Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 5 |
Archive 6
| Archive 7 →


Contents

New Page: "2008 Presedential Election Campagn"?

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

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

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

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

book deal-Harvard Law Review connection?

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

In the preface to Dreams he says that he got the deal as a direct result of his presidency. I'll quote the relevant section later tonight. —bbatsell ¿? 23:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
It's actually the introduction, not the preface, and I'm not sure how much I can quote (if any at all) in talkspace, so I'll summarize that page xiii states that he received offers from "a few publishers" during his third year at Harvard Law, and agreed to not seek employment for a year after law school during which he would write a book. I haven't re-read the whole introduction, but to my recollection there is no explanation for the large disparity in time between graduation and publication. —bbatsell ¿? 23:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks - but I'm still not clear on why it's notable for inclusion here. I hope User:Political Junkie or anyone else will weigh in too. I do think the section reads well now, with just the straightforward facts about the books. 23:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it reads fine now but I don't have a problem at all saying that he was offered the book deal because of his presidency of HLR. Otherwise a reader could be left wondering why a Chicago lawyer got a book deal about his childhood and adolescence seemingly out of the blue. (That is to say, I think that needs to be explicitly stated with the book cited as the source rather than the other text, as it is equally as unclear.) —bbatsell ¿? 23:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
At this link, it says "the opportunity to write the book came while I was in law school, the result of my election as the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review . In the wake of some modest publicity, I received an advance from a publisher...". However, I can't explain the time discrepancies. Still, I think it is an important fact to put it in for the reason Bbatsell put forth. - PoliticalJunkie 20:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Occidental College

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

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

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

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

Why are you wanting to remove it? —bbatsell ¿? 20:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
It was his first race, and it's helpful to note what party he ran under. Remember, we're writing for a theoretical reader who knows nothing about Obama, not somebody who knows everything about him. —bbatsell ¿? 20:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Started new article: 'Obama madrassa media scandal'

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

Probably. Perhaps the fair use police would cause a stir, but I doubt any free use pictures of the school can be created or found anytime soon. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, a link to the media scandal article really needs to be worked into this article. After a brief glance, I'm really not sure where it would fit best. · j e r s y k o talk · 16:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

obama iraq speech

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

Hey

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

User:Gdo01 and I have each removed the posts - it was not properly posted (see [1]) as it stepped on text and notes. But do we include it due to length considerations? We do include his early opposition to the war, appropriately - I'm not sure that we need the speech excerpts. ANyone else? Tvoz | talk 05:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the length concerns. I wouldn't be opposed to linking to the speech, however, and agree that the article should discuss his early war opposition. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Joe Biden's "support"

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

Ehh. Seems like a case of recentism to me. If it's going to be somewhere, Biden's article would be more appropriate, though maybe not even there. Certainly not here. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
If anywhere, it would go in an article about the 2008 presidential election (assuming it covered primaries). Don't think it belongs either here or at Joe Biden (except maybe to note that his announcement got off to a rocky start, citing the NYT and other places that covered that aspect of it). —bbatsell ¿? 02:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Belongs at Biden's article, given the notable controversy it created during his announcement, for sure. Italiavivi 17:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Took out joke

I took out:

In 2004 , the NBC sitcom Will & Grace played on then-Senator-Elect Obama's charisma and appeal when Grace mentioned having a dream about being in the shower with Obama in which he was "Ba-racking my world!"[1]

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

I concur. I think it used to add something to the article when Obama was a relative unknown - the fact that his name was mentioned on Will & Grace was notable. Now that his face regularly appears in Time, I think one sitcom joke no longer seems very important to the article. --TheOtherBob 20:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I also find the joke offensive since Senator Obama is a married man. However I didn't think that would fly as a reason to take it out. :-) Steve Dufour 17:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Football season is over

So I cut out:

In 2006, Obama was featured in a television commercial for ESPN's Monday Night Football game between his hometown Chicago Bears and the St. Louis Rams. The faux political announcement played on the frenzy surrounding him and his possible presidential candidacy. "So tonight I'd like to put all the doubts to rest," he said. "I would like to announce to my hometown of Chicago and all of America that I am ready... for the Bears to go all the way, baby."[2]

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

comments from visiting editor

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

I agree with this comment - it's a non-controversy. Tvoz | talk 08:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I also support the removal of this non-notable non-controversy, should debate come up over it in the future. Italiavivi 17:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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

If it is taken out the Republicans will say you are "whitewashing" the article. No harm is done by letting it stay. Steve Dufour 17:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd argue that it hardly holds up to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, receives undue weight with its own subsection/two-paragraph length, and seriously reeks of turning thin air into "controversy" simply for controversy's sake. Baseless, politically-motivated accusations of "whitewashing" from blatant partisans matter little to me when considering an article's content. Italiavivi 00:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Speaking the bahasa

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

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


Remove this paragraph?

"Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Illinois State Comptroller Daniel Hynes were early advocates for a 2008 Obama presidential run.[3][4] Commentators have suggested that Obama's chances to be elected president would be better in 2008 than in 2012 or later. In an October 2006 editorial published in the Chicago Tribune, Newton Minow compared prospects for a 2008 Obama presidential bid to John F. Kennedy's successful 1960 presidential campaign.[5] A December 2006 op-ed by conservative columnist George Will detailed four reasons why he thinks now is a good time for Obama to run for president.[6] In a December 2006 cover story headlined "The Race is On", Newsweek magazine columnist Jonathan Alter asked: "Is America Ready for Hillary or Obama?"[7]"

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

Hmm, I'm not sure about this one - I think we sort of do a dance between having very current up-to-the-minute information and having some longer perspective. Of course we need to be current, but we can't and shouldn't try to be a news-source - I don't think the article needs to list his day-to-day schedule of appearances as we are veering toward, and perhaps some of the older information gives a needed perspective on his candidacy or potential candidacy. So I personally wouldn't be so quick to remove last year's news if it gives insight into how he came to be in the position he now is in - maybe shorten it, but I wouldn't want to completely lose all of the nuance of the lead-up to his announcement. An encyclopedia should have that depth, I think. I know some are concerned about length issues, but let's not let that get in the way of keeping some historical perspective. I mean this as an over-all comment, actually - I'm not saying this particular graf is necessarily essential. Also, we do want some stability in the article - especially in light of the FAR discussions we just came out of. Let's see what others think. Tvoz | talk 02:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the article needs to talk about his whole life and career. This one paragraph seems to be mainly other people's opinions about his possible presidential run. When this really starts their opinions will not be so important. Steve Dufour 04:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Future items in this article - specifically presidential run

