fact. There's no attempt to deny it, only that it's a coatrack and it is not related to this article on his biography. Promoting those books as serious biographies is unwarranted. If we wanted to put this in perspective, "In August, 2008 two partisans wrote bestselling books attempting to defeat his presidential election efforts by discrediting him. One was widely regarded as disinformation, the other as simply biased." But that's not terribly relevant to his life - much more so to the campaign article. It does not appear that there will be consensus for including these books here so I suggest we devote energies elsewhere. Wikidemon (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You have a lot of work ahead of you: List of books about Hillary Rodham Clinton#Anti-Clinton. Twenty-three books in that section, the largest section of that list. Feel free to go throughout Wikipedia knocking out mention of books critical of the BLP subjects. Keep in mind that the negative books about Giuliani are some of the most important books about Giuliani. Whether or not they're accurate. If we should characterize the two bestselling negative books the way you propose, how would you characterize Obama's two books? Note that he was promoting his first book at about the time he first ran for office and was doing book signings that flowed smoothly into his campaign publicity. Same thing with his second book. And at the bottom of our article The Audacity of Hope we have a link to excerpts of the book -- on the Obama presidential campaign website. My proposed addition is not promoting these books as serious biographies any more than including mention of Obama's books is. It's pointing out significant facts to the readers. Perhaps you could explain, with a straight face, how we are NPOV by including so much information about books only positive toward Obama while you argue we should not mention books because they are critical of Obama. What a mess that section is. -- Noroton (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, inappropriate wikilinking and exernal linking occurs throughout the encyclopedia, sometimes even on decent articles. It gets very difficult to trim back when the lists get particularly long. Trimming external links is much easier thanks to WP:EL, which basically says that external links should be cut to a minimum. Obama's books are characterized as books authored by the subject of the article, no more. One is an autobiography, the other something of a position statement or essay on the body politic. They are in there as the works of the subject of the article. As such, whatever their bias they are worth mentioning and to do so is neutral. We usually don't add bibliographies to articles. That's harmless but against best style practices in most cases when it happens. As in this case, where the motive and effect seems to be a POV coatrack, we have to be extra careful. This is getting ridiculous. Wikidemon (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstood or folks have misspoken. This is not about promoting balance, it's about promoting completeness. This article feels radically incomplete w/ no mention of very prominent aspects of the subject's life. Drop the "no need to balance" argument because that's beside the point. DRJ (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Redo the books

Rather than pointlessly bickering over what should be in and what should be out, I propose that we remove the "puffery" about the two books that currently exists (they already have their own articles), replacing it with a section entitled "Works" that is more inline with what is done of the BLPs of other politicians:

• Obama, Barack (1995). Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. Three Rivers Press. ISBN 0307383415. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)
• Obama, Barack (October 17, 2006). The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream. Crown Publishing Group / Three Rivers Press. ISBN 0307237699. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Obama, Barack (March 27, 2007). Barack Obama in His Own Words. PublicAffairs. ISBN 0786720573. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• National Urban League (April 17, 2007). The State of Black America 2007: Portrait of the Black Male (Foreword by Barack Obama ed.). Beckham Publications Group. ISBN 0931761859. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Obama, Barack (March 1, 2008). Barack Obama: What He Believes In - From His Own Works. Arc Manor. ISBN 1604501170. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Text "coauthors:U.S. Senate" ignored (help)
• Obama, Barack (June 13, 2008). Barack Obama vs. John McCain - Side by Side Senate Voting Record for Easy Comparison. Arc Manor. ISBN 1604502495. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Change We Can Believe In: Barack Obama's Plan to Renew America's Promise (Foreword by Barack Obama ed.). Three Rivers Press. September 9, 2008. ISBN 0307460452. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Any books about Obama that are not written by (or include writing from) Obama himself should be in a separate section, if at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. If anyone wants to read more about the books listed they can follow the wikilinks for the books. -- Atama^chat 21:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That format looks good. I would include 2-3 sentences each about his major books because they are of biographical importance - one involved reconnecting with his family, the other seems to relate to his decision to run for president. When we write about authors we often describe the writing process. Those could go either after the mention of the book, or better, could be worked into the prose of the article. I agree we should remove any fluff about positive or negative reception of the books. Moreover, any biographical details from the books should simply be worked into the article if notable, and cited to the book. The books do not need a separate section each. Wikidemon (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see such details worked into the prose of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added the "works" section and substantially chopped down the "books authored" section. The latter will need more work, preferably working it into the article as Wikidemon suggested. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

And I will revert add relevant "works about." This addition of detail is totally out of line with everything you and others have argued to this point. The details about the books, as per your own reasoning, belong not in this article as per WP:WEIGHT, and belong rather in a separate, Books by Barack Obama page. Additionally, there is no consensus yet for limiting the list at hand to only books by the subject, so for now, we'll add important books about. Discussion remains open. DRJ (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sections on books authored by article subject are standard. If some are too trivial to mention we can deal with them individually. There is obviously no consensus for (and there is a consensus against) adding books by other authors, particularly the two anti-Obama attack books. Therefore, please do not add this - it will simply be reverted as lacking consensus. Details already seem to be in the article, but we'll double check and edit these out so that the end point is not to have a free-standing paragraph about Obama's books. Wikidemon (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I can self-revert what I've added for now, but there's no "consensus against" as you put it. We can toss it out there and see if there's consensus in one direction or another, though. Also, I'll do as mentioned and edit out the free-standing paragraph. DRJ (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I note that you seem to have added it before reading my comment, and I reverted before reading your reply - so neither of us were trying to be contentious, perhaps just editing too fast. Thanks for keeping it calm. I may be out of pocket for a few hours but my take on this should be clear from the above. Wikidemon (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree on the non-contentiousness and as a side note would also like to thank you for your generally calm and reliable tone on this discussion page. DRJ (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

