Jump to content

Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Never Muslim

According to this article he wrote for Time:

"In sum, my mother viewed religion through the eyes of the anthropologist that she would become; it was a phenomenon to be treated with a suitable respect, but with a suitable detachment as well. Moreover, as a child I rarely came in contact with those who might offer a substantially different view of faith. My father was almost entirely absent from my childhood, having been divorced from my mother when I was 2 years old; in any event, although my father had been raised a Muslim, by the time he met my mother he was a confirmed atheist, thinking religion to be so much superstition."

His mother exposed him to many different religions when he was young, but didn't raise him with any. His father was an atheist when his parents married, so it is highly unlikely that for the first two years of his life Obama was "Muslim," whatever that would mean. So his Muslim name is only that, a name. Arrow740 22:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740 is completely correct - this is consonant with all that I have read as well. He was not raised as a Muslim (see discussion above on this page about this too), and his Indonesian stepfather with whom he lived for only 4 years was a NON-practicing Muslim. The IP address edits that have been made that say otherwise are pushing a POV, for whatever reasons they have, not reporting facts. Tvoz | talk 23:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Can a child really be considered to be religious anyway? Richard Dawkins discusses this at length. Even if both his parents were praticing Muslims, Christians, Zoroastrians, or whatever, it wouldn't matter, because he was a child and children can't be considered to be of one religion or another since they're too young to make those kinds of personal identity decisions. obama's childhood "religion" shouldn't even be a consideration. What is important, however, is how he was raised to view religion, and how his upbringing (religious or otherwise) informed his current faith. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.227.219.0 (talk • contribs).

Fox news is reporting Obama attended a Madrassa. reference:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,245079,00.html

Insight magazine reports his 4 year Madrassa schooling was exposed by Hillary Clinton and other Democratic party opponent researchers. reference: http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Obama_2.htm

Dr. Dale 01:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Dr. Dale

The Fox report is only about the Insight report. The Insight report meanwhile says the madrasah claim comes from unnamed sources in the Clinton camp. More tellingly, it mixes up a bunch of obvious half and quarter truths to try and create the impression that something sinister is going on. Because Obama described it as a predominantly muslim school, rather than madrasah, it must be a secret. This is part of a concerted smear campaign. Last week I received a remarkably similar email that originated from someone who was supposedly on Obama's side but was dismayed to discover he was raised a muslim. I think it's pretty obvious who's behind this, and I rather doubt it's Hillary Clinton. By the way, according to madrasah the word in Arabic, simply means "school". --Lee Hunter 01:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention that Insight has a well-defined bias that draws into question its reliability as a source for anything like this. Hey, maybe it's true. I don't have a clue. But let's get some sources more reliable than anonymous sources cited by the patently biased Insight magazine (didn't they pay Paula Jones to continue suing Bill Clinton?) · j e r s y k o talk · 03:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks like it's kind of blown up (the national media has picked up and run with it, as the national media is wont to do)...if it gains momentum, it might merit a few sentences in the "2008 presidential election" section. Gzkn 10:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Fact Is - this article skips his education up until 5th grade. What kind of schools did he go to until 5th grade, wasn't his step father originally a muslim? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.211.59.153 (talk • contribs).

Gee, the article for George W. Bush skips his education right up to high school!! However, I'm reassured to learn that Bill Clinton went to Ramble Elementary School. :) --Lee Hunter 05:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If this is a featured article, I would expect know what are his affiliation and views on religion currently; however, I can NOT seem to gain this information from the article. This is disappointing indeed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.141.119.161 (talk • contribs).

Well, you could always review the personal life section. --Bobblehead 01:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
And read the infobox on the top of the page for his religious affiliation. Tvoz | talk 01:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Article referred to Featured Article review

I have recommended that this article be referred to Featured Article review to be reevaluated because of concerns that it no longer meets the Featured Article criteria and, unless remedied, it should have its Featured Article status revoked. Please see and comment here: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama —ExplorerCDT 23:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

ExplorerCDT has withdrawn the FAR request (see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama) - does anyone know what the next step is in terms of removing the tag and any other places the FAR might have been listed? Tvoz | talk 07:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ref check

Pursuant to the FAR, I ran through all of the references yesterday: it is extremely rare to find an article this well referenced on WP:FAC - never at WP:FAR. It is also rare to find an article that completely conforms to guidelines such as WP:MOS, WP:MSH, WP:GTL, and so on. Kudos to editors here, mainly HailFire, I understand.

I found no unreliable sources, and only one dead link (in Presidential ambitions - pls have a look - I put a [verification needed] tag on it).

I made the following changes:

  • Added last access date on all websources. Last access date should always be given on websources. Last access dates are not necessarily required on newspaper links, since the biblio info provided allows one to find them in hardprint, but I went ahead and added them on lesser known news sources that I checked - no reason not to include the date when the link has been verified.
  • I wikified dates so that date preferences would work.
  • I changed authors to last name first, to agree with citation style guides.
  • I changed news sources to agree with style guides, author last name first, article title in quotes, newspaper in italics, date, (and last access date on lesser known sources that might not have stable links).
  • I switched the FindArticles.com format, since I've found those links not to be stable. (It might be good to replace those with internet archive links.)
  • I found a couple of wayward errors - a few typos in publication dates, and a few inconsistencies in the way Obama's Senate Office was listed on his Senate website - made those consistent.
  • I wasn't sure why CNN and some other live news sources had the news source listed before the title rather than after, but I left them that way.
  • Probably more could be done per the MLA citation guide, but the refs are way better than most FAs right now.

I found one thing that should be addressed: there are four specific citations from a book authored by Obama (Dreams something), that had been combined into one named ref. I split them out because page numbers should be provided for each one (along with an ISBN on the ref now listed in References, so we know which edition the page numbers refer to). Can someone pls fill in that information? I left them with p. x.

This article is far superior to what usually comes through FAR: I hope you're all able to keep it that way, and that new editors appreciate the quality of the work relative to the kind of stuff that is getting promoted daily at WP:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Great work, SandyGeorgia - thank you. I don't have the Obama book, but I'm sure some editors do, and will enter the correct page refs. About the FindArticle links - a few days ago (before your edit) I had found that several of the Sun-Times direct links were dead, and I wasn't able to find them archived on the Sun-Times site, which is why I switched to the FindArticle links that did come up on search. If anyone can find the direct links that would be better, but would you agree that as long as the full citations are there for the print pieces we don't even need online links, if the FindArticle links end up dead? One other question - do you think the piece is over-wikified or is the balance ok as it is now. I'm thinking particularly in terms of dates, but am interested in your view of that. Tvoz | talk 20:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it's wise to leave the FindArticles links (and all others) as courtesy links; because they are news sources, you're not required to provide a link at all (you satisfy WP:V without the URL), but when you have one, may as well leave it there. I didn't look at the wikilinking yet, since you were going to be doing some re-writing. WRT dates, it's tricky - there's a proposal in the works to eliminate date wikilinking with a new function that will make preferences on dates work, but for now, in order for date preferences to work right, we're stuck with linking them. (Is 03-05 May 3 or March 5?) Some reviewers insist that all full dates, and even month-day combos, are linked, but don't link solo years. For now, until the new function is resolved, I think it's best to link except solo years - hopefully if the new function is approved, a bot will be able to convert them. I'll look at the rest of your wikilinks later: generally, wikilink only the first occurrence of any term, but with an article of some length, it's OK to wikilink "complex" or technical terms - or terms that just may need definition - in subsequent sections, because not everyone reads linearly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks SG - that pretty much is what I thought. (I don't quite get what you mean by date preference - is there a page where I can read up on that?) Tvoz | talk 22:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
You can read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), but I know a bot request has been submitted to establish a new function so that date preferences will work without us having to see the blue wiki date links. Not sure if/when that will happen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I was given a copy of Dreams from My Father and am planning on reading it soon. I will keep an eye open for the referenced material, but where do I find the references you mentioned? I don't see anything specific in the references section, just a single bulleted citation. -Fadookie Talk 23:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Obama's books are referenced throughout the article with page numbers specified in the Notes section. --HailFire 01:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Kenyan geography- is there some significance that I'm missing?

There has been an unexplained (as far as I've seen, that is) back-and-forth for months about where Obama's father comes from - sometimes rendered as "Nyangoma-Kogelo, Siaya District, Kenya" sometimes the "Nyangoma" is deleted and then sure enough reinserted a short while later. I have no idea if there is any meaning behind these edits in either direction, but the back-and-forth seems pointless to me - so if anyone knows, can we decide which it should be and leave it as such? I have no information, and therefore no opinion. Tvoz | talk 23:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

According to BBC, his father was born in "Nyangoma Kogalo in Nyanza province". - PoliticalJunkie 22:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Great High School Yearbook Photo

The article contains no old pics. Here is a good one for the "early years" section of the article. I don't know how to include it...

http://starbulletin.com/2004/07/25/news/story7.html—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.35.141.146 (talk • contribs).