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

Consensus on IP edits

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

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

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

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

I buy that, HailFire. If vandalism persists after protection is removed, I can always re-semi now that I have the tools (I watch the page, of course). · j e r s y k o talk · 03:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Hail in that openness is the hallmark of wikis everywhere. The catch 22 is that because Obama is now a presidential candidate there should be more openness in editing and there will be a larger desire for anonymous editing (whether purposefully anonymous or "drive by" anonymous). However, at the same time, there will most certainly be a significant rise in vandalism because of the interest generated by the move. The truth is that there may be very valid reasons for anonymous editing and even if there is no reason other than sheer laziness that does not make the contribution of an earnest, anonymous editor any less valid than an earnest, registered editor.
My personal view is that sprotect should be used temporarily and infrequently in that it is not aligned with the ideal of an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit." I say lift it and we (the editors with this article watchlisted) can deal with vandalism until it really and truly gets out of hand. In a certain sense I feel a bit shameful when and article I keep tabs on gets protected because it signifies a breakdown in the vigilance of the editorship (I know this is an unrealistic view... but still). I say we give it a go... the worst that can happen is a re-addition of protection (and hey.. Jersey is pretty vigilant right?). --Rtrev 03:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
If you want to spend your time defending the article go for it. Thanks. Steve Dufour 04:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Well we can always open it up and see what happens. I have a feeling we'll be asking for semi-protection again quite soon afterwards. Gzkn 05:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully not but I say we open it up and see... --Rtrev 05:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree about this - we already tried that, Rtrev, just a few weeks ago, and as predicted the extreme vandalism returned. Nothing has happened to change that likely trajectory - if anything, I expect it will be even greater now. The fact is that no one is prevented from editing here, as long as they take the few minutes it takes to create a user ID. That user ID need be in no way identifiable to any individual person - in fact, IP addresses are more identifiable than user IDs, because they can easily be traced with WHOIS by anyone. User IDs can be traced by admins, but it requires a special request to do so, and those are not granted frivolously. So in fact the user ID editor is more anonymous, not less. We have seen recently that the level of vandalism, and the nature of the vandalism, is such that it is damaging to the article to allow IP editing. This article is certainly watched by many people, but it is a small number who diligently montior it and revert vandals. When IP editing was going on, it was an unfair burden, in my view, as it made it difficult to keep track of, and assess, legitimate edits when one is drowning in a sea of vandalism. Further, the nature of the vandalism - as I have said in the past - has not been the annoying "HI MOM" type, but instead has been a targeted, often vicious, vandalism that does damage to the hard work that numerous editors have done here and makes a mockery of the serious attempts that are made to keep the article factual and neutral. I am all in favor of an open system, but requiring usernames that do not have to bear any resemblance to one's real name, and do not have to have an email address attached, are certainly protective of the editor who wishes to remain anonymous, but also protective of the integrity of the article. This article, in my view, is a classic case where sprot is legitimately used to avoid the worst of the vandals. It won't eliminate them all, but it certainly will make it manageable to maintain the quality of the article. The fact that we've had some relative - not absolute - calm due to the latest sprot has allowed the article to be edited and improved without placing an undue burden. I haven't heard any argument that is convincing as to why IP editors should be allowed to return and, I believe, start doing their damage again. Tvoz | talk 05:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Tvoz, I believe the semi-protection should be reinstated. This will continue to be one of the most high profile pages in the coming year, and with thus be most vulnerable to vandalism. I further agree that s-protect doesn't prevent people from editing (thus not violating the "anyone can edit") because it's extremely fast and easy to register for a userID. Bjewiki 12:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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


It will come as no surprise that I have not changed my opinion on this. I haven't looked closely at today's edits, but yesterday there were times when garbage stood on the page for 11 minutes, for 14 minutes, for 6 minutes, possibly some longer - in the middle of the day - and there were no doubt dozens, hundreds, maybe thousands of people reading the page at those times. The prinicple of "open editing" is not the only principle we work under here. Jimbo Wales himself has stated that sometimes semi=-protect is needed. I'll get the reference again if anyone wants it. Everyone in this discussion knows that - we've been around and around and around the block on it. Yes, edits are fairly quickly reverted when a lot of editors are monitoring the page. But there are times when we're not so fast, and that's when Wikipedia looks amateuristic at best, racist at worst, juvenile in the middle - and I am disappointed that the desire for "open editing" has trumped all other concerns. Furthermore, I myself - I thnk a pretty diligent editor, who does at least her share of reverts - have had several instances in this latest round when I've missed real edits that I might want to question because of the sea of crap edits and reverts. The result? Some edits that are legitimate, but I or any editor here might want to discuss or tweak or remove, are overlooked. The end result? A weaker page. If that's what you want, that's what you'll get. I know it's not what many of the people who regularly edit here want - I and they want a great page. A page that when the thousands of people descend as we know they will, that we can be proud of. Our names are not associated with this - this is pure pride of anonymous accomplishment, but it's thwarted by the ideal of open editing. There were almost no IP edits in the last few days that were worthwhile. Again, I haven't llooked today, but I recall maybe one yesterday. All of the rest were vandals having fun, throwing crap on the page, and making us clean it up. I don't know about the rest of you, but I edit lots of pages here and I feel like my time is being grossly wasted by having to watch out for idiocy that could be reduced, if not eliminated, by sprot. All for some principle that has been blown out of proportion into a more important notion than accuracy and professionalism. I am tired of being made to jump through the hoop, when it could be reduced. Hey, guys - I'm just one editor. I've been described elsewhere as the one editor who wants permanent protection - that's not exactly true: I don't want full protection, but I do think we should have longer-term sprot. Just like many other pages have, including some involved in this Presidential campaign. That is, if we want this page to be a good reflection of what Wikipedia can be - a collaborative effort by dedicated people who work together and create up-to-date, compfrehensive articles about everything. Or, we can be seen as a bunch of kids who play here, producing unreliable material that professors shouldn't allow their students to quote from, and mostly only good to joke about regarding Anna Nicole Smith's page having 300 edits in an hour. Other than being amused at being thought of as a kid, which I am quite certainly not - I'd like more than that. No one has yet given me an argument that even began to convince me that this page should not be semi-protected. Forgive my typos - I am late and have to leave. Cheers, folks - this will likely be a big weekend for this article. I hope we're not embarrassed. Tvoz | talk 22:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that's a lot of words! Let me just add, "I agree." This page is too high profile and too juicy a target not to have semi-protection on it. I only see four reverts of IP or new user edits today (after a quick glance), but the numbers above are disturbing. Unfortunately, with Obama being a major player in the upcoming election his article will be a continuous target for months to come. --StuffOfInterest 23:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Tvoz will certainly have a heart attack, but I agree as well. Italiavivi 17:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