So, we should omit the short list of books about Obama, including two bestsellers, in favor of adding every single book with any bit by Obama, including simply his name on the "Forward"? Does anybody even think he wrote the foreward to Change We Can Believe In, due out on September 9? Did he write the forward while he was on the campaign trail? Anybody even believe that? And this is more important than David Mendell's book, which is cited massively by reliable sources (books, magazines, newspapers)? I do actually think something more than the titles of both Obama books is worth keeping in the article, and I would do with Obama what we do with most major political figures: Include mention of books that are positive, neutral or negative about them, because that's the best thing we can do for our readers. When the list eventually gets too long, make it a separate list article, as with Hillary Clinton. I think this is a slight improvement. -- Noroton (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I trust you have evidence that Obama didn't right the foreward to Change We can Believe In, or are you just making a BLP violation? You're getting a bit hysterical here, Noroton. But on to the topic at hand. Perhaps a better model for the listing would be McCain's article, which splits the writings section up into Books written by and Forewords written by... I'm also a bit leery about including the "In his own words" books as they aren't really written by Obama, but rather just a collection of his sayings. Being the author means you have control over what goes in the book, but most of the books in the list where he's listed as the author, Obama didn't have any control over them. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the "in his own words" books are probably not desired (I just included everything when I made the list - see subsection below), but I think it highly unlikely that a Obama would claim to write something he hasn't, as Noroton has suggested above. Howard Fineman and Richard Wolfe (both of Newsweek) said on MSNBC that Obama spent a lot of his time writing, and that the "Change We Can Believe In" book is the result of many months of work and refinement with his policy team. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see the point in listing everything he's got his name on, as you say. (Whoa! We agree!) But it is perfectly normal for a biography about someone who has written entire books to include those books.

On the issue of consensus, I don't think it can rightly be said to have gone one way or the other, as the discussion about which books to list and where is relatively new. I can see it going one of two ways:

• A section devoted to books about the subject of the article, pro and con, limited to ones that have Wikipedia articles. There are some biographies of other politicians that have similar lists. I am against this, as I consider it needless topic creep and a coatrack issue. Note I'm also against it in the other biographies where such lists appear, although I'm for it for biographies of nonliving people, as those are typically scholarly, reliable, non-political pieces.
• Just say no, and treat this like the WP:BLP that it is. No lists of books for and against the man that have very little to do with his actual life. Obviously, this is the one I'm in favor of -- and would like to see happen in other WP:BLP articles as well. --GoodDamon 23:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well put GoodDamon. Apart from the question-begging definition (defining a no vote as BLP) in the second option, I think that's a great summary of the two possible outcomes. I am in favor of the first. DRJ (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Note about the list

When I compiled the list, I took the example at Joe Biden#Works as a template and then just listed all the books that I found on Amazon.com in chronological order. I have no idea whether or not this is a complete list, and I was not making any judgment calls over which should be included or not - I simply listed them all. I included the "forward only" books because that seemed to match what had been done at Joe Biden. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Presidential Nominee 'vs' Nominee

Twice I've edited in, that Obama is the Democratic party's presidential nominee (to differentiate from the vice presidential nominee) & both times I was reverted to nominee. What the problem? GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the Joe Biden article it states in the introduction that he is the "Democratic vice presidential nominee in the 2008 U.S. presidential election". Clearly that makes sense, if they didn't state that he is the nominee for Vice President you might assume he was the nominee for President. For consistency's sake, as well as for clarity, I think your edits were appropriate. The justification for undoing your edits was, "this is redundant. 'presidential nominee in the presidential election' is just clumsy English." That's simply untrue, it's neither redundant nor unnecessarily clumsy. There are 2 nominees in the presidential election from each party, and without disambiguation you can't tell which one is which. If anyone thinks that the Vice President isn't nominated, they need to read this section. As for being "clumsy", if anyone can think of a better way to disambiguate, do it. -- Atama^chat 00:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: Try putting the office after 'nominee'. For example, Joe could be the 'Democratic nominee for vice president in the 2008 U.S. presidential election'. A vice presidential nominee sounds redundant because it uses an identical word when combined with a U.S. presidential election, although the repeated word serves two different functions in the sentence. My example solution bears the cost of an extra 'for' in the sentence, but makes each word unique. —Kanodin 09:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

References in Infobox and Lead...