Haha, well that's one of the more unflattering pictures I've seen recently. Anyway, high school yearbook pictures are almost certainly copyrighted, and I don't think there's a good fair use rationale, so I doubt we can use it in this article. Gzkn 00:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you think he looks too black in that picture?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.141.146 (talk • contribs)

No. Gzkn 09:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
He was in Hawaii, and I'm sure he tans at least a bit (more than he would in Illinois!) Samatva 05:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Please take your nonsense somewhere else. Tvoz | talk 05:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolve confusion

I haven't read this article yet, but I did see this in the early part, that left me confused:

In his 1995 memoir, Dreams from My Father, Obama describes a nearly race-blind early childhood. He writes: "That my father looked nothing like the people around me—that he was black as pitch, my mother white as milk—barely registered in my mind."[3][4]

But the very next sentence indicates he didn't grow up with his father, his father wasn't even in the same country, so this quote seems to give undue importance to something that he might have barely remembered - can this be resolved? His memories before the age of two aren't meaningful ????

When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced and his father returned to Kenya.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a guess (which of course is not a reliable source!) - so someone should look at Dreams and see the context of the quote - but I would assume that he had photographs of his father when he was growing up, and therefore was aware of who he was and what he looked like. Tvoz | talk 22:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
(Oops -what I meant to say was someone should look at Dreams and see the context of the quote - and then add a few words of context so that it's clearer for readers.)Tvoz | talk 22:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Someone did. :) --HailFire 14:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Hail - exactly what I figured. Welcome back into the fray.Tvoz | talk 18:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that if he said it in his book we could include it in the article. If people wonder about it they can write to him and ask. Steve Dufour 03:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you missed the point, Steve - SG wasn't saying it didn't belong, just that it wasn't quite making sense. HailFire has clarified it and all's well now. Tvoz | talk 18:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Size check

I ran a prose size check in case this comes up on review - readable prose becomes a concern if it passes 40KB.

  • January 10; overall size - 74KB, prose size - 35KB

(I don't have this page watchlisted, so ping me if you have questions during review, or post to the FAR.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It really would be better, and more in line with WP's purpose, if the article were about half the size or less and just gave the basic facts about Senator Obama and explained a little why he is considered important, plus any worthwhile published criticism of course. As it is much of the article is about minute points of his career and his opinions on every issue anyone can think of. This seems to be mainly for the purpose of debating back and forth about his prospects of being the president someday. I would like to see the article trimmed down, but I don't expect this to happen. Why? Because it is much more fun to debate about his presidental chances!  :-) Steve Dufour 03:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that's really an apt characterization - most editors here are just adding information that they find which helps to describe and explain this up-and-coming politician - every major news outlet went to Obama Thursday night after Bush's speech, for his reaction/response, fo example - presumably because they think he is of great interest to their viewers. Likewise, he is of interest to Wikipedia readers. Nor do I see why we should be limited to "a little" of why he's important. I don't want to have unneeded verbiage - like, maybe not every piece of legislation he has had anything to do with - but we have plenty of room, and I think the article gives a good, well-rounded view. I do not at all think we should cut it in half. I do think, though, that we're not running a news site here, so the moment-by-mooment updates on if he's going to announce, when he's going to announce, who thinks what about his announcement - are all kind of useless and certainly won't stand the test of time. So I'd say we should just put it out of our minds are get the page otherwise in shape. If/when he annbounces, there will be a lot more readers here. Tvoz | talk 09:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The reason he is "of great interest" to the media and people in general is because he might become president soon, not because his opinions about President Bush are better than somebody else's opinions. Steve Dufour 19:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Tvoz, reducing the size of the article does not necessarily mean a deletion of the information in the article, just removing the details from this article and moving the detail to a child article. As an example, the section on his senate career is extremely long and delves into the minutia of his career as a senator. It's all important and encyclopedic, but it can get in the way of a reader making it down to the rest of this article. It's also something that should be relatively easy to summarize. What could happen is the details of his senate career are moved to United States Senate career of Barack Obama (or some other similar name) and a summarization of the high points of his senate career can be left here. That way the content is retained in Wikipedia, the article size of this article is reduced while still leaving important details behind, and any readers that want to read more about his senate career just have to click on the link to the article. --Bobblehead 18:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree that having the minutiae of his Senate career here will become oppressive - I said so too above - but Steve didn't seem to be saying that it should be forked off: I was responding to his point that we should explain "a little of why he is considered important" and to cutting the piece in half, both of which I think are too extreme. Also I didn't agree with the characterization that the purpose of having the details seems to be to debate his presidential chances - I think editors are genuinely trying to maintain FA status with a comprehensive article. I worry about minutiae here too - as in the mmoment to moment speculation on when an announcement will be made, as I said, and as I've removed. And yes - when his Senate career material is sufficiently large as to warrant its own article, then sure that makes sense. Tvoz | talk 19:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't complaining. He is much more important than the average Pokemon character after all.  :-) Steve Dufour 19:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Not if you're Pikachu.Tvoz | talk 19:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Junior Senator title

I'm not sure why it keeps changing back and forth from "Junior Senator" to "Junior U.S. Senator". I changed it to the second one, and I'm not sure why it reverts. Why is this? N734LQ 08:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Another editor wanted the link to the senate seniority page included (which Junior Senator would) - so I added a pipe link so that it says "Junior U.S. Senator" as you wanted and links to the senate seniority page as the other editor wanted. Solomon-like, I might add.... seriously - this should satisfy both needs, I think. Tvoz | talk 08:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah probably should have just done that the first time... sorry. --Rtrev 05:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Not a problem at all - it's refreshing to come up with a solution that doesn't get shot down ..... Tvoz | talk 06:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

staff and advisers

I question this section - I don't see anything similar on a quick look at 15 or more other senators' pages, and it seems unnotable to me. I'm removing it, but as always am interested in other opinions. Tvoz | talk 04:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It's probably not too important. A lot of the staff members/advisers had red links, which says something about their notability. If Obama announces and some famous political advisers join his campaign, that would probably be worthy of inclusion, albeit in the presidential campaign section. Gzkn 05:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I think that was a good call. There has been a lot of "triviality creep" in this article because Obama is a hot topic right now. THe article is pretty large already (and some editors have expressed concern re: size). --Rtrev 05:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed as well, though of course let's keep what Gzkn said in mind--advisors for his presidential campaign would be worth discussing, of course. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. However, the fact that a Freshman senator was able to recruit former aides to the senate majority leader, as well as a former aide to the Secretary of the Treasury and a Pulitizer-winning international affairs scholar, did seem unusual and noteworthy (perhaps moreso than the details of his international travel, honorary degrees, and puff pieces in newsweeklies). Would there be any support for a short paragraph in the senate career section, like this?:


Obama quickly assembled an unusually seasoned staff for a freshman senator. Several aides and associates of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who had just lost his reelection bid, joined Obama’s team. [1] Other key aides included policy director Karen Kornbluh, an economist who was deputy chief of staff to Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin [2]] and foreign policy expert Samantha Power, a Harvard Professor and Pulitzer-winning author on human rights and genocide. .[3]</ref>

-Hickoryhillster 14:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good point, and I'd support including the short graf - I'm on my way out the door or I'd do it myself. Tvoz | talk 18:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added it. I made it a seperate subsection under "Senate Career," because I wasn't sure which existing subsection I could include it in. I hope that's OK.-Hickoryhillster 20:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Critical voices

Thoughts on this recent addition? Is it undue weight? I've only read the Nation one before, but is criticism by the Socialist Worker really notable? Wouldn't the Socialist Worker kind of...criticize anyone who's not a socialist (which is everybody in the Senate and House)? And I could've sworn we had established that the Nation article was not exactly notable criticism (back in Archive page 3), as Mr. Sirota's actual criticism came in the form of blog posts; the article itself was much more nuanced. Gzkn 00:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

(1) The Counterpunch link doesn't seem to be working for me right now, (2) the socialist worker criticism is, well, the socialist worker criticism, and (3) the Nation article isn't really that critical of Obama. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Just read the addition and was coming over here to ask the same thing. The idea of critical voices is sound, of course, but this section doesn't seem to rise to the proper level of objectivity or reliability. I'd be in favor of removing this graf but keeping an eye out for more appropriate critical voices. Tvoz | talk 01:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on IP edits