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

  • Well, from my point of view, I think semi-protection does in fact need to remain on this article. Only after a decent period of time should it ever be removed to see if it will subside. However, the fact that the vandalism was worse today than yesterday (you think it'd be worse yesterday due to the announcement), I think semi-protection should pretty much stay up unchallenged. Almost every IP that's posting on this article is posting vandalism from the looks of it, and I'd much rather finish up a paper then constantly re-sp this.--Wizardman 17:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I tend to think that all articles on all announced candidates for the GOP and Democratic party nominations should be SP'd. Granted, some are going to draw more vandalism than others (particularly from racists and misogynists), but a unified standard like this would save a lot of people a lot of time (less reverting). Look, SP does not stop anyone from editing, and it exists for articles that are natural targets. I say SP 'em all until the conventions, then continue SPing the nominees. Unschool 17:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to edit these pages very well, but I noticed that Obama's second daughter is referred to as "Natasha". Her name is actually "Sasha". http://www.barackobama.com/about/ ~~Bubaloo~~

Obama "User Supporter" Template??

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

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

Religious upbringing

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

No, so no. Tvoz | talk 17:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, so he didn't have any kind of Muslim religious upbringing– the family never belonged to a mosque etc.? Just wanted to be clear.--Pharos 20:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe Obama's father was an agnostic or athiest by the time Obama was born, and I believe his mother did not have an Islamic background. I'm not sure if his step-father, whose religion I'm not certain of, had any influence on Obama's early exposure to religion or not. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
His stepfather was Muslim, but Obama was never raised under Islam. His father was an atheist. His grandparents were non-practicing Baptist and Methodist, and his mother disliked organized religion. He did not ascribe to any religion until he was an adult. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The stepfather has been described as a non-practicing Muslim - I have a ref somewhere on that. My understanding is that he went to a public school in Indonesia that was majority Muslim because Jakarta was majority Muslim. Yes, Shakam, I think you have it essentially right, Bbatsell and Jersy too. Tvoz | talk 06:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Most of the confusion here is which man you consider his father. Obama's real father was from a Kenyan tribe, and I couldn't find a reference to his religion in the book Dreams from My Father (published 1995, long before Obama was a prominent figure). However, Obama was raised by "Lolo" from the age of two onward. Lolo was a native Hawai'ian, and he was NOT a Muslim. In response to the "Madrassa" claim, everybody who has gone to a school, ever, in their life, has attended a Madrassa. It's the Arabic word for "school", whether secular or religious. Though in modern english usage it usually carries a negative connotation, most major news organizations have stated that it was a "smear" and a lie [2][3][4] [5][6] [7]
It sickens me that two democrats would go at each other like this. Hillary is being a sleazy, evil liberal and further acting her stereotype, and Barack will definitely suffer bad publicity. --Hojimachongtalkcon 18:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Nobody knows for sure that Senator Clinton's people were behind the rumor. Steve Dufour 18:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, it isn't likely that Clinton was the source. As per Lolo, I'll admit it's been a while since I've read Dreams, but I distinctly remember Lolo being Muslim (though not very active). I, of course, could be wrong, but that's what I had filed away in my head. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Gee, and you dare elcture on POV; how did you come up with this? Unlikely Clinton is the source? Huh? Why is that, exactly? She has the perfect motive and the means. She is more likely than ANY other person on the planet, yet you assert otherwise. hmmm Ernham 20:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
There is no evidence whatsoever that Hillary Clinton was the source for Insight Magazine's false article, and Insight refuses to in any way reliably verify their story; both Obama and Clinton have stood together against the resulting smear. Italiavivi 18:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
It also might well be that this incident will turn out to be the thing that helps him the most to become president. :-) Steve Dufour 22:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't like to double-post but in this case I think it's necessary. The AP story was apparently a misunderstanding. Here's a direct quote from an official press release: "To be clear, Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim..."--Pharos 18:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, unless something else comes along, I'd say that trumps my sourced insertion. Under the circumstances, I agree with the revert. Bbagot 19:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Partial birth abortion

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

If he is smart he will not take a stance. :-) Steve Dufour 18:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, true. Chris M. 06:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

He's pro-choice, if that's what your asking. I recall a TIME article hosted at CNN.com wherein Obama addresses other Christians about his abortion stance, but cannot find it right now. Italiavivi 18:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Edit: Found it. [8]

"So how can you support murdering babies?" I told him I understood his position but had to disagree with it. I explained my belief that few women made the decision to terminate a pregnancy casually; that any pregnant woman felt the full force of the moral issues involved and wrestled with her conscience when making that decision; that I feared a ban on abortion would force women to seek unsafe abortions, as they had once done in this country. I suggested that perhaps we could agree on ways to reduce the number of women who felt the need to have abortions in the first place. The man listened politely and then pointed to statistics on the pamphlet listing the number of unborn children that, according to him, were sacrificed every year. After a few minutes, I said I had to go inside to greet my supporters and asked again if the group wanted to come in. Again the man declined. As I turned to go, his wife called out to me. "I will pray for you," she said. "I pray that you have a change of heart." Neither my mind nor my heart changed that day, nor did they in the days to come. But I did have that family in mind as I wrote back to the doctor and thanked him for his email. The next day, I had the language on my website changed to state in clear but simple terms my pro-choice position. And that night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own--that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me.

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

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

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

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

drug history

The word "drugs" does not appear on the Obama page. Can I at least find out how he stands on marijuana? I am very upset by this censorship of a supposed open encyclopedia.