The infobox and lead of the article are supposed to reflect information presented within the article. Because of this, having references for this information in the infobox and lead are superfluous so long as the information in the body of the article is properly sourced. I've moved around references to accommodate this. —  X  S  G  06:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

How comfortable are you that this is the preferred style for featured articles? I'll take your word for it but I often cite the name or the infobox data. Then again I usually work on stub to B-class articles, and usually organizations rather than people. Is it unnecessary duplication just to move the cite into the body? The reason why these two citations are highlighted in the lead are that both issues (the candidate's exact name and his racial/ethnic designation as an African-American) have been subject to a lot of confusion, edit warring, hand-wringing, etc., particularly by editors new to the article. In the case of the name he is generally known as Barack Obama, although it is customary in Wikipedia articles to start the lead off with the full formal name. The "Hussein" part is the subject of well-known politics, so it is generally avoided in casual references, and the matter of "Jr." versus "II" (both of which have been used in his life) is the subject of lots of confusion, and even a few fringe conspiracy theories having to do with his birth certificate being fake, etc. And then African-American (versus bi-racial, of African heritage, etc.) gets into matters of race we would rather not have to deal with in the first ten words of this article. I have no objections, just wanted to let you know how it came about. Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 08:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just re-read WP:LEAD, and reviewed former Featured Articles, and I note that it's a mixed bag. If the content in the lead is truly a summary (and not a teaser) of the content in the body then this shouldn't become an issue. If, however, content starts getting removed from the lead because of this, then it will be a simple matter to move the references back. I'm positive that this article has enough editor attention (including myself) that important content won't be removed without notice. So, in summary, I'm not confident that every other editor will agree to this principle, but I/we can compromise if they don't. —  X  S  G  14:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"Barack" means "the blessed one" in Arabic language

The name "Barack" means "the blessed one" in Arabic language. I don't see where is this information in the article. --Onesbrief (talk) 11:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Add it. Smuckers ^{It has to be good} 13:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That should be, "If you've got a citation for this, add it." —  X  S  G  15:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Except it doesn't. Mubarack is "The blessed one". Barack means "bless". But then, Barack also means "lightning" in Hebrew... Hussein is basically "handsome boy". The misinterpretation of the meaning of Obama's name is as a result that people assume that Barack is a shortened version of Mubarack and are applying that meaning to Barack. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 15:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to add.. It is more likely that Barack was named with the Swahili, the language of his father's people, meaning in mind, which is "Blessing". --Bobblehead ^(rants) 15:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You think his first name is Swahili even in light of his middle name, Hussein? It's certainly possible, but I wouldn't count on it. I do find it interesting that the Hebrew root ברוך, which means "blessed", has apparently permeated into Swahili as well. It's notable, therefore that Arabic and Hebrew both have a proto-semitic ancestor language, and that about 35% of Swahili derives from Arabic. That being said, I don't question your facts, but I do question whether your facts lead to the conclusion that Barack was named in Swahili fashion. —  X  S  G  16:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

From what I read the Hebrew version (Baruch - blessed) and Arabic, the Arabic Barak or Baraka, plus forms in other language, all come from the same place. More specifically he's named after his father, and it seems that his grandfather's being a devout Muslim had something to do with it. But absent any proof who is to say? If you name somebody "Sarah" does that mean it's a biblical Hebrew name, a family name, you're a fan of a singer named Sarah, or you just like the way it sounds? And what difference does it make? The origin of the name comes up in a related article having to do with the old smear about his middle name, Hussein. Wikidemon (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the name-origin of "Barack", and whether or not his parents had this origin in mind, it's just trivia to present in a person biography. We've been through this discussion before, FWIW. To my mind, it would resemble putting in his astrological charts in the article: in both cases, both citable, someone might find it interesting (or some would imagine, even determinative of something about his life), but as factual biography it's irrelevant. The only case where such a name origin might be relevant is if a bio subject had deliberately changed their name as an adult to something they found meaningful (which is not the case here). LotLE×talk 17:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Try telling that to Dweezil Zappa :). I agree with you mostly, in this case. Some people (and cultures) do consider names to be an important part of personhood. The matter is treated elsewhere because his name does come up in some political contexts, and it's just not important enough to take up real estate here. Wikidemon (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

By Wikipedia's Own Referenced definition, Obama is also European American

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

Closed as WP:POINT of disruptive editor who has been blocked for this before on this article - Wikidemon (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

i noted this and it was removed, even though factually accurate and referenced... European American —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invertedzero (talk • contribs) 13:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

hey, guess what, i don't care whether its been discussed to death already, who exactly are you to determine this? It's factually correct. I didn't state that Obama is European american, i stated that according to wikipedia's own referenced definition, Obama is also European american. Equality my arse! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invertedzero (talk • contribs) 13:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death already, see above discussions and archives. Obama is African-American. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 13:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

the media has also called bill clinton black on many occasion, should we reference him as black in his article :)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invertedzero (talk • contribs) 13:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama IS also European American. Fact. Well at least he's put down as african american, which is more accurate than black... Invertedzero —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC) s(Invertedzero (talk) 13:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC))

He identifies as African-American. End of story. Wikipedia is not going to publish original claims about Obama just because you think it's so. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 14:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok guys this is kind of silly. He self-identifies as an African-American, the vast majority of Americans looking at him would identify him as an African-American, and almost all the media identify him as an African-Amercian. The article makes it clear he had a white mother and a black father. And actually, looking at the article, should the "black" in "Black Kenyan" be capitalized and should the "white" in "White Amemrican" be capitalized. I think black and white in that context are just common adjectives that shouldn't be capitalized. I would change them myself, but given my account name I think I would be quickly reverted. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama's ethnic/race designation is discussed in the FAQ at the top of this page. For further background, please search and review the talk page history. Wikidemon (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