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

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

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

I buy that, HailFire. If vandalism persists after protection is removed, I can always re-semi now that I have the tools (I watch the page, of course). · j e r s y k o talk · 03:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Hail in that openness is the hallmark of wikis everywhere. The catch 22 is that because Obama is now a presidential candidate there should be more openness in editing and there will be a larger desire for anonymous editing (whether purposefully anonymous or "drive by" anonymous). However, at the same time, there will most certainly be a significant rise in vandalism because of the interest generated by the move. The truth is that there may be very valid reasons for anonymous editing and even if there is no reason other than sheer laziness that does not make the contribution of an earnest, anonymous editor any less valid than an earnest, registered editor.
My personal view is that sprotect should be used temporarily and infrequently in that it is not aligned with the ideal of an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit." I say lift it and we (the editors with this article watchlisted) can deal with vandalism until it really and truly gets out of hand. In a certain sense I feel a bit shameful when and article I keep tabs on gets protected because it signifies a breakdown in the vigilance of the editorship (I know this is an unrealistic view... but still). I say we give it a go... the worst that can happen is a re-addition of protection (and hey.. Jersey is pretty vigilant right?). --Rtrev 03:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
If you want to spend your time defending the article go for it. Thanks. Steve Dufour 04:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Well we can always open it up and see what happens. I have a feeling we'll be asking for semi-protection again quite soon afterwards. Gzkn 05:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully not but I say we open it up and see... --Rtrev 05:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree about this - we already tried that, Rtrev, just a few weeks ago, and as predicted the extreme vandalism returned. Nothing has happened to change that likely trajectory - if anything, I expect it will be even greater now. The fact is that no one is prevented from editing here, as long as they take the few minutes it takes to create a user ID. That user ID need be in no way identifiable to any individual person - in fact, IP addresses are more identifiable than user IDs, because they can easily be traced with WHOIS by anyone. User IDs can be traced by admins, but it requires a special request to do so, and those are not granted frivolously. So in fact the user ID editor is more anonymous, not less. We have seen recently that the level of vandalism, and the nature of the vandalism, is such that it is damaging to the article to allow IP editing. This article is certainly watched by many people, but it is a small number who diligently montior it and revert vandals. When IP editing was going on, it was an unfair burden, in my view, as it made it difficult to keep track of, and assess, legitimate edits when one is drowning in a sea of vandalism. Further, the nature of the vandalism - as I have said in the past - has not been the annoying "HI MOM" type, but instead has been a targeted, often vicious, vandalism that does damage to the hard work that numerous editors have done here and makes a mockery of the serious attempts that are made to keep the article factual and neutral. I am all in favor of an open system, but requiring usernames that do not have to bear any resemblance to one's real name, and do not have to have an email address attached, are certainly protective of the editor who wishes to remain anonymous, but also protective of the integrity of the article. This article, in my view, is a classic case where sprot is legitimately used to avoid the worst of the vandals. It won't eliminate them all, but it certainly will make it manageable to maintain the quality of the article. The fact that we've had some relative - not absolute - calm due to the latest sprot has allowed the article to be edited and improved without placing an undue burden. I haven't heard any argument that is convincing as to why IP editors should be allowed to return and, I believe, start doing their damage again. Tvoz | talk 05:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Early life

Currently you have

When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced and his father returned to Kenya

But, the BBC says

When Mr Obama was a toddler, his father got a chance to study at Harvard but there was no money for the family to go with him. He later returned to Kenya alone, where he worked as a government economist, and the couple divorced.

Which has quite a different point-of-view to it I think. I would change it myself, but I can't be arsed creating an account and waiting several days. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.237.72.98 (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

I checked a more comprehensive reference - the Salon article by Scott Turow - and added a few words of clarification. Turow's take is a little different from the BBC piece, in that he talks about difficulties the parents faced in an interracial marriage in 1961 Hawaii leading to the separation and eventual divorce. Neither piece specifies sources - but Turow knows Obama personally and I believe his piece is based on Obama's book and has a good deal more detail than the BBC piece, so I went with that description. Regardless - my opinion is that this is not an overly significant point, nor do I think it is worthy of any more explanation than we have now.Tvoz | talk 07:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps Obama's books would clarify things? I'm afraid I don't own them, nor do I have access to them. Gzkn 07:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Neither do I - but if you look at the Turow Salon piece, it appears that he is using Dreams from my Father as his source. Someone will check further I'm sure (can't recall now who was adding page refs from the book a day or two ago - I'm sure several others have it) - but in any case I don't see that this point is as significant as 125.237.72.98 seemed to think it is. Tvoz | talk 08:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not talk about his education for K-4th grade. For exampel: From http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1511 "His father, also named Barack (Swahili for "One who is blessed by God," and perhaps via Arabic and Semitic roots related to the Hebrew baruch, "blessed") Obama, left his rural Luo-speaking village and his Muslim father to become an "agnostic" and study economics abroad. His son was two when the elder Barack left the boy and his mother to return to Harvard University and then to Kenya, where he became a globe-traveling economist for the government."

"When young Obama was six, his mother married an Indonesian oil manager, a "non-practicing Muslim," and the family moved to Jakarta, where his half-sister Maya was born. In this exotic Islamic country, wrote Obama's good friend, the liberal lawyer and best-selling novelist Scott Turow, Barack Obama spent "two years in a Muslim school, then two more in a Catholic school.""

Use this information to edit the main text and add information about his child life, not his absent fathers. His step father influenced him or someone did to put him in these schools. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.211.59.153 (talk • contribs).

Celebrities

I removed the line that tells what celebrities are backing Obama. I really just don't think that has any real merit or purpose in a section devoted to the 2008 election. Why should the political affilation of a few celebrities have any meaning on the 2008 election. "Oh look, Oprah's backing Obama, he's going to win now". That's laughable. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 19:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[simultaneous posting]

I reinstated the few sentences and citations about celebrity support, because it is notable that such public support - meaning not just quiet contributions, but vocal support at a time when the name had not yet been seriously discussed as a candidate - began before any candidacy was announced. Let's see what other editors think rather than having an edit war, shall we? Tvoz | talk 19:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, having now read the above note: I don't think the sentences in the article about celebrity support are saying "oprah's backing him, he;s going to win" - they are there because the celebrities' talking up his name seemed to have a significant impact on raising awareness about him, and therefore encouraging him to for an exploratory committee and perhaps annoounce that he'll run. That is notable. Tvoz | talk 20:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism from the left sorely missing.

There is a glaring hole in this article regarding criticism from leftists and progressives of Obama. There has been a mountain of criticism printed, and there should be a section on it. I offered a small section today that featured five citations, but it was immediately deleted by another user. If I do not get a good explanation as to why this criticism should be omitted, I will repost my paragraph. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Organ123 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Criticism sections are pov forks. Because, well, they are pov. Jasper23 | Jasper23 20:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, but the criticism exists. Those points of view exist. They should be mentioned. An article is not POV just because it quotes people who have a POV. Also, if you don't mention the criticism, the article becomes even more POV in the opposite direction. Somebody reading this article might think that there is no criticism of Obama from the left, and that would be a shame, since there is a ton. Noam Chomsky, whom I cite, has an entire page called "Criticism of Noam Chomsky," which exists just fine. Organ123 21:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You cited a random reporter from The Nation and Noam Chomsky. Please atleast get quotes from political leaders before posting a critisim section. This goes hand in hand with the topic above. I don't care what celebrities or random reporters think, I care about the facts. Critisim of a biography should come from the reader's opinion of his bio, not given to them by others non-related. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 21:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that political leaders were the only ones with important viewpoints. Noam Chomsky was voted the top intellectual alive in an FP/Prospect poll, so maybe his opinion matters to some people. This "random guy" at The Nation is a prominent US progressive (which is why he has a column in the US's top-selling progressive magazine, and a decent-sized entry in Wikipedia), so his opinion has serious clout. You care about the facts? Well the fact is, a lot of progressives and leftists have criticisms of Obama. That is a fact, and it should be explained in the article. Organ123 21:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
No it's not, I have criticism with Captain Crunch, should I go put it in the captain crunch article? This biography should have enough in it so that people can form their own opinions about him, praise or critisim. The critisim you put in does not point to a specific part of his bio and then critisize it. Cockburn critisizes for something about Iran, but Iran is never once mentioned in this article. And Chomsky never once critisizes Obama in that article, he critisized the people that weren't looking at Obama's record and taking him in on face value alone. I quote "it was very exuberant: what a fantastic personality he is and a great candidate, thousands of people coming out. And it went on for about 15 minutes of excited rhetoric. There's only one thing missing. They didn’t say a word about what his policies were on anything. It’s kind of not -- doesn't matter, you know. He’s a unifier. He looks at you when he talks to you. He’s a really decent guy. Great background. OK, that's an election." I don't know what critisim you found there but it looks neutral to me. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 21:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Everyone take a deep breath and try to remain civil, please. Perhaps the objections to the additions would be remedied if they were incorporated more fluidly into the text instead of placed in their own subsection? Just a thought. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind a critisim section, but the one that was put up doesn't show any critisism except from a reporter of The Nation and that critisism's topic isn't even addressed in the article. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 21:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
There are 2 references to The Nation in this article already. Shouldn't these be removed as well? For example: "A headline in The Nation magazine invited comparisons..." and "Another article in The Nation analyzed Obama's ability..." 69.116.186.84 04:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Putting a criticism section into a biography is a bad idea. Jasper23 21:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