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

Probably because Bush was still having "problems" when he was 40. Gdo01 23:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Or because Obama doesn't appear to have "struggled" with substances, just played with them as a teen. 71.198.52.89 23:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Another reason is that Bush was actually arrested and recorded while under the influence of substances. Most people didn't even have any concrete proof of Obama's drug use until he admitted it in his books. Gdo01 23:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The "Personal life" section does make mention of his past marijuana use. While I wish editors here would make his (very notable) "I inhaled frequently that was the point" quote more easily located, it's covered. So far's his tobacco use goes, see the discussion at WP:SMOKERS. Suffice to say, consensus appears to be against including tobacco use in most articles by default. Italiavivi 23:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

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

With regard to Insight Magazine's false "madrassa" smear, Obama's Wikipedia article is still bound by Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons, and the section would have to be very carefully written. As for the non-story concerning his house, it was determined to be non-notable, and placing it under a "controversy" section (when no wrongdoing was alleged) could be seen as a POV maneuver. I can see a good argument for the "madrassa" bit included as a controversy (not a criticism), but agree with past editors that the non-story on his house is not notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Italiavivi 23:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
There is an article about the madrassa claim and debunking here: Insight magazine "madrassa" media controversy. Gdo01 23:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
And that article will soon be merged with Insight's main article. Italiavivi 23:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

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

With regard to the house non-story, you knew specifically what you were Googling for, and I stand by my assertion that it is not notable enough for inclusion. If the words "drugs" and "cocaine" are not present at George W. Bush's article (with the link to "substance abuse controversy" being in a single paragraph), this house non-story doesn't belong on Obama's in two paragraphs. I also wonder if there's a degree of recentism here -- of what notable consequence will this house non-story be a year from now? In five years? Ten?
I do not necessarily disagree with your evaluation of the madrassa controversy, though, but will wait for input from other editors. Italiavivi 16:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The madrassa hoax undoubtedly deserves a reference here, but we must make it clear that it was indeed a hoax and a smear. --Hojimachongtalkcon 07:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Obama criticized by Australia's Prime Minister

(Cross-posted to Talk:John Howard.)

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

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

Yeah, I imagine it probably should be included somewhere. Perhaps in Howard's article as well as Obama's. As a side note, wow, that's an absolutely . . . idiotic statement by Howard. I wonder which Bush staffer wrote it for him? · j e r s y k o talk · 18:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Since this is in direct response to Obama's Iraq War bill, it should be noted directly after that in the article. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
And Obama's response can be found here --203.214.52.179 12:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
i think howards comments should be included. its been a major point on both sides. also to Jersyko. keep personal comments out of it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eevo (talk • contribs) 15:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
Agreed, though it's hardly a "personal comment" if I'm talking about a public figure. Regardless, Wiki is not a soapbox, so I struck the relevant portion of my comment. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Howard is not a Head of State; he is Australia's Head of Government. (Most countries' political systems differentiate between those two roles.) I do find Mr. Howard's comment noteworthy and suprising, and unless Mr. Obama had directly criticized Australia or Mr. Howard, I think his comment is totally inappropriate. Now, if Australia's actual Head of State had made a comment like this, it would be jaw-droppingly shocking. --thirty-seven 05:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Except The Queen's role as head of state in Australia is equivalent to her role in that of the UK. She does appoint the Governor-General, but since the '30's the selection is made by the PM and the Queen gives her blessing. So essentially, Howard is the most powerful person in Australia and his criticizing Obama is equivalent to Blair doing likewise, correct? --Bobblehead 22:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is correct: the position and power of the prime minister in Australian government and society is almost exactly equivalent to the prime minister in British government and society. --thirty-seven 22:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Rezko real estate deal

Just a quick follow-up on some of the controversy points. I don't think the madrassa story has any real purpose appearing here. The real estate deal seems significant enough, however. The story about the Rezkos, whether or not Obama did anything improper, did consume significant media attention for a lengthy period of time, and Obama apologized for it. As one article has summarized,

The first crisis of Obama’s Senate tenure unfolded right before last November’s election. A Chicago newspaper reported Obama closed on his $1.65 million Hyde Park home the same day in June 2005 that campaign fundraiser Antoin “Tony” Rezko closed on an adjoining vacant parcel from the same owner. Obama got a discount of about $300,000 from the list price, while Rezko, a developer, paid the full price of $625,000. Obama acknowledged he tipped off his acquaintance Rezko to the land’s availability. Rezko, who was under federal investigation at the time the two closed on their purchases, was indicted last October on charges he tried to use his influence with Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich to shake down companies who wanted state business for campaign contributions and kickbacks. In between the home closing and Rezko’s indictment, Obama bought a strip of land from Rezko to augment his side yard. When the deal became public, Obama apologized and called it a boneheaded move.

I don't see anything on the Talk page that fits what's been claimed earlier: "As for the non-story concerning his house, it was determined to be non-notable." By whom? In November 2006, consensus was reached on an archived section of the Talk page, and the rewrite to neutralize the POV looked like this:

On November 1, 2006 the Chicago Tribune reported that Obama's home in the South Side neighborhood of Chicago was purchased the same day as an adjoining vacant lot owned by the wife of Antoin Rezko, an Illinois businessman charged with political influence peddling, and a past contributor to Obama's election campaigns.[8] Two days after the report, the same newspaper ran an editorial calling on Obama to explain why he would "allow himself any connection" to a developer who "notoriously attaches himself to political figures, often parlaying friendships into business dealings that have attracted official suspicions for several years."[9] The following day the Chicago Tribune reported Obama's statement that it was a mistake to have engaged "in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow [Rezko], or anyone else, to believe that he had done me a favor. For that reason, I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it."[10]

I recommend that's placed back in the main section, as agreed upon on the Talk page in November 2006 as cited above, and with neutral POV language. --Zz414 19:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

See discussion titled "comments from visiting editor." In that discussion, even User:Tvoz and myself agree on the suggestion to remove. Italiavivi 22:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

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

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

Signature

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

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

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

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

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

Muslim ???