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

A couple comments

Howdy. I was wondering if {{reflist|2}} was ever discussed as an option for the article? According to the template's page it is suggested against using 3 columns. Also, it appears that the usage of the {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} and {{FAQ}} on this talk page are currently bugged somehow. They don't appear to be collapsing like they should be. I copied the related text over to my sandbox's talk page, and they both collapse fine there.--Rockfang (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The article has been using {{reflist|2}} until this edit yesterday by Smuckers, and I have no objection to it being reverted. I don't have any experience with the collapsing sections myself. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason I changed it was because it looks nicer, reflist|2 is too crowded since the article is "carefully" referenced, reflist|3 looks cleaner and makes the article shorter. it is important to keep the article short as possible since it's becoming {{toolong}} I have added a {{verylongsection}} to the reference section. Have a nice day Smuckers ^{It has to be good} 17:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Not all browsers have the ability to display columns like that anyway. I think it best left at {{reflist|2}} per guidelines. The {{verylongsection}} tag does not apply to references, and the article is nowhere near "too long" according to WP:LENGTH. "Readable prose" currently stands at 31 kB (5038 words). -- Scjessey (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Internet Explorer does not display columns at all, and 3 or more columns looks terrible on small or portable displays. This is all being discussed at Template talk:Reflist currently. (That's the gist). -- Quiddity (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: I just copied the whole upper section to my Sandbox's talk page, and there, they all properly collapse. Any ideas?--Rockfang (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue with the sections not collapsing was probably due to an error in {{WikiProject Politics}} that caused a broken link to appear on pages which have a /Comments subpage, which makes IE7's jscript crash if certain gadgets are enabled; this same issue came up recently at Template talk:WikiProjectBannerShell#Broken?. I've made the correction to {{WikiProject Politics}}, let me know at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#collapsing boxes if it didn't work. Anomie⚔ 23:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama does not hold kenyan citizenship

there are rumours that obama holds kenyan citizenship, for example http://www.politicalgateway.com/main/columns/read.html?col=731

However, he is not, as if someone is born abroad to a kenyan father, they only obtain kenyan citizenship if they were born in or after 1963. Obama was born in 1961. Also, if a Kenyan citizen holds another nationality aswell as kenyan citizenship, he or she automatically loses his/her kenyan citizenship at the age of 23. Since Obama was a US citizen at the age of 23, this is another reason he does not hold Kenyan citizenship. Here is my reference for that statement: http://www.kenyahighcommission.net/passports.html

Is this worthy of inclusion in the article? some feedback would be goodGuitar3000 (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Nah, don't include. Dispelling every rumor about a non-fact is a matter of tilting at windmills. Even the brief blurb about his misperception as being Muslim feels slightly out of place, though I think that was included by way of reference to his actual Christianity in an OK way. I guess we might be able to clarify that he is a USA citizen if that is not sufficiently prominent (but probably it already is). LotLE×talk 17:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Should Barack and Obama redirect here?

...or should these go straight to the disambiguation pages? Dalejenkins | 21:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

My druthers is that they both redirect here. DRJ (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes they should Smuckers ^{It has to be good} 22:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Easily the most notable article for either names. --GoodDamon 23:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not an argument at all. Does Elton link to Elton John? No

Does Angelina link to Angelina Jolie? No

Does Clooney link to George Clooney? No

Does Izzard link to Eddie Izzard? No

I call for a re-direct to the disambiguation pages. Dalejenkins | 00:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, see also McCain. Cenarium ^Talk 01:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS at all. That's an AFD policy. I'm just saying that we should follow suit with other articles and not be so USA-biased. Dalejenkins | 07:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not restricted in usage to AFDs any more. This is not USA-centric. Targets of redirects are based on the visibility of the pages. Cenarium ^Talk 12:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

To elaborate, you'll note that Jolie redirects to Angelina Jolie. So again, this should be discussed on a case by case basis. Here, I think that considering how frequently the entry Barack Obama is viewed compared to the pages Barack (disambiguation), Obama (disambiguation) and their relative, makes the choice quite easy. The same goes for McCain. Cenarium ^Talk 02:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it should go to a disambiguation page. This may be curmudgeony but people ought to learn how to use the search bar. If we bend over backward for people who can't be bothered to specify the full name of who they're looking for we're encouraging a bad habit. Wikidemon (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Wikidemon and Dalejenkins here. A DAB page is better. Not all the world is the USA, and the name has other meanings. And extra click required of the lazy isn't so much to demand.LotLE×talk 03:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify my own comment. I think a redirect to Barack Obama by last name is reasonable (but wouldn't object to going to the DAB page). However, on first name the DAB page is definitely, strongly more appropriate. I'm sure examples in both directions can be located (I'm not sure, for example, what all those firstname-only singers have), but an unusual last name seems reasonable to associate with its most common holder... as long as the DAB notice is at the top of that article. First name is just too informal to do that. LotLE×talk 03:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