My main concern is that there is a significant chunk of leftists and progressives in the population who take issue with Obama, and that this group of people should be acknowledged in the article, perhaps with some quotes from well-known representatives of these critics (like Chomsky and Cockburn). Otherwise the article is missing the depth of the controversy surrounding Obama. So maybe this stuff could be put in the "Controversy" section. ... I fundamentally disagree with H2P over who is acceptable to quote. ... And I partially agree with Jasper23 here, but then I think a "Criticism of Obama's Politics" section would be appropriate instead. Something that mentions/describes criticism of Obama's politics would really add depth to this article, IMHO. Also, I would still note the "Criticisms of Noam Chomsky" Wikipedia page as an example of how such pages can exist. Organ123 22:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the PoV arguments. The current article starts one section with "Supporters describe Obama's broad appeal as a cultural rorschach test, an ink spot on which his fans can project their personal histories and aspirations." If one can't post statements from detractors because they are a PoV, then I don't think one should be able to post statements from "supporters" or "fans" either. 162.66.50.2 22:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you looking to put an admiration section into the article? Jasper23 22:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm saying there sort of is one already. Statements like "Obama's self-narrative helps encourage diverse multiethnic affinities", "Another article in The Nation analyzed Obama's ability to "transcend race" with predominantly white audiences", and "Both folk rock musician Neil Young and urban hip hop artist Common have referenced Obama's presidential prospects in popular song lyrics" show great admiration for the man. Some opposing views are only fair.162.66.50.3 23:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
They should be incorporated into the format of the article and not put in their own section. That is all I am saying. Jasper23 23:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why this is focused on criticism from the left - if we're going in incorporate criticism, then surely there is criticism from the right as well against this essentially left politician. That's why this section seems POV to me - as if the only critics are from further left? Tvoz | talk 23:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Tvoz, and would like to see criticism from all angles on the page. I am personally only knowledgeable of the criticism from the left, so that's why I noticed it to be missing. Somebody else would have to add some from the right. ... Anyway, it seems like almost all of us are not opposed to including some criticism in the article, in one way or another. Would people be upset if I tried to carefully insert some criticism information into portions of the article, perhaps in the controversy section, without creating a new section called "Criticism"? I won't include Chomsky's quote if it offends "H2P". Then other people can feel free to add information about criticism from the right, or counter-remarks to the criticism or whatever. I'd just like to put criticism in there in one way or another, for reasons stated above. Organ123 03:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not offended by Chomsky's quote, I don't care what is opinion is either way. However, when you read it and it's surrounding paragraph you'll see that the quote has nothing to do with Chomsky's opinion of Obama but rather on the following he is gathering and how they aren't looking deeper into their "Great Guy Leader". H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 04:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm a big believer in not including general criticism sections (think about whether a general "praise" section would make sense). If there's significant criticism of him, it should just be put in an existing section. If the criticism happened during say, his Senate career over some vote, put it there. If it happened during the lead-up to the 2008 election, put it in the 2008 presidential election section. Having a separate criticism section invites users to insert random "criticism" from columnists/bloggers, etc. that aren't exactly notable. Gzkn 01:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that makes sense to me too. Tvoz | talk 03:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for not indicating why I removed the sentence about the Washington Times editorials earlier today - I inadvertently left it off of my edit summary. My reason was that it seems to me there's no real substance to the criticism - they're just complaining that they don't have anything to editorialize against. I think Gzkn is right, that if there is significant criticism, it should be included, but to me this is random. I'm removing it again, but also looking for something more substantive to include. Tvoz | talk 03:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That's fair enough. It seems like only the far left and far right is criticizing him. BTW I think calling the section on his books "Works" is kind of awkward. If he was known as an author that would be fine. However just calling it "Books" would let the reader know what the section was about. It seems to me that his real works are the elections he has won. I changed the subtitle to "Authorship" thinking that maybe that was more dignified sounding than "Books", but that didn't seem to make people happy. Steve Dufour 16:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
It is now called "Books authored". That works for me :-) Steve Dufour 22:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Criticism is generally left for books, theories, movements, and things of that sort. If you notice on the John McCain page, there is not a section for criticism, even though it's quite obvious he has taken far more and harsh criticism than Barack Obama has in the last few years. Also look at Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards, Bill Frist, John Kerry, Newt Gingrich for further comparison. No criticism sections. Controversies sections are for listing controversies in a BLP, and should be done only if a particular controversy is noteable. If you're going to argue for including any bit of criticism or controversy, you are going to have to illustrate why and how it is noteable. For now, I would suggest not writing up a criticism section, as there is not significant criticism for Obama such that any of it would be relevant, or noteable. I don't mind if someone tones down some of the wording on anything in this article that seems POV or complimentary towards Obama, but I don't think the way to go about making an article more NPOV would be to add a "Criticisms" section just to make the article seem balanced, especially if it is not warranted or significant criticism. Anyone who is looking to find or include criticism/controversy for Obama is not adhering to the NPOV policy. --Ubiq 01:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Iran stance

I removed the Chicago Tribune editorial board interview that talked about not ruling out missile strikes against Iran. It was from 2004 (and by the way, the date was not indicated as it should have been), and I think it is misleading to include it without a much more recent quote on the subject. The Olbermann interview was more recent but Iran was such a passing reference that I don't find it notable so I removed it as well. I do hope we can find more recent, more specific quotes that demonstrate his thinking on these issues - but this seemed to me to stretching for citable material, and I don't find either one to be of value. I didn't remove the Cockburn quote that was added to the Popular Culture section because I think it adds some needed balance - but I don't think it's the best example of that point of view so I hope we find some better. Tvoz | talk 23:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for leaving the Cockburn quote, which I think represents an important concept which is not considered at any other point in the article, and balances the quote preceding it. ... To my knowledge there is no statement since 2004 by Obama that indicates any change of his mind about attacking Iran. Many newspapers and magazines today still mention this militant stance towards Iran, referencing the very quote I used. And this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, so quotes from 2004 are fair game to use. In conclusion, unless people take major issue, I may repost the sentences, but with mention that the quote is from 2004, noting that he has not updated his position since then. Otherwise there will continue to be no mention of Obama's Iran stance, even though it exists. Organ123 00:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Right - I don't have a problem in principle of quotes from 2004, but I don't think we know what his "Iran stance" is. He has spoken of Iran since 2004 - for example, a quick Google-News search gave me this from this past Sunday (January 14) Face the Nation : Obama said he supports a "surge in diplomacy" in tandem with a phased redeployment. The U.S. has to bring in the regional powers like Iran and Syria, he said. The problem is, he said, Bush's plan is already set in motion. I don't find that particularly notable either - it's an affirmation of the point made by the Iraq study group. Bottom line, to me, is that we don't yet have a clear statement of any Iran stance, so to cobble together a couple of random quotes that mention Iran is, I think, not responsible. I'd advocate waiting until there's something of substance to add about this. Tvoz | talk 03:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope someone else can weigh in on this. Look at it this way: Obama has made very few statements about Iran -- the key one in 2004, and a couple of recent ones vis-a-vis Iraq (the one you mention is essentially the same as the one I used). You're arguing that these foreign policy position statements -- the only ones that exist by Obama about a much-discussed country, Iran -- are not significant enough to mention, even though Obama is a politician. I do not accept that opinion. This is critical information, and even more so because Obama has a mystique of anti-war-ness about him. Particularly the quote from 2004 really should be in this article, even if it's just a historical reference. Organ123 05:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The comment was incorporated into a footnote by another editor and this seemed like a good solution to the discussion we were having - the footnote cites a December 2006 article where this is mentioned in the context of his thinking about the region. I agreed with the edit, as it gives the information but does not give it more weight than it should have. Tvoz | talk 04:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please unprotect this page.