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

He isn't muslim and hasn't been at all, at least not in his adult life. His father was, but turned atheist either when obama was very young, or before he was born. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mason11987 (talk • contribs).
It's not in the article because he was not raised as a Muslim - was never a Muslim - not as a child or as an adult. Tvoz | talk 18:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I just added it in *with a source*. Why are you removing sourced information?
The best you could say is that the two sources conflict. Ken Arromdee 20:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Your source in no way said he "studied Islam", which is what you changed the text to say. It said he attended a Muslim school; there is a very significant difference between the two. (The source is actually incorrect, he spent two years at a public, secular school in a country that is 90% Muslim, and two years at a private, Catholic school.) —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Bbatsell is correct: the CNN investigation of the school found that it was, in fact, non-religious. See other parts of this talk page for relevant links and discussion. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Fellow editors, please be aware that the specific (and outdated) Yahoo! Singapore link to this Associated Press article was recently discovered and linked to by Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs under the post title "AP Admits Obama is an Islamic Apostate." In addition to inaccurately describing Obama as having been "in the Muslim faith" as a child, it also mistakenly repeated the debunked Insight/Fox News smear that Obama's public elementary in Jakarta, Indonesia was a "Muslim school." The Associated Press corrected the report today; both CBS and New York Times display the updated AP report, but the Yahoo! Singapore syndication has not updated yet. Please be on the lookout for anyone attempting to use this specific Yahoo! Singapore AP syndication. Care to guess where the anonymous editor "*with a source*" here just came from? Italiavivi 00:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sworn in on a Quran?

NO

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

This was a mini-controversy about someone else. Nothing to do with Obama at all. Steve Dufour 13:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
A very long article about it here. Rather shocking it was such a big issue IMHO Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress. I would think in most other modern demoracies, people would say the commentators who complained were idiots, ignore them from now on and move on right from the beginning. Nil Einne 17:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but it WASN'T OBAMA. Tvoz | talk 18:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Biracial

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

"Biracial" is a very vague, agreed. Chris M. 14:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I would have less objection if it said the first "black" or "non-white" president, or even "the first president of color". :-) Steve Dufour 14:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I think sayign non-white would work best, since at least we can all agree that that's true.--Wizardman 18:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I think having the sentence removed completely as it is now (last I looked) is the best solution. I'm sorry I didn't do that last night, but there were so many edits and reversions that I couldn't quickly see when that line had even gotten into the graf (one of my prime reasons for supporting sprot as everyone here has read me say too often) - so I removed the ridiculous redundancy of "biracial" and "non-white", and intended to come back today and see how it got there. So again, I think taking the line out completely, leaving the text as we have had it, is the correct way to go right now. Tvoz | talk 18:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Is "non-white" acurate? Considering he's half-white.--220.238.176.232 11:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It would not be acurate except in American racial jargon. Steve Dufour 18:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Another thought I had today on this subject: The time to make this kind of statement will be after he leaves office. Then we can say something like, "He is also considered important for having been the first ("black", "biracial", or whatever) president in American history." If we say this will be noted if he is elected we will be predicting the future, which is against WP rules. Steve Dufour 00:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Drug Use

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

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

Well, the idea that a serving President of the United States (the man with his finger on the red button, let's remember) would be denied security clearances is bizarre and totally a non-issue. The denials of previous presidents (presuming they actually were users) would have been for purely political reasons, and nothing to do with security clearances.--Pharos 19:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The article already discusses Obama's admission of marijuana and cocaine use as a teen. I don't see a need to give that fact any more weight by labeling him the first presidential candidate to admit as much (and wasn't Clinton's statement essentially an admission? What about Bush's declining to discuss whether he used any illegal drugs before 1974? my point is that the lines are probably a bit fuzzy here to label one of them a "first"). Are reliable sources discussing Obama's alleged "first" in respect to it being a "first"? I haven't seen any. And I completely agree with Pharos in re the security clearances non-issue. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Folks, Al Gore acknowledged marijuana use. So did John Kerry, Howard Dean, and John Edwards - I think those three did so in a "Rock the Vote" debate. They all are as mainstream as you can get, so can we please give up on this and move on? Tvoz | talk 19:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I have heard that Washington and Jefferson also used marijuana. :-) Steve Dufour 01:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Cocaine use is pretty heavy stuff still and propably should be included no? Ecostaz 16:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
He never used cocaine. His book states that he almost did but he never touched the stuff. So much distortion is concentrated on this one man, we really need to double check everything before we start making accusations. Gdo01 16:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, i wasn't aware of that. Ecostaz 16:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Oops, I'm wrong he did do cocaine but he rejected heroin. Anyway read through the article, the marijuana and cocaine use is already in there. Gdo01 16:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

criticism stuff

Stepping back in. I haven't seen anything (yet!) that I think rises to notability for an Obama criticism section. The issues so far have been some strange real estate thing that the original source (the Trib) said was not a criticism themselves, and the "madrassa" controversy which I believe was withdrawn. Obviously people will find something that sticks, but for now I just haven't seen anything that merits a separate section. Sdedeo (tips) 00:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What about that recent verbal gaff he made about referring to the soldiers who died in Iraq as a "waste," or has that not been blown out of proportion yet by the media like the Kerry botched joke thing? I'm not saying I think it should be mentioned, I'm just wondering if when the contorversy section ever is developed this little point will be considered.
Quixoto 18:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think it's fair game, given the abundancy of Bushisms that can be found on Wiki.

Links to Obama's Parents, Etc.