So we'll change Barack, but not the Obama? Dalejenkins | 10:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. No reason has been given as to why to change the redirects. The Barack Obama is the most likely destination of users who search for these terms, and so to move the redirects would be more ineffective despite claims of this being a 'world view'. Harro5 10:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"Barack Obama is the most likely destination of users who search for these terms" - how do you know that? Dalejenkins | 10:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

According to http://stats.grok.se/, Barack_Obama has been viewed 1 350 292 times in June and Obama_(disambiguation) has been viewed 6 203 times in June (the first number is probably much higher nowadays), while Obama has been viewed 134 130 times, so it confirms that Barack Obama is the most likely destination for a search at Obama. Now for Barack, the numbers are not determinant. Actually, a redirect to the dab page may be justified here. Cenarium ^Talk 14:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not a huge fan of using pageview numbers to justify things like this. One can throw around impressive-sounding numbers, that don't really directly relate to the situation at hand in any meaningful way (unless grok also states the intent of the visitor?). I prefer to go by what links to the redirect. And, this says that one mainspace article links to Barak, and, the context of the link is actually supportive of it linking to a disambig page. SQL^{Query me!} 14:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Additionally, of the 15 pages that link to Obama (History_of_Wikipedia, Amber_Benson, Bob_Barr, Robert_L._Johnson, V._Gopalswamy, Webster_Tarpley, Timothy_Davlin, Reliability_of_Wikipedia, United States presidential election, 2008 timeline, Global_Language_Monitor, Pete Miser, T-Shirt Hell, Obama Works), all fifteen are in the context of the senator, and, should likely link here. SQL^{Query me!} 14:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of 2008 campaign tax plan

Currently the description here indicates that Obama would repeal tax cuts for those making over $250,000 which is a bit misleading. It is my understanding that the provisions of EGTRRA and JGTRRA will expire in 2010 and Obama's plan would renew most of the provisions of EGTRRA/JGTRRA expect those impacting the rates for individuals with incomes over $250,000. Perhaps this summary should be a bit more specific (accurate) on this issue? Jogurney (talk) 04:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Jogurney, allowing it to expire and "repealing it" are two separate things and should be unambiguously addressed here. natezomby (talk)

Obama and gay marriage

Since Obama's church (United Church of christ) strongly favours gay marriage, it would be very interresting to know his position about the subjectMitch1981 (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place to ask such questions; however, you can find the information you are looking for here: Political positions of Barack Obama#LGBT issues -- Scjessey (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

References

Make the references part two columns please.--212.175.40.242 (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

They are in two columns already. Older, less standards-compliant browsers may not support multiple column CSS. Get Mozilla Firefox! -- Scjessey (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Or Safari 3. --frogger3140 (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Signature

He really has a fancy signature. Where did you get it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.173.72.253 (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Barack_Obama_signature.svg (ultimately from the Senate web site). The source of any image on Wikipedia can be found by clicking on the image. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

mixed race

agian why do i have to keep putting this up here just coz your are so naive the way i've changed it here:- He is considered the first African American (although he is mixed-Race) to be a major political party's nominee for this office

sounds fine he's NOT afican amercian yes people alway call him that as he wants to help his votes, with out his racial backround his campian isn't strong enough he uses that to help him (anyone that says different is ling) by putting that he's afican amercian your inoring his mothers side and help with the naive people out there people, belive it or not people read wikipedia for information and you adding that here is why so many people wrongy think his race is different to what it is, mariah carey is the same race as obama (her dads an non american black man, her moms white-amercian) but if she went around says she afican american people wouldn't belivie her saying shes mixed race instead its unfair to exclude someones race (weather its mariah actually been half black, or obama been half white) read the part above in italic i thinks thats totally fine way to put it it fair on everyone that way. look at other peoples Bios like Lewis Hamilton or Halle Berrys mixed race people that are like obama made history as "the first black person" in something but also like obama is mixed so read theres it might help the way we write this, the only reason so many people don't think hes black is coz wqebsites like this adding one tiny little sentance with ( ) isn't that big of a deal, why do so many people here have a probablem with telling the truth in stead of ling.Veggiegirl (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

1. This issue has been discussed many times and we've reached a decision. Read the FAQ - above
2. Wikipedia's main content criteria here are neutrality and verifiability. There is no reasonable question about his ancestry. We all know that. The vast majority of sources, including Obama himself, call him "African American." Many blacks in America are mixed race, many whites and Asians too. Race is a complicated thing. We go with the standard language here, and it is standard to call Obama African-American.
3. If you want to change the way people talk about race Wikipedia isn't the best place to start. Wikipedia is at the end of the pipeline, not the start. We reprint what other people say, we do not make it up here.
4. Please do not accuse other editors of ling
5. I think you have a reasonable point that makes a lot of sense, but we just happen to have decided to go the other way. It wasn't a racist thing, just a way to keep the article standard. His mixed race heritage is discussed though, just not in the first sentence.
6. New comments go on the bottom of the page

Hope that helps. Wikidemon (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

That was directed at the people who keep changing it, BTW, not the commentator it follows. --BenBurch (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken. I'm happy to get over it and stop ling. Wikidemon (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