Please. This is anti-wiki. I'll help watch the page for vandalism.--Hollerbackgril 19:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not anti-wiki - if it were anti-wiki there wouldn't be a Wikipedia option for semi-protection. This page has been plagued by IP address vandals - like Hillary Clinton's - and both have semi-protection (as do many other articles) as a means of limiting and controlling the damage. We have lots to monitor with editing by registered users already. By the way - changing the tag without an edit summary or comment here to me seems not the best way to start off helping out. Discussion first is more helpful. Thanks. Tvoz | talk 19:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
what vandalism doth thou speak of? "We have lots to monitor with editing by registered users already." There hasn't been one edit on the main page. for several hours. good bad. nothing. What are you talking about??? Also, if rape were unhuman, i wouldn't have a penis. q.e.d.--Hollerbackgril 20:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Interesting comment at the end, but ignoring that, check out the edit history for the period leading up to the protection of the article.[1] Only about a third of the edits are actually constructive edits. The rest are either reverts or less than constructive edits. --Bobblehead 21:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Great, so lets unprotect now since no one is editing it. duh. there is less than one edit per hour. all non-vandal. what is the deal??? --Hollerbackgril 21:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Hollerbackgril, your rhetorical flourishes are not helping discussion here. Try to remain civil (per "duh" etc). I'm unprotecting based on this discussion. Let's remain vigilant to watch the page. Of course, we can protect again if vandalism increases again. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
No one on wikipedia is "civil" give it a break. thanks for unprotect. personal attack removed--Hollerbackgril 21:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey look! nothing happened! let's bomb iran because they might attack us = lets protect page because a high schooler might get nasty. shock. yo, nothing is happening. im waiting, though. personal attack removed --Hollerbackgril 21:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Dude, need to knock it down a few notches. The page was just unprotected, takes the vandals awhile to figure out the page isn't protected anymore. Not like they circle around clicking on the page every three seconds waiting for an opportunity. --Bobblehead 21:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Dude the point is, you've protected a page at the very point it should be open. you can get a lot of good stuff from the jump in interest. if you all get pissed and protect, every time a high schooler drops an n-bomb on this page, you've cowered to the terrorists. don't treat me like a fool, this page is protected because your afraid of the n-bombs people will drop, and for no other reason. the volume of vandalism is controlable, the pain of the n-bomb is, evidently, not.--Hollerbackgril 21:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:TROLL is relevant at this point. <ignore> · j e r s y k o talk · 21:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Jersyko, you're funny and i like you. block me. --Hollerbackgril 22:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

All I'll say at this moment is that calling this exchange a "discussion" is elevating it pretty much up to the basement. Sure hope it isn't a harbinger of the future, but I've made my position clear on optimism. Tvoz | talk 22:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I unprotected based on the earlier discussion, not this mess. And I'm right there with you, Tvoz, on the prospects for future protection of this page. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Age six to eight in a Muslim school

we have multiple mainstream reliable sources covering this now, you need to get over your love for your superstar OBama and stop removing revelations about his life. what is wrong with the man's own words "I inhaled frequently that was the point" might I add? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.255.19.118 (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

So what? If he was rised with islamists but never was one himself, this may be a formidable weapon. This may give him a powerfull insight ! know your ennemy... --86.71.93.155 15:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
(1) Assume good faith. (2) Don't break the 3 revert rule. (3) The sources aren't reporting it as fact, they are reporting it as the report by a super conservative news source that refuses to cite its specific sources. Come back when you have a reliable source, please. · j e r s y k o talk · 16:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Insight Magazine is a publication of the Washington Times, a reliable source, your false use of policy here fails. Fox news (another reliable source) is also covering this, i will be bold and always re-insert wrongly removed reliably sourced information.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.255.19.118 (talk • contribs).
FOX News is merely noting that Insight Magazine is reporting it. Insight is not quoting anyone aside from an unnamed source. That makes this unreliable.Shsilver 17:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. I don't think this should be included yet. Insight magazine is reporting that a democrat background check indicates this information. Every other outlet (as far as i've seen), has only been reporting that Insight magainze reports that the democratic background check indicates this information. This amounts to whisper down the lane, and I don't think this should be noted as fact yet. After all, as the Insight article points out, the results of this background check have not even been released yet. What is going on here is very dangerous, as wikipedia is turning some "leaked" information into "fact" before it's even verified. This would be like editing the Britney Spears article to say she's pregnant with her third baby, just because some entertainment web sites are saying she's pregnant, w/o having it actually confirmed. I believe this information should be removed, until it's confirmed. Bjewiki 18:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
with all due respect what you are implying appears to go directly against "Verifiability not truth." 206.255.19.118 18:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I understand that, but what i'm saying here is that the report (background check) hasn't even been released yet, no one has confirmed this...the only thing we have is one source (which as covered before is a right wing website) reporting on a leak for report that hasn't happened yet...it's being passed off as fact here which is very dangerous...I agree with HailFire below Bjewiki 03:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid turning our Wikipedia into a vehicle for broadcast of unverified and unchecked urban legends. New editors are always welcome at Wikipedia, but they are strongly urged to read WP:BLP before making contributions here. --HailFire 19:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

None of the right-wing news or talk-radio or blogs gave evidence that Hillary Clinton's camp was behind the Muslim madrassa charge. See media matters on this:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200701200003 PIYI 19:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

it is very hypocritical to decry the use of "right-wing sources" while invoking liberal/left sources like Media Matters. 206.255.19.118 21:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, this is a talk page, not an article. Youi can invoke whatever you want to invoke here, as long as you do it civilly. That's not the same as using it as a source in the article. Get it? Tvoz | talk 21:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a good debunking of all this moronic madrassah nonsense. Facts and Falsehoods about Obama --Lee Hunter 23:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Even Fox News is distancing itslef from the "madrassa" claim now [2]. This is a perfect example why we shouldn't just run with "leaked" unofficial information, and attempt to make it "fact" in an entry like this. Bjewiki 21:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

CNN just had a report debunking the rumor. - PoliticalJunkie 22:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"I inhaled, frequently, that was the point." Direct quote and reliably sourced.

these are THE MAN'S OWN WORDS as transcribed by MSNBC and Chris Matthews, you have NO justification in removing them in a section on his pot smoking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.255.19.118 (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Grrrrrr!!!!Jasper23 19:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