I've inserted article links to Obama's parents, his step father, and his father's village, even though these articles don't yet exist on Wikipedia. These subjects are all notable insofar as they influenced Obama, and are frequent subjects of discussion in the media. Those looking for information, for example, about whether Obama's step-father was a dedicated Wahabbist (as conservative talk radio has claimed) should be able to turn to wikipedia to find information about Lolo Soetero. Same goes for Obama's mother and father and his father's villiage (which I've seen on the television news here in the US). Quality articles on these subjects will be of great use in the discussions of Ombama's background which will inevitably be a feature of American political life for the next year or two. ThaddeusFrye 22:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Our Manual of Style encourages against overlinking, and I don't know that any of Obama's family is notable enough with regard to Wikipedia's policies on notability. Obviously his family is going to be mentioned peripherally sometimes when Obama is mentioned, but I'm not certain how likely it is that they will ever receive attention as primary subjects (rather than as Obama's family). Redlinking to articles that don't exist and possibly won't ever exist doesn't help the article, in my humble opinion. If those articles are created, and their notability established, then I have not one problem with linking to them, but at present, that is not the case. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I reverted before noticing that you had posted here, sorry. They aren't notable just because they "influenced Obama". In fact, if their notability is entirely tied to being related to Obama, they certainly shouldn't have articles here, in my opinion. I'm just not sure if there are multiple, non-trivial sources that discuss these people in detail. One caveat: I'm not saying that his economist father shouldn't have an article, though, but I know nothing about his work as an economist and whether it is encyclopedic. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the amount of discussion of these subjects in the media, as well as the number of google hits on them would in most cases be sufficient to establish notability. Additionally, all are discussed in Obama's published works. Most importantly however, all of these subjects are difficult to find reliable information about and subject to media rumors. Wikipedia can perform a valuable role in collecting and making available accurate information about these subject of wide public interest. While I agree that the article is now somewhat overlinked, I also think that links to non-existent articles are useful pointers towards where more work need to be done, and that including them is therefore quite important. (Alego, for example seems to be quite a very obscure village; however perhaps after seeing a red link, someone with access to good information on Kenya will be able to supply its location and a description.) Obama's candidacy has placed particular importance on his family background, and interest in these figures is sure to be significant. Whether or not we feel that the public *should* take an interest in these figures, Wikipedia will imo

best serve its purpose as a useful reference tool by providing information about them (including the information that articles on these subjects still need to be written). ThaddeusFrye 00:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

His family is probably all non-notable, but I think it would be great to have an article on Alego, his father's hometown. We have comparable articles on many very small towns in the US.--Pharos 00:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we are overlinked already, and unless someone has enough information to warrant writing separate articles, any stubs that just say Ann Dunham was Obama's mother, for example , will be merged back to here anyway. If, however, as Jersyko suggests, there is something notable to write an article about, then I hope someone will write it and we would link to it. As it stands now, I think adding red links is implying that there is notability without any evidence. Tvoz | talk 00:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree 100% that his family members should not have articles. However I am almost sure that they will. Al Gore's non-notable son and George Bush's daughters have 'em. Steve Dufour 01:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but what about W's mom and dad? Oh wait . . . · j e r s y k o talk · 01:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
GW's daughters at least make the news every once and a while with their illegal antics, whereas Gore's son and Obama's parents aren't really that notable. Darthgriz98 04:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, actually Gore's son was in the news a fair amount, so if the daughters have articles it kind of makes sense for the son too. I would guess that Bill Clinton's mother has an article, becsause she was a personality that was known to the country, like Miss Lillian (let's see how many old folks know who I mean)... Obama's mother, however, is unknown to the world, as far as I know, so I await with bated breath what her article would be. Tvoz | talk 04:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I find it very likely that Obama's family will eventually become clearly noteworthy enough to merit articles, as more news sites focus in on them over the coming months. (I expect that Fox will have a field day running with the idea of a liberal presidential candidate having two atheist parents, for example.) In particular, if Obama ends up making it through the primaries (though possibly even if he doesn't), it will be a certainty that his parents will need their own articles, as the topic of a major current presidential candidate's parents is automatically noteworthy, and his (and their) history is too complex to all cover within the Barack Obama article. However, it may be wise to wait and see whether that happens before rushing to make such articles in anticipation. If any of the editors here are antsy to start work on such pages (which I think could be quite fascinating, honestly; Obama's parents seems like remarkable people, and I find his mother especially interesting), then I recommend working on such articles in Userspace until they unambiguously meet our criteria for inclusion. -Silence 11:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. Tvoz | talk 19:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm really somewhat mystified that several people have asserted that Obama's partents and step-parents are non-notable, without proving any rationale for their claim. It would seem that according to the standards of Wikipedia:Notability (people), these persons (like his father's village) quite clearly fall within the usual guidelines for notability. A notable person is one who, for example: "has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." Hundreds or thousands of discussions (already) of these persons in radio and on television seem quite clearly to establish notability based on this criterion. On a more abstract level, this information seems clearly to pass the "100 years test," given that those interested in the biographies of famous persons always find information such as this of use. Frankly, I find the refusal to admit notablity in these cases irresponsible, given the enormous amount of speculative public discussion now taking place about these people. Also, I find it ironic that those Obama himself acknowledges to have had a a crucially formative influence on him seem to have been judged less notable than the creators of obscure CD's, web comics, etc. who are routinely included in Wikipedia. Surely raising Barack Obama is as notable as putting together a college band, especially since Obama himself emphasizes the importance of his parents in the formation of his character and beliefs. Finally, I have a disturbing sense that some may be averse to including links to articles that don't yet exist for purely aesthetic reasons, or that they might make the article "look bad" as an encyclopedia article. I hope I'm wrong about that, as of course the omission of links in order to make a good impression on readers would be a very bad and irresponsible practice. ThaddeusFrye 03:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's not go overboard here. Do we have an article on Alexander Hamilton's absentee father? Oh, and talk radio doesn't count as "non-trivial published works", as it's (1) trivial and (2) non-published. I say we reconsider the family articles if he's elected. I still support the article on his father's village in Kenya, which would be notable by our standards whether or not any American politician's father came from there.--Pharos 17:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you Pharos, although I sympathize with Thaddeus. There are way too many non-notable people with articles here. I have nominated a couple for deletion. What happens is the fans of the person vote to keep, and make me feel guilty for hurting their feelings. :-) Steve Dufour 17:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Opinion survey: Obama's kicking the (smoking) habit.

It came up during his recent 60 Minutes piece, there are multiple mainstream media references [9], and even a "Quit Smoking with Obama" group [10] on his campaign website. He and his wife are both open about his kicking the habit. I am now of the opinion that Sen. Obama's quitting is notable enough for mention, and would like to survey this page's editors concerning a mention of Sen. Obama's current no-smoking effort.

I propose a mention which highlights his public effort to quit smoking, not one which impugns him simply for being/having been a smoker. I propose adding this mention into his currently sparse "Personal life" section. Italiavivi 23:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Please add *Support following the statement you most support, with explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~.

Barack Obama's current effort to quit smoking is notable enough for inclusion within the article.