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

so what if obama identified himself as mixed race? I've seen other unreferenced articles of people from mixed heritage that state they are biracial or mixed race when there's no tertiary source to justify it... Invertedzero —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Really, so if a white person decides he'd rather be identified as an Afro-American, you would allow that here? Do you think that would be allowed by any government agency as far as identification is concerned, the obvious answer is no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.242.19.9 (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Question about Legislation

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

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

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

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

A failed bill can well be important to a politician if it's something they actively worked for. I don't have any specific background on how much this bill was important for Obama, but let's discuss the specifics of that association rather than the abstract (incorrect) principle that only passed legislation mattered to the bio subject. LotLE×talk 17:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

...as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, the National Journal based its rankings, not on all votes cast by senators in 2007, but on "99 key Senate votes selected by National Journal reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale." In contrast, a study by political science professors Keith Poole and Jeff Lewis, using every non-unanimous vote cast in the Senate in 2007 to determine relative ideology, placed Obama in a tie for the 10th most liberal senator.[4]

National Journal is well known as a source for these types of rankings. However, I would not mind adding a brief mention of Poole & Lewis' study next to the other rankings (subject to proper citation, conciseness, etc). LotLE×talk 17:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Discount on Home Loans

In Gov. Palin's page wikipedia talks about her ethics in dismissing the Public Safety Commissioner. But nothing on Obama's page talks about his ethics in office. For example, Obama [5]got a discount on home loans, but I didn't see any mention of that in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.138.162 (talk) 02:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

What makes you think this is a minor event? National newspapers talking about it would make me think otherwise. Currently, Palin's article is locked so I can't "be BOLD". Also, to say the dismissing of the PSC is of far greater weight than receiving a loan discount is complete opinion. I actually think it is of more importance that Obama is getting a discounted loan than a Governor dismissing someone. 24.117.138.162 (talk) 04:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Except... Of course, Obama didn't get a discount on his home loan. You see. The whole thing about an average rate is that 50% of loans are below that mark and 50% of loans are above that mark. You also have the bank that issued Obama the loan saying that the rate was in line with those given to other people in that time frame. All in all, it's just a sloppy bit of reporting on the part of the Washington Post. There's also a rather large difference between the dismissal of the PSC by Palin and the supposed discount that Obama got on his loan.. Palin's firing of the PSC got a lot of coverage in the local papers at the time (salacious details and speculation tend to do that) and has resulted in a special investigation into her actions, while Obama's "discount" got an article in the Washington Post and then died when the rest of the press looked at it and saw there wasn't a story... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If this wasn't anything special about this loan than why did Jim Johnson resign shortly after he got a "not so special" loan. These discounted loans are essentially gifts which are illegal for Obama to receive.24.117.138.162 (talk) 11:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Johnson stepped down because he got his loans through the "Friends of Angelo" program that was actually giving far better than market rates and Countrywide was one of the main lenders that was giving predatory loans that caused the whole sub-prime mortgage meltdown. Obama's loan terms are unremarkable for a person with his income ($400k+ a year at the time), debt load (non-existent), and credit rating (rather high). He's a very safe loan and as such, his interest rate is lower than someone that is a higher risk, so one would expect him to get a below average loan. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

True or not, legal or not, if this ever becomes notable we will know it by frequency of coverage in reliable sources. Depending on context it might go in one sub-article or another (e.g. the election article if it were to become an election issue) and this one only if the loan itself or an ensuing scandal becomes a significant biographical event. For now it is one of a hundred or more other rumors and complaints about Obama going around the conservative blogosphere. Here's a blog about the blogs, saying that the actual report is a non-story.[6] It's safe to say that this is far below the threshold of notability here and that it's unlikely to make it into the article given the sourcing that now exists. Having established that, this talk place is not the place for further speculation on political issues or fallout.Wikidemon (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead,How do you know that 50% of people are higher than the average and 50% are lower than the average? It is an average, outliers ,such as getting a discounted loan, would skew the average. For example take the number 20,20,20,20,20,5= 105 divide by 6 to find the average which would be 17.5. What percentage is below the average? 16.6%. 50% of people being above the line and below it would be under extremely rare circumstances.24.117.138.162 (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the "50%" thing was just a guess, I don't think he was trying to say it's exactly 50% above and below. I think all he was trying to say was that you would expect some lower rates for some people, and higher rates for others, depending on things like existing debt load and regularity of income. Like others have said, there's no substance to this. The one news article that covers it has been largely dismissed by the rest of the media, and the bank itself has stated that the loan was perfectly normal. Look, no one wants this article to become a laundry list of really questionable allegations and their refutations. If Obama comes under investigation for the loan and it becomes a significant part of his personal history, there could be a place here for it, but right now it's a non-issue. --GoodDamon 18:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

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

It is unclear what his proper name would be. I believe on his birth certificate it says "Barry Soetoro", after his childhood nickname and his step-father's last name. I believe it originally was BHO, then BHO jr., but was changed to BHO II. Can anyone provide a link to confirm what his legal name would be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PonileExpress (talk • contribs) 18:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Before anyone reverts it