That was not such a great "direct" source - it was a soundbyte - a clip - on Matthews, not a full statement or interview. I posted a more comprehensive statement and better source. The story is clearly presented, with sources, for all to read, so please stop trying to highlight it or give it undue weight by creating unnecessary subsections in a short main section just so you can add a heading "Drug use". Enough already. Tvoz | talk 22:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The article already discusses his drug use as a teen. Why is this particular quote so important? That's a rhetorical question, by the way. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I would attribute its importance to the quote being notable, widely covered, more recent, on video recording, and phrased in a way that many Americans are quite familiar with. Again, I've seen nothing but praise toward Obama for this quote, despite the (apparently anti-Obama) anons who've added it in the past. What makes "to push questions of who I was out of my mind" any more important, if I might posit another hypothetical in response? Italiavivi 00:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not (nor is the unimportant 2 yrs he spent at age 6 in a school in Jakarta) but they are like bad pennies that I am afraid will keep turning up, so my thinking was that we make a straightforward statement in the text and move on. But I guess we'll try it this way. Tvoz | talk 01:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I find the quote kind of amusing because it's a direct slap at Bill Clinton and nicely puts the issue to bed. Macduff 05:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I have to admit, I came here looking for this quote, too. I don't find it a "bad penny" at all, and nor does Obama, from watching the clip. 198.205.32.94 14:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Someone just wants to make him look bad so they post all the faults they know about the person. Funny, I don't see anything about Dubya's drug use on his page. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 17:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
If not there should be, if it can be cited that is. Steve Dufour 17:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This latest edit [3] I think handles it well - gives the full quote and where to read the full interview, but doesn't give it the undue weight some are trying to give it. Well done. Tvoz | talk 19:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I also support the version Tvoz links, but I wonder if getting specific about the comparison to Clinton is out of line. Did Obama himself ever note or say that he was drawing a comparison to Clinton's remarks? Either way, the "inhale" quote is very much notable, and I see no "bad penny" element to it (I have seen nothing but praise toward Obama for his frankness and honesty on the subject). It is certainly a more recent quote on his past drug use the the one from his book, I would add. Italiavivi 23:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
My "bad penny" analogy was not the clearest - as my edits show I think that the inhale quote should be included and to me also it puts him in a good light, despite the fact that some elements want to use it in a negative light. (But I don't think any of the drug stuff is particularly important, especially not in post-baby boom generation - it's more likely to find people who smoked weed than not - even Al Gore.) By "bad penny" I meant that there's no point in removing the phrase or hiding it because it won't go away - it will be raised again and again, so we may as well go with a straightforward rendition of it and move on. As for the Clinton comparison - see [4] which I had included as my reference when I reinstated the phrase in an earlier edit - the text read that this statement invited journalists to make the comparison to Bill Clinton, and this is a respected journalist making that comparison. I haven't seen that he actually said "compare me to Bill Clinton" but the use of "I inhaled" is more than obviously just that. This isn't OR, it is just understanding a cultural reference. Tvoz | talk 06:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I can accept that explanation for the Clinton comparison then, yeah. Italiavivi 17:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've included the NYT source in this version. Can we agree to let this version stand? Nothing is being hidden. This paragraph is about what's in Obama's 1995 book, not comments he made 11 years after it was published. The point is that it does not do anybody any good if the article becomes unreadable due to edits that confuse the innocent reader with Too Much Information. People who want to know more, check the notes. That what they are there for. --HailFire 07:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion that "the paragraph is about what's in Obama's 1995 book." The section is about his early life, and in this paragraph's case, his past drug use. And with regard to this section, I would assert that the interview on his drug use is just as (if not more) notable than a quote from his book. If we're only allowed one quote on drug use, why not use the interview, and offer the book's quote in the references, by your reasoning? I would rather include both quotes, seperately sourced, with Tvoz's footnotes added in the reference for the interview quote. Italiavivi 17:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Italiavivi, your edit here is a distortion and gives undue weight or possibly worse. It presents totally out of context a comment that was clearly made as a light-hearted retort to Remnick's questioning. You are misleading the reader, and I join the majority here in doubting that your primary interest is to add quality to this article. The detailed note containing Obama's full quote was added because of your insistence that the interview comments are notable. It is far more explanatory to the reader. than your out of context distortion which only succeeds in sowing confusion. --HailFire 15:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC); strikeouts added by --HailFire 20:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
It does not give undue weight in any way. You're welcome to drop baseless accusations of trolling (WP:Civility, WP:AGF), but that doesn't entitle you to claiming your "tuck away in the footnote" version has consensus. This quote is more notable concerning his past drug use; your argument that only material from Obama's books, not his interviews, can be included in the Early Life section has no merit. The quote warrants full mention in the article's main body. Also, Jersyko has in no way responded to the discussion above this one in which I fully responded to his hypothetical, despite telling me to "see Talk" in his most recent revert. Italiavivi 16:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
With respect, Italiavivi, you seemed to support HailFire's edit in this comment, so I'm a bit confused. Tvoz, HailFire, and me clearly support the HailFire edit. So far, it seems only you have argued against it (after supporting it, though I'm willing to chalk that up to a misunderstanding). Thus, let's wait for others to comment on the issue, please. As for your comment directed at me, look below this comment. The comments here are out of order now, but clearly my concern is undue weight. · j e r s y k o talk · 16:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I supported Tvoz's version, which included the pertinent quote within the main body of the article. It did not tuck it away in the reference. Now, with a better understand of Tvoz's "bad penny" analogy, I can see what he means by there being no benefit to tucking it away in this manner. I would also repeat my not appreciating your "see Talk" edit summary, despite not having continued our dialogue above. Italiavivi 16:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The version Tvoz supports is the version in the footnote. Take a second look, please. Again, I believe it was just a misunderstanding. · j e r s y k o talk · 16:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
There was a prior version where Tvoz's footnote comments were included within the main body, which I could have compromised to. What's the problem with including such a notable quote in the article's main body, is my question? Why are editors so dedicated to tucking it away in the reference, and only allowing book quotes on his past drug use? Italiavivi 16:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
My main concern, at least, is that I'm still not convinced that the quote itself is really that encyclopedic. Ok, so he's admitting to past drug use *again*, but this time he's doing it in a clever/witty way. *shrug*. Thus, it really seems to be giving the quote undue weight to include the entire thing in the article text (which I attribute to recentism, which is a phenomenon many wikipedia articles experience), but it doesn't seem appropriate as a matter of editorial judgment to include only part of it without context in the text. Both problems can be avoided through HailFire's edit. · j e r s y k o talk · 16:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
How is it not encyclopedic, if it's both notable, pertinent, and straight from his mouth, is all? I don't see any ground for calling it unencyclopedic, at all. I don't understand how the line from his book is more notable than the interview quote, where the subject is concerned. I also dislike that HailFire's version places a completely different quote in a reference meant to detail his book. If someone comes to this article looking for the television interview quote, and doesn't see it in the "drug use" section, why must they look in a book's reference to find it? Not exactly straightforward. Italiavivi 18:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I can agree to that version, HailFire. I'm not sure I understand this subsequent edit, though. The full quote is already given, with context and appropriate references, in the footnote. While I'm willing to concede the notability of the quote for one mention in the article (preferably the footnote, where more context and sources can be provided per undue weight), I'm not willing to admit that undue weight allows for a second instance. Perhaps this was just a misunderstanding. I'm going to revert the change for now, though if anyone can offer a counterargument here, I'm all ears, as always. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The quote can be noted in the article's main body, with context (and speculative Clinton comparisons, did Obama himself state that he was referring to Clinton's comments?) in footnootes if necessary. Italiavivi 16:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, there is no television interview cited. If you, Italiavivi, are referring to the Chris Matthews piece, go back and look again - it was a soundbyte, not an interview., and as such not a good source - it is out of context. If you are referring to where the quote actually came frokm, the David Remnick piece, Remnick is an editor at The New Yorker and his interview is audio and print. So unless there is another interview, on television, that people would be "coming to this article" to look for, don't add red herrings - meaning, don't falsely elevate a minor point into some kind of major event to justify its inclusion. Next, you have mischaracterized my position. I do not, again DO NOT, think that this quote is particularly notable or necessary to include in the main text of the article. Read the Remnick interview and you will see how offhand and small a part of the discussion that one line was. Yes, it's memorable, but that doesn't make it notable for inclusion in the main text. It is a classic case for a foot note. However I was also not comfortable with it's being only alluded to rather than spelled out in the footnote as as earlier edit had it. I suggested at times to include it in the text, but on reading it all in context, and seeing how the footnote is now presented, I do not think it warrants distorting the text just to include a soundbyte. So, to be crystal clear and not have my words twisted, I support HailFire's long footnote edit and Jersyko's reinstatement of it. And I am going to reinstate it again. This is not edit warring on our part, Italiavivi - this is called reaching consensus. Tvoz | talk 19:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

do you really think obama is muslim? read this

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/19/fox-obama-madrassa/


"In Indonesia, I’d spent 2 years at a Muslim school, 2 years at a Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Koranic studies. In the Catholic school, when it came time to pray, I’d pretend to close my eyes, then peek around the room. Nothing happened. No angels descended."

In his more recent book, The Audacity of Hope, Obama writes (p.274), “Without the money to go to the international school that most expatriate children attended, I went to local Indonesian schools and ran the streets with the children of farmers, servants, tailors, and clerks.” —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.136.128.7 (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Political Stances

I look at this page and it seems to focus an awfully lot on his personal life, struggles, etc; without ever really telling what he stands fro specifically, or his voting record. I think a section for his voting histoy (liek these pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton#Legislation_and_programs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Domestic_policy etc. I think this would improve the uality greatly. I would do it, but I'm not really sure what his stances are, hence why I came here to look. :P20:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Comment posted by User:69.154.2.3

I agree with you, check out discussion topic Political Beliefs which already exists for discussing this purpose. Bjewiki 20:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Name

In the article here it states "Obama likened the linguistic roots of his East African first name Barack to the Hebrew word baruch, meaning blessed." I was watching Late Night with Conan O'Brien, where Obama was the guest and during his appearence there he stated that his first name was Celtic. I don't know what the original air date was or have a specific reference so I did not type it into the article, but it could be noteworthy if anyone can find it. The particular episode of Late Night was the last in a particular string of episodes taped in Chicago in 2006. Kenallen 00:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he thought there were more Celtic voters than Jewish voters watching TV that night.  :-) Steve Dufour 05:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Folks, it's a comedy show. Not very likely that Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. of Kenya had a Celtic first name, is it? Tvoz | talk 05:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
(Removing joke.) I am a conservative (mostly) Republican and I support Obama. For one thing having a black president (and first lady!) would be a very good thing for our society. For another I don't think there is a Republican who can win in 2008 and I think Obama would make a better president than Hillary. The third thing is that the main-stream, liberal media establishment, etc. seems to be supporting Hillary. Steve Dufour 13:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Planning a Spoken Word Version of Article

I just wanted to say that I'm planning on recording a Spoken Word version of this article, once we learn more about Obama's status in the 2008 Presidential race. If anyone has any suggestions or comments about this recording, please let me know. Otherwise, I just wanted to alert any potential other Spoken Word-ers and/or major article contributors about my plans! Regards, Rahzel 04:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Curious - is this a wikipedia project? (forgive my ignorance - it sounds interesting)Tvoz | talk 06:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
That could be cool. I guess articles could be downloaded and listened to on an Ipod type thing. Steve Dufour 07:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. Also, having a Spoken Word version of the article will make it easier for people who don't necessarily understand written English, but understand conversational English, to read the article. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia for more information on why Spoken Word articles are Useful and generally a Good Thing. Regards, Rahzel 07:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - I'll look at that - I didn't mean to sound discouraging - it sounds like an excellent idea, bringing articles to wider audiences. I totally approve of that. Tvoz | talk 21:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I recorded a Spoken Word version of this article. My intent is to re-record it once we know for sure what Obama's plans are in terms of the Presidency, but for now this version will suffice. Let me know how it turned out! --Rahzel 16:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Obama supports Socialized Medicine

http://www.lp.org/yourturn/archives/000530.shtml

Can somebody mention his support for Socialized Medicine? This is one of the most important issues of the 2008 campaign and his extreme-left viewpoint should be mentioned. 66.59.106.102 18:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger supported the new Californian plan to expand coverage for the uninsured through a measure of government intervention. Even Bush was talking about expanding government role in health care (albeit on a rather low level) in the SOTU address just a few days ago. Extreme left my ass. Additionally, the libertarian party's website is probably not a reliable source for characterizing Obama's position on health care. Finally, if Obama has taken a firm stance on health care and the uninsured and reliable sources are discussing it, I'm all for including it in the article. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Quick blurb added, based on this AP report. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Good addition. And I assume no one has recent;y accused Newt Gingrich of being "extreme-left" either, yet he and Hillary Clinton worked together on a plan in 2005. Tvoz | talk 21:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

New Page: "Political views of Barack Obama"?