  • Support. My rationale for inclusion is outlined above. Italiavivi 23:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. A quick Google News search shows over 200 articles in the last month that mention "Obama" and "smoking." This is a pretty big issue, either because people care or because people are telling other people they shouldn't care. --Zz414 03:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. However a whole *section* on this issue would be *way* more than is called for. Smoking can be mentioned quite briefly, for example: "Obama writes about using marijuana and cocaine during his teenage years to "push questions of who I was out of my mind." Obama also took up smoking during his high school years, a habit he has recently resolved to quit." (The second sentence would be new to the article.) No whole section is needed for this, and there do not need to be updates every time there's a rumor that someone saw him smoking. But a very brief mention is fine, as this is a widely discussed subject.ThaddeusFrye 05:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
True, I did not mean to use the word "section," and have changed the wording above. Italiavivi 12:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. It may warrant a sentence in the personal section. The Obama's have brought up her agreeing to let him run for Prez if he quits smoking several times in interviews, but anything more than a sentence is undue. --Bobblehead 01:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Barack Obama's current effort to quit smoking is NOT notable enough for inclusion within the article.

  • Support. This information does not need to be included in the article. It is of a trivial nature and while some may find it important or interesting Wikipedia should not seek to be a comprehensive source of information about a living person. Other sources such as the "60 Minutes" interview are available for people to obtain the information from if in their POV it is important. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 02:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support -- How many synonyms are there for superfluity? Ernham 02:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support -- The problem is not in available reliable sources. It is with WP:Notability. With this I think a reading of the WP:DUST essay is not a bad idea. --Rtrev 03:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think it is as much a matter of reliable sources as it a question of whether the fact is of a trivial nature and I agree that it does not meet notability. We should give serious consideration to whether this fact would have been part of the article had it not made the news as newsworthiness is not the same thing as notability. Edward Lalone | (Talk)
  • Support it really doesn't add much to the article to add it. Darthgriz98 03:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Arguments against non-notability

WP:NOTABILITY says the following: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other." It also states that "If there are multiple independent reliable published sources that have a topic as their subject, this is not changed by the frequency of coverage decreasing. Thus, if a topic once satisfied the primary notability criterion, it continues to satisfy it over time."

Question: How much more must Barack and Michelle Obama discuss his decision to quit smoking publicly with the media before it is considered notable enough for inclusion within Wikipedia? Does the fact that he has campaign supporters on his campaign site running a "quit smoking with Barack" drive not factor into this in any way? My fellow editors invoke WP:NOTABILITY, but I do not understand their interpretation of the policy. Italiavivi 03:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment This section is inappropriately titled. Why isn't it titled: "Arguments against non-notability?" Why must someone argue against notability as if notability is already assumed. I deliberately changed the title of this section to emphasize that you are not the one controls how a discussion is handled. If you can feel free to move my comments than you shouldn't have a problem with the new title of this section. Or do you just like to put those who disagree with you on the defensive with your passive-aggressive attitude? And to word this survey and section in such a way that your POV has a more prominent position in the discussion (i.e., instead of you having to give your arguments for non-notability others have to give their arguments against notability and to do so in a special section that you create for those of us who disagree with you). I want you to know that I do not intend to keep my arguments against notability contained to this section. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 04:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I would appreciate you not disrupting a discussion just to make a point. If you are more comfortable with that title, and the title will help you get back to the subject at hand, it does not bother me though. Italiavivi 05:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I am not disrupting the discussion by making a point that I want to discuss. You don't decide what course this discussion will take or what I am allowed to make a point about. Also, I was discussing the subject at hand which is notability. It may not be what you want me to say but it is what I did say and it was a point that goes directly to the issue of notability or non-notability. You did not have to respond to my comment if you considered it something that had no bearing on what you wanted to discuss as you are free to discuss or not discuss whatever you choose. I on the other hand do not consider my comments a disruption to a discussion I am having. If you don't want to discuss what I had just said than don't respond to it. You don't have to be so uncivil to accuse me of disrupting a discussion that I am a part of. In fact, I could just as easily consider you comments to be taking away from my main point and therefore be a disruption but I don't. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 05:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Answer I know that I personally do not understand your interpretation of policy and I am sure other editors feel the same way. What campaigns are being conducted on the Obama website of which I am a member has no bearing on whether this fact is notable. This isn't Obama's campaign website. We aren't here to promote Obama or to draw attention to his personal goals, or his personal decision to quit smoking even if he and his supporters choose to draw attention to it. So to your question about his supporters conducting a quit smoking campaign factoring into this I have to say that it does not as this isn't Obama's campaign website. Also, the amount of media coverage of a fact does not equate to it being a topic (i.e, Obama is a topic as opposed to his quitting smoking not being a topic). Being an active member of Obama's website I ask you where exactly is this so-called "campaign." I am not saying that it isn't on the website but that I who have been actively involved on his website have not yet come across it. As far as I can see it is not a part of his static content. If it is something that we are doing on the blogs and in the groups than it has no right to be included based on that. Obama doesn't even mention smoking on his health care page. Doing a search of BarackObama.com gets no search return for the word smoking and when you use the word "smoke" returns three mentions of it on his website which have no bearing on his quitting smoking. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 05:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Other Discussion