... I kind of like this addition[7] as a way to address the nagging question of this article downplaying the bi-racial aspect. I certainly do understand (and have tried to explain to people new to the article) why we refer to Obama as African-American, but there are a growing number of biracial Americans. Some feel slighted and ignored by the so-called "one-drop" rule, and feel that continuing to use racial terms that imply that everyone has to choose one race or another denies their identity. In other words, there is an implicit question of neutrality when we insist that race has to be described a single way. I would move the statement to the body somewhere, though.Wikidemon (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting; I wonder if John McCain is described as the caucasion presidential candidate. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Well, being a Caucasian president is pretty unremarkable considering there have been 43 prior ones. He is described as being the "oldest president" if elected and first born outside the 50 US states in his article though.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean the previous 42 (see Grover Cleveland)--. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the opening sentence of Grover Cleveland's article supports 43. ;) That being said, not really that important. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

No, if elected McCain will be the oldest "first term" Potus. PonileExpress (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

?

I hate Obama, but in the interest of having an encyclopedia what's up with the pic?--69.40.139.226 (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

How about narrowing it down to which picture you have questions about? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

He could be talking about this image: Image:Vote McCain.jpg. It was just appearing on Obama's page as some sort of hack because it was in the middle of the screen and stayed in the middle as you scolled down. The problem has resolved itself for me. This also happened on McCain's page and all the others listed on that image page. Some Wikipedia bigwigs got to do something about this, like I said though the problem resolved itself after only a couple minutes for me. LonelyMarble (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahh. I'm sure one of the templates got vandalized. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense, I was thinking how it could happen and forgot to think of that. I didn't see any edits on this page but I forgot about templates being vandalized. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vote_McCain.jpg#filelinks (Incidentally this is infuriating to me). Apparently a lot of these pages were affected as well. Are all these pages fixed by the template fix? User http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keeper_of_the_matrix should be banned. Has he/she been banned? Jctw769 (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, all the pages will be fixed by fixing the one template page. Although, it took 7 minutes for this huge vandalism to be fixed. That is far too long. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like they hit Template:Infobox Senator and Template:Spoken Wikipedia and no, they haven't been blocked yet. As far as how long the vandalism was up.. Template vandalism always takes longer to fix, so it isn't surprising it took 7 minutes to find the problems. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

How to get them blocked/banned in a hurry?

See here --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

While we are on a similar topic, does anyone else ever have problems with template updates not displaying? Sometimes when I make a change to a template the change does not display on the actual articles. One way for it to display I've noticed is if I make an edit to the article. I bring this up because I checked a different computer and that computer was not showing the vandalism of the picture while the original computer was showing the picture at the same time the other computer was not. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Finance Section Request

I would love to see some detailed information on Obama's finances, if someone has the time to do some digging. I don't think the 1.3 million net worth figure is still accurate, though I understand that the generally accepted value right now. Icaruspassion (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source that contradicts the reliable source we currently have for the $1.3 million, you are more than welcome to update the figure. Until then, there isn't much we can do. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, MSN reports [...]Since then his wealth has ballooned, notably due to sales of two books, "Dreams From My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope." In 2007, he collected royalties of $815,971 on the former and $3,278,719 on the latter[...]

And the revenue from his books is widely reported and documented. --Icaruspassion (talk) 04:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That MSN article states that his net worth is between $2,022,016 and $7,356,000. I am not sure whether that is good enough for use in the article. However, that range is $5,333,985--not an accurate figure. However, that evidence contradicts the $1.3m figure from Money magazine... Any ideas on how to deal with this? —Kanodin 05:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What his net worth is right now is not important. The number reported relates to the tax return that was made publicly available, and it can be updated when the next return is released. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Middle Name

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

Umm, I don't know what's on your screen but on mine "Hussein" is the second word in the article. He does not commonly go by that name, and we usually refer to people by last name anyway, so subsequent mentions simply refer to him as "he", "Obama", and at the beginning of the main section, "Barack Obama". There is a discussion of his middle name in Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 and Middle name pride day in case you're interested. Wikidemon (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems like the introduction of middle names recently is politically motivated; historically, candidates only use middle names if there is a specific reason, and even then it's typically an initial (John F. Kennedy, George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush). Looking at the Wikipedia List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States, middle names and initials are included only when they were in common usage.... In fact, Clinton is listed as "Bill" rather than "William". Barack Obama's middle name is only included in common usage by is political opponents, to emphasize his father's Muslim heritage; his middle name is not regularly used by the mainstream media, and its inclusion in this article and the McCain article seems disingenuous and inappropriate. --Eeblet (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Convention speech