Hillary Clinton has one, and it's quite nice. As Obama slowly, painfully spills the beans about his viewpoints, wouldn't it be nice to catalog them in a new page? (If it exists already, feel free to erase this post.) The current page is very long and it's difficult to expand on anything. The "political advocacy" section doesn't do justice to displaying Obama's viewpoints. I think there should be a new page that gives space to these ideas. In fact, I think the creation of this page is inevitable, but I think now may be a good time to get it started. I'd be happy to help, of course. Organ123 00:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

As when this topic has come up before, I second this nomination. He's one of the 2 likely major candidates from democratic party for presentident, there should definitely be a page cataloging any viewpoints that have been cited or published. Bjewiki 23:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:SMOKERS discussion.

The discussion of Laura Bush's/Barack Obama's smoking/attempts to quit smoking led me to begin an essay/potential guideline on the topic of smoking within biographical articles. The participation of the editors here would be appreciated. Italiavivi 01:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you would rephrase your essay using your own words, not mine - mine on this talk page were not intended for an essay. Your essay has borrowed heavily from my comments here, and I'd prefer their not being included there. Thank you very much. Tvoz | talk 03:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to a wiki, Tvoz. Italiavivi 03:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Just saw the discussion page on your WP:SMokers -I had not seen that when I posted the above note, or I would have posted it there instead. Still, would rather you re=phrased it. Thanks. Tvoz | talk 03:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, but comments on a talk page are not a wiki - for one thing they are signed. I am politely asking you not to use my words in your piece. Will you respect that or do I have to go in and remove them? Thank you. Tvoz | talk 04:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, a talk page is a wiki in that anyone can edit your comments. May I ask what the problem is with using your words in WP:SMOKERS? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
No, you're specifically expected not to edit other people's words on talk pages, actually:

Don't edit others' comments: Refrain from editing others' comments without their permission (with the exception of prohibited material such as libel and personal details). It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Never edit someone's words to change their meaning. From WP:TPG.

In keeping with the spirit of "off-topicness": A wiki is a website that allows visitors to add, remove, and otherwise edit and change available content. Anyway, I didn't say it should be done, but that it can be done. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem is I wasn't asked if I wished to contribute to a separate essay on this topic, nor do I wish to. There is a difference between articles and talk space. This is not something I am going to debate - it is well-known and obvious to anyone who edits on wikipedia. You don't edit other people's comments on talk pages, and by extension, therefore, you don't take their words and post them elsewhere in what is tantamount to an article, without their permission. Articles are to be edited, changed, excerpted, etc. - they are the wikis - talk space is where people sign their comments and you leave them alone. Tvoz | talk 06:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I never edited your words on this Talk page. The idea/argument is not your own property, and even Talk page contributions are licensed under GFDL (read above the edit summary). I have removed your "wrapped in a ribbon" analogy from WP:SMOKERS's text, because I felt it reads badly, and you are by no means required to participate on this matter. You will not go about removing words like "vice" simply because you used them to describe smoking in the past, though.
As for other WP:SMOKERS participants, your input is appreciated, as a greater succinct consensus on the smoker issue (beyond the three primary editors here on Talk:Barack Obama) would be very useful elsewhere. Italiavivi 15:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This conversation doesn't belong here, but at the SMOKERS talk page. I see a conversation is ongoing there already. Thanks. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Italiavivi 18:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Articulate

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

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

Please tell me, why is this so surprising to you? I am African American, and I always bristle a bit when someone remarks how articulate I am. I have heard this sentiment from many others as well. Eugene Robinson expressed his unease with this very eloquently (or, should I say, articulately?) in a column in today's Washington Post[[5]].

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

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

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

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

Excellent, Wareq - "eloquent" is exactly right - not insulting, racist or condescending. Tvoz | talk 05:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely on the money. When I first heard about the complaints of the implied underlying racism by terming Obama "articulate", I was taken aback—the first thing I had noticed about him (with half of America watching with me) was at his keynote address in '04, that he was the greatest speaker I had ever heard. I tried to explain to students that this was the kind of speaker that people used to travel two days to listen to in the first half of the 19th century. I mean, it was his speech that I was noticing. So WTF--why is it an insult to note this? Well, now I understand. Frankly, I don't think that all college educated people are articulate, but the point is, the connotation of the word is minimalist (though I think this may be a newer construction). As Wareq says, "eloquent" is the NPOV word for him ("mesmerizing", "inspirational", and others might be accurate as well, but are more POV). Unschool 05:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

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

good grief. Tvoz | talk 19:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
can you smell, what Obama, is cooking? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.108.104.225 (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Race

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

Here we go again. Please read this: Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_4#African-American.2C_again. There's probably even an older one. I'll just copy the basic ending of this which sums it up pretty well:
"America is a great country, but for if someone has any visible African heritage at all--you can be 100% sure they will encounter racism during their lifetime. Barak Obama is of 50% African heritage and he is American. That is more than enough to call him African American with no hesitation and no second thoughts. Saying, in effect, that his status "doesn't count" also oversimplifies the entire African American community in the USA-- the African American community is hugely diverse-- ranging from predominantly priveledged, highly educated, hugely successful, on the one hand; all the way over to poor and struggling on the other extreme (not unlike the White American community). It encompasses both recent immigrants and those who have roots here going back hundreds of years. Sean7phil 09:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)"
Thanks, Sean7phil. And to answer your question, yes he has referred to himself as African American several times. Gdo01 21:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where did you come up with that? You are an African American if you have African ancestry and you are American. I don't see any requirement for Polish Americans to have been enslaved. Gdo01 14:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Your argument is fallacious. African-American, in American culture, means precisely what the previous poster said. It is wholly tied to slavery in America and its resulting politics. It has a specific meaning. 66.179.208.36 21:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Webster's is an American dictionary, is it not? Their defintion is broad and mentions nothing about having to descend from slaves. Chinese-Americans don't have to be from the same Chinese people who were forced to build the railroads and mines of the West. Irish-Americans don't have to be from the same Irish people who were discriminated and prosecuted for being Catholic. Mexican-Americans don't have to be people from lands that used to be Mexican controlled. European-Americans don't have to be descended from the 13 colonies' citizens. Gdo01 21:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Phil

67.42.243.184 19:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

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

RE:"Is he actually related to Saddam Hussien?" I doubt it. Gzkn 07:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Nor King Hussein. It was his father's middle name, and his father was from Kenya. Don't believe Internet rumors. Tvoz | talk 07:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Husayn (name) or Hussein is a very very common name is muslim countries, both both as first name and as a patronym. --86.71.93.155 15:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Beware, this is the far-right trying to smear Obama. He is not fucking related to Saddam Hussein or any of the other famous Husseins. Also, he is not related to Osama Bin Laden, and he didn't attend a radical muslim cleric school. These are all lies that the far-right want scared white people to believe.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.106.33 (talk • contribs)
That is true but it is also true that both his father and stepfather were born Muslims and he attended a predominately Muslim school in Indonesia. For better or worse that is going to scare a lot of Americans of all races. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.9.171.151 (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
Time will tell. I personally think it's done some damage to Fox News' credibility. Of course, I've never cared for Gibson. He's a dolt. Regardless, I think the story (or scandal) is notable and should be featured in the article under Controversy. MoodyGroove 01:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

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

Political Beliefs?

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

67.42.243.184 19:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

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

He might just be a "democrat party" believer. -- Walter Humala Godsave him! (wanna Talk?) 17:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I think Obama is concerned with saying as little of significance as possible in order to gain broad support for 2008. For example, from a recent Obama speech: "Our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, commonsense way." "Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions. And that's what we have to change first." ... That says absolutely nothing, but it's hard to disagree. This is in line with Chomsky's recent comments about Obama and NPR, quoted above: "...But they had a section on Barack Obama, the great new hope. And it was very exuberant: what a fantastic personality he is and a great candidate, thousands of people coming out. And it went on for about 15 minutes of excited rhetoric. There's only one thing missing. They didn’t say a word about what his policies were on anything. It’s kind of not -- doesn't matter, you know. He’s a unifier. He looks at you when he talks to you. He’s a really decent guy. Great background. OK, that's an election." Organ123 18:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Walter, take a look at some more articles - some have a "political views" section, some don't - across party lines and ideologies (see for example, Mitt Romney and Dennis Kucinich). Sometimes politicians' records speak for themselves, better than editors' characterizations of them. I'd prefer not to be the one to decide what part of the political spectrum a given politician falls into, but that's just my opinion. Tvoz | talk 19:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I think there should definitely be a political view section, listing his beliefs on such topics as abortion, gun control, environment, etc. However, it should be very tightly moderated, and every listed view should include links to an article(s) that show definitively that that's Obama's view. He is a Presidential candidate after all (or will officially be shortly), and very little is known about some of his views, so as they come up, I believe they should be cataloged here. Bjewiki 20:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about trying to guess his beliefs, but I would certainly support a run-down of significant votes from his Senate voting record. Italiavivi 23:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not sure the NPAT is notable enough to be listed as something he has not filled out. It's just a survey. If you'd like to know about his views, you can check out his voting record (available at Vote Smart), or his book, The Audacity of Hope, (which has the same level of credibility as the NPAT survey). Alternatively, you can check out our fledgling new article about his political beliefs at Political views of Barack Obama. —bbatsell ¿? 20:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression that the NPAT was what vote smart based their data off of? So the current data is old (1998). If it is not then I apologize. :) 69.154.2.3 20:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, PVS provides a person's answers to the NPAT survey. But it's definitely not the only thing that PVS has in terms of data; I personally place a lot more credibility in a person's voting record. It's easy to say one thing on a voluntary survey but do another when you're actually in office. You can see Mr. Obama's voting record here. —bbatsell ¿? 20:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, just what I was looking for! 162.40.138.163 23:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Obama Madrassa Media Scandal