The NPOV regarding 2008 convention speeches is WAY off kilter. The Obama article now states only this regarding his speech: "The speech, delivered in front of 84,000 supporters, contained pointed criticism of McCain and President Bush, and added details to his stances that were not mentioned in previous campaign speeches.[105][106]" In contrast, the Palin article addresses her speech in this manner: "On September 3, 2008, Palin delivered a 40 minute acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention that was well-received by the crowd and by media analysts.[97][98]". Were one to analyze the two speeches I doubt anyone would disagree that the finding would show a much higher percentage of Palin's speech was spent "on the offensive" than Obama's speech. Yet, we portray Obama's as the "attack" speech. I saw staunch-conservative, former Nixon speechwriter, former Reagan aide and two-time Republican presedential candidate Pat Buchanan state "That was the best acceptance speech I've ever heard". Yet, Obama's article has zero praise about the speech. I witnessed no counterpart to Buchanan extorting Palin's speech, yet it was "well-received by the crowd" and throughout the land it was "well-received by media analysts". It is shocking that millions of readers are being subjected to sourceless statements and outright partisan bias. Spiff1959 (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of campaign opponents is utterly unremarkable and only to be expected, so I tend to think that characterizing the speech - either speech - only in those terms is unhelpful. I don't see any evidence this is an NPOV matter so much as an accident of editing history. There was some praise about how many people watched it that got removed as fluff. How much can you say about an acceptance speech in a sentence? Any more than that would be too much weight. The Palin article is edit protected and it is on its own subject with its own strengths and weaknesses as a Wikipedia article. So it doesn't make a great comparison point. Wikidemon (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Please don't lean on the comparison too much (or very much at all). WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't the right basis to decide how best to characterize Obama's acceptance speech; editors of this article have not necessarily edited (or even read) the article on Palin, McCain, or whomever, but simply worry about making this article as good as possible. If there's some more accurate (but not longer) characterization of Obama's speech, let's talk about that. That said, I took out a rather fluffy bit of praise for Obama's speech that read too much like electioneering. Moreover, it's hard for me to see how bubbly praise for the speech has any significant role in his general biography. The general content of the speech is a little bit notable, though it's hard to give that sense without either being vacuous or devoting undue weight... what we have seems like an OK compromise between those poles. LotLE×talk 18:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware that comparisons between articles may be used to fill-in an argument, but should not be used as one of it's foundations. My most recent post used the Palin speech to demonstrate that the overall theme of a speech gets reflected in the resulting headlines. I stated it more eloquently above, but if "pointed criticism" is the first thing we can think of regarding the Obama speech, then we are presenting the speech in a different light than that of the vast majority of credible critiques available for sourcing. Spiff1959 (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

LotLE, fortunately being vacuous or devoting undue weight is not a decision that we have to worry about. The coverage of the speech in reliable source should dictate how the speech should be described in this article. In the case of Obama's speech, the coverage was almost universally positive, so much so that those that were negative are nearly an extreme minority. This edit you made earlier seems to address Spiff1959's concerns and it seems to be supported by the source you left behind. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Would adding "widely acclaimed", perhaps referenced to [8], address this issue? -- Rick Block (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Of course, it does make a rather long sentence, perhaps moving the bit between the commas could be moved out to it's own sentence. I also re-added Invesco Field to the sentence as the locale was only the second time the acceptance speech was delivered in a different location than the rest of the convention. While that bit isn't mentioned in the sentence, to ignore Invesco entirely seems out of place. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm doubtful that ascribing any sort of praise to this speech, whether warranted or not, will pass muster when it comes to attaining "consensus". To at least remove the implied "attack speech" falsehood, how about:

Please change the sentence regarding the 2008 Convention speech to the following:
"On August 28, Obama delivered a speech before 84,000 at Invesco Field in Denver. During the speech he accepted his party's nomination and presented details of his policy goals." ? Spiff1959 (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Illinois "13th District"

The section on his State Senate service says he's from the "13th district", but it links to the Illinois 13th Congressional District in the US House of Representatives, not the Illinois State Senate. Could someone who knows more about IL politics than I do fix that so it's right? \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 02:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It is my understanding that State senate positions follow congressional districts in Illinois, and this is supported by the sources that always seem to refer to Obama (and Palmer before him) being in the 13th Congressional District. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

"Freudian slip"

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

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

Obviously the Freudian slip by which Obama supposedly admits he is Muslim after all is trivial, and the phrase "it should be noted" is editorializing. One editor inserted it twice[9][10] and a second has now reverted it once.[11] As disputed content this should stay out of the article until and unless those proposing its inclusion gain consensus, which seems very unlikely to happen. I do not want to do a second revert on any issue, however office so could someone else please take care of it (and of course, if you actually think it belongs in the article, feel free to explain its relevance). Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

To Orangejumpsuit, if you wish to continue editing Obama-related pages, please do not repeatedly insert disputed content or make accusations against other editors. This article is under probation (see notice at the top of this page), and disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. Judging from your responses here and on the Sarah Palin talk page (where you insult other editors and accuse them of lying), and talk page history,[12] you are getting fairly close to being blocked from Wikipedia overall, and need to take some time to review the policies, guidelines, and customs of the project. A good place to start is WP:WELCOME. I am going to close this discussion down as unproductive, and not likely to lead to any viable proposal for improving the article. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Per [13]: "any fair-minded person will have to admit that when he used that phrase, he was replicating the language of his accusers". What are we, Beavis and Butthead here ("heh heh heh - he said Muslim - heh heh heh")? I suggest treating any further attempt to insert this as simple vandalism. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I misunderstood slightly. I thought you meant the talk page, so I reverted a further post by the editor here as "vandalism" (though it's really abuse). Sorry for taking the wrong cue. At any rate the editor has done it twice[14][15] and I reverted twice. I will not attempt to revert or engage this editor further. If anyone thinks they can help, please feel free. Otherwise I'll just take this to an administrative forum. Wikidemon (talk) 06:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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