I really think there needs to be a "Controversies" section on the main page, a place to deal with the Madrassa hoax, the 'he's really a Muslim' bigotry, etc. Sort of a one-stop-info-shop for dealing quickly with the Swiftboating (and perhaps the real issues) the may come up. TJ aka Teej 02:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


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

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

Some people might say the lady doth protest too much. :-) Steve Dufour 15:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
CNN supposedly completely debunked the report. Perhaps we should wait to see how all this plays out, though, as all the evidence is not in, surely. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The point is this is a single source story that several media outlets have run with. It is however based on a single anonymous source. I would say that it might be a good idea to employ WP:DUST in this case. --Rtrev 03:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The question must also be raised, does Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons apply to mentioning the false story in his article? I agree with Jersysko for now, let the dust settle. A seperate article can be created later, but we wouldn't even know what to title it, right now. Italiavivi 18:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Supposing the story's been put to rest with the CNN investigation, it was rather short-lived. It lasted maybe two days after it came out in Insight, and I don't think that merits a separate article. - PoliticalJunkie 01:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree no seperate article. I personally doubt it even merits a mention here. Perhaps it should be mentioned in the Fox News article but perhaps not since from what I can tell it hasn't caused much controversy, probably because it's not unusual for Fox News to completely fail to investigate a story. 203.109.240.93 11:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Well actually I found out it is mentioned in the Fox News controversies article 203.109.240.93 12:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

There is no evidence whatsoever that Hillary Clinton was the source of Insight's false article. Italiavivi 18:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's be clear here. Madrassa means simply "school." The school Obama attended for two years in Indonesia was investigated by CNN, which found the school to be a secular, public school. Thanks. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
A public school yes-but in 90% Muslim Indonesia where he lived with his Muslim born step-father. He then was transfered to a Catholic school for 2 years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.9.171.151 (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC).
According to the American Religious Identification Survey approximately 79.8% of Americans in 2001 identified themselves as Christians and in 1990 88.3% of Americans identified themselves as Christians. No one claims that the word "school" in English somehow implies that it is a Christian school or say "A public school yes-but in 88% Christian America where he lived with his Christian born step-father." That he attended a public school in 90% Muslim Indonesia does not mean anything anymore than attending a public school in 80% Christian America means anything. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 01:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Madrassa hoax

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pronunciation

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

posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by 82.34.120.8 (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
Sure. Can someone with IPA experience confirm? · j e r s y k o talk · 17:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
About to add this, although I believe it is more accurately represented by: [bəˈɹɑːk oʊˈbɑː.mə] —bbatsell ¿? 03:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Listening to various installments of his podcast [6], it sounds like he himself does not lengthen the ɑ vowel in his first name (thus giving [bəˈɹɑk]), which is consistent with GA pronunciation (see the IPA chart for English). If anyone with a deeper knowledge of phonological format and standards wishes to revert this (or do the same for his surname?), please do so! Ninly 01:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

For a strange coincidence, his first name "Barack" in its written form means "peach" in Hungarian (the noun "barack" is however pronounced as "buh-rutsk" in that language), thus looks a bit funny for native readers and gives his name a pleasant touch, as summoning the image of the fruit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.120.117.214 (talk • contribs).

He is a smoker.

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

67.42.243.184 19:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

-no agenda here, just genuinely curious

Good heavens, does he curse too?? Tvoz | talk 23:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I heard he once ran a red light! H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 23:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
He cursed in Dreams from My Father, oh dear. - PoliticalJunkie 01:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Sarcasm aside, Laura Bush's article makes note of her being a smoker. Italiavivi 12:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
That is irrelevant. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
It shouldn't. Have you read the sentence itself? The mention of her smoking is completely broken off from the rest of the paragraph. It sounds like a side note and really doesn't need to be there. Now, if she was an avid supporter of Anti-smoking campaigns, then it would make sense. The source itself reads Even Laura Bush has her vices, such as a smoking habit she can't quite shake. Kessler says the first lady bums a cigarette once in a while: "She goes out on the balcony and smokes a little bit every now and then." It's far from important. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 14:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed the sentence about her smoking and one about her being treated for minor skin cancer. Together they formed one paragraph. Steve Dufour 15:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, kidding aside - I agree with H2P - the only reason anyone's being a smoker would be relevant to his or her article is if that person was otherwise identified with an anti-smoking campaign and made statements like "I don't smoke, you shouldn't either". One's personal vices don't necessarily mean one shouldn't advise others not to engage in them, unless you're Mark Foley or the like, but blatant lying about them would be problematic. In any case, I see no relevance to include here. Tvoz | talk 18:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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

But this article is not part of anyone's campaign, pro or anti Obama- its purpose is not to give people information so they can decide if they want to vote for him. I don't think his smoking at all rises to the level of notability for this individual,for this article, for the reasons I outlined above. That's why I facetiously asked does he curse - or does he socially drink - these have a similar level of insignificance to a Wikipedia article. Let his opponents use it in their campaign literature if they want to - it doesn't belong here. Tvoz | talk 17:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you are right. Let me pose this question: if he had a drinking problem would that make the wiki? I know we are getting in to degrees of abuse and thats very subjective. Let me point you to Paula Abdul's page. Her incidences of weird behavior are noted as being a suspected substance abuse issue though she has not publicly stated it. Aside from the smoking topic, people will use this as a source for voting whether you want them to or not. Have it your way Tvoz, you spend more time on here than I do. Erik
I'm not trying to have it my way, I'm just saying what I think. My only interest is in presenting notable material in as fair and neutral way as possible, and not on behalf of one campaign or another. I've spent a fair amount of time on Nelson Rockefeller and Hillary Rodham Clinton too, among others, so I'm not taking sides here. And yes, if someone had a drinking problem that affected his or her behavior and job functioning, I would say it might be appropriate here (subject to the wikipedia libel concerns of biographies of living people, that is). That was my point - it's notable if it is in direct contradiction to something he says - meaning he's lying - and it's notable if it is somehow affecting his performance- that kind of thing. On its own, it is being presented as if it has some inherent meaning, and I don't think it does. That's all. Tvoz | talk 18:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Why must a vice illustrate hypocrisy or suggest a problem to be relevant? You're (understandably, given today's political culture in the US) looking at this from only one direction. Consider that the fact might be interesting - even important - to those of us concerned about puritanism in this country and its government's attacks on industry & personal freedom. I doubt I'm the only voter more inclined to trust the man for the fact that he enjoys a few vices and doesn't work to conceal them. --einexile 11:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


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

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

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

So what? Bill Richardson lost weight for his run. I haven't looked, but I sure as hell hope it didn't make it onto his wikipedia page. Again, just because there is a citation does not necessarily mean it passes the notability standard, especially on a page where we are constantly struggling to keep it within a reasonable size. Tvoz | talk 19:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you Tvoz that this does not warrant mention in an encyclopedia article. Confusing this article with a campaign tool would be a grave mistake. There are other sources of information people will use to make their decisions about Obama and other candidates for public office and Wikipedia does not need to be an exhaustive source of information on the candidates for President nor would it be appropriate to do so. When we get to the point we are mentioning minor points of interest to some such as Obama smoking as a part of an article we are seeking to use Wikipedia in a way that is in my view unacceptable. Yes, this does interest some people as has been mentioned by Einexile and may affect their decision on election day but this information is available through other sources. Everything about Obama has the possibility of affecting someone's decision and I can guarantee that there is nothing about him that someone would not find interesting and important but I still don't think this is the place to cover every point or fact about a person. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 02:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cillizza, Chris. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2006/12/the_obamadaschle_connection.html 'The Fix: The Obama-Daschle Connection], "Washington Post", December 11, 2006. Retrieved on January 14, 2007
  2. ^ Enda, Jodi. Great Expectations, The American Prospect Online Edition, February 5, 2006. Retrieved on January 14, 2007
  3. ^ Linn, Brendan R. [7], "Harvard Crimson", July 25, 2005
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_5&oldid=1078749100"