  • Comment. I don't think this even warrants serious discussion on this talk page and while it has been in the news there are numerous articles about people who have quit smoking which make no mention of this fact and I think that there has to be a political motivation behind including it. As a supporter I would love for people to know that he has quit smoking because of his decision to run for President but I must put my political opinion aside and I hope others will too. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 03:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I do not appreciate your implying that there "has to be a political motivation" on my part to seek inclusion of his public kicking of the habit. I would ask that you see Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and strike that remark from your comment. Italiavivi 03:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment. And I do not appreciate you impugning my reason, for mentioning that there might be a political motivation for including this information as it is important to consider when discussing this, or interpreting what I said in such an offensive manner and I would suggest you strike your entire comment because it is highly offensive and I suggest you assume good faith as well. I do not appreciate it when others attack my motives or my reason for doing something or imply that I should strike a remark that they disagree with. I really do not appreciate your above comments and the lack of civility in its tone is offensive. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 03:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I have no apologies for you. You took a properly constructed survey, a survey created before even attempting to edit the article itself, and immediately accused other editors of "having political motivation behind" their contributions. You may be able to link WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY, but you seem unwilling to abide by them. Italiavivi 03:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment This comment is offensive and rude. I did not accuse anyone of having a political motivation and it is you who has not assumed good faith but impugned my reason for the statement I made. I don't care if you have no apologies for me as I did not ask for one. All that I ask is that you remain civil. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 03:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I will let your words speak for themselves: "I think that there has to be a political motivation behind including it." You assumed bad faith from the get-go. Italiavivi 03:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment And you assumed that I had assumed bad faith from the get go. Which I did not. I simply made a valid point of my own and you assumed I was assuming bad faith and impugned my motives. It was you who said, "you are assuming bad faith." How is that not assuming bad faith? I had every right to believe and to say that I believe that there is a political motivation behind including the comment and the reason I said it was not because I was assuming bad faith but because I consider it a valid point for why the statement should not be included in the article. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 03:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Stating your "belief that there is political motivation behind including the comment" is an expression of assuming bad faith in every way possible. Italiavivi 04:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment No it isn't. I was making a point that the comment should not be included because it probably had a political motivation. That is not to assume you had that reason nor did I claim that you did. I made a statement that is valid and that is a good reason why this comment should not be included as a part of the article and you were so uncivil to assume that I was assuming bad faith. I had every right to make that point and I now state clearly that you are wrong and that I did not assume bad faith. Let me state that as clearly as I can: YOU WRONGLY ASSUMED THAT I HAD ASSUMED BAD FAITH BUT WAS MERELY MAKING A POINT ABOUT WHY THE COMMENT SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE ARTICLE. I ALSO HAD A RIGHT TO EXPLAIN MY REASONS FOR OPPOSING THE STATEMENT BEING INCLUDED. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 04:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Please calm down. Screaming in all-caps is wholly unwarranted and uncivil. Italiavivi 04:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment Okay. I am uncivil. Attack me, impugn my motives and assume bad faith on my part and when I take issue with it call me uncivil and my comments unwarranted. What is unwarranted is your saying that my all-caps is unwarranted and uncivil and it is highly rude of you to say so. Why don't you calm down and stop referring to my statements as uncivil, stop impugning my motives and stop telling me what is and is not warranted as its clear that your comments are unwelcome and rude and I consider them highly uncivil and I suggest you calm down. You have successfully put me on the defensive. Was that your intent when you accused me of assuming bad faith? You are rude, inconsiderate, uncivil and your comments are unwarranted and offensive. What started out as a simple point about me thinking that the comment shouldn't be included because I thought it had a political motivation has resulted in you maligning my character, and impugning my motives. Continue this and you will win and I will leave this talk page. I have never had anyone be so rude and uncivil as to accuse me of assuming bad faith. I find it offensive, rude, inconsiderate and uncivil and then to top it off you say that my using caps it unwarranted. And deliberately try to escalate this by accusing me of not being calm. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 04:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I simply find the hostility of all-caps screaming hard to deal with, so I will back off of your discontent for tonight. Italiavivi 04:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment Discontent? I now see that there is no way for me not to be the bad guy. Is this how you treat everyone? Do you go around accusing people of assuming bad faith and attempt to escalate the situation by being more and more rude without seeming to be and then accuse people of being discontented your lack of civility. No one deserves this kind of attack and I am more than happy to say I, Edward Lalone, former candidate for the Utah House, find your conduct arrogant, pompous, rude, uncivil for accusing me of assuming bad faith for simply drawing attention to a point which should be discussed. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 04:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Your willingness to run for public office is admirable. I respect that, Edward Lalone, former candidate for the Utah House. Italiavivi 04:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment I drew attention to the fact that I ran for public office because it shows that not everything is at it seems and that no one needs to put up with your passive-aggressive attitude and that they have as much right to make comments here without having to deal with your inappropriate attempts to move their comments and assume that a simple statement on their part is stated in bad faith. It is always inappropriate to accuse others of assuming bad faith as it impugns their motives for their sincerely held beliefs and views. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 04:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose My oppose comment here was inappropriately removed by another editor. My reason was that "it does not warrant serious attention in this article. Simply being newsworthy or interesting does not make something notable enough for inclusion in a Wikipedia article." Edward Lalone | (Talk) 03:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
If I may follow up, what exactly does this section fail according to Wikipedia standards? You admit that it's either newsworthy or interesting, but you think it's for some other reason violative of Wikipedia's standards. What particular standards? --Zz414 12:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment I do not admit that it is either newsworthy or interesting instead I stated that simply because it is considered newsworthy or interesting does not mean that it should be included as notability is not the same as newsworthiness. To start this article should not give undue weight to his decision to quit smoking. Simply, "undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements." The idea that we should give serious consideration in this article to his decision to quit smoking is concerning as "an article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject."
This fact simply does not meet the significance of being prominently included in the article. Biographical articles are not repositories of every fact, trivia, or statement made by an individual during their life. Further, "undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Ernham made the point "If his cat died tonight, it would get 500-1000 hits on google by the morning. I can't wait for the subsection in this wiki, personally. Meow." Here he makes a valid observation as to the notability of personal facts about a person's life. An example of giving undue weight to his quitting smoking is that no where in the article is it mentioned that his children want him to run for President so they can "get a dog." This statement was also made in his "60 Minutes" interview along with his decision to stop smoking. Should we include that he likes to cook pasta because that is his children's favorite food? Or that he might very well be the first "Commander in Chef." The "I" was deliberately left out and the word Chef is correct. You have yet to give an argument as to why this should be included and on Wikipedia we place the burden on those including information to prove that it should be included. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 20:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If his cat died tonight, it would get 500-1000 hits on google by the morning. I can't wait for the subsection in this wiki, personally. Meow.Ernham 03:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The moving of my comments without my consent is inappropriate and I do not agree with the POV that my oppose comments should have been moved. I therefore moved my statement back to where I intend it to be and do not appreciate the censorship of my comments. Maybe I should start moving your comments Italiaviv. I have moved my statement back to where it should be and strongly urge those with a different POV not to move it again. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 03:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
If I started arguing with people within the "Support" statements, ignoring the "Discussion" section, I would welcome someone refactoring and moving my comments for the sake of the discussion. Italiavivi 03:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment Now I am arguing? Why? Because I oppose your POV or do not consider it appropriate to move my comments without my consent. I did not ignore the discussion section. In fact, I made several comments in the discussion section but those are separate from my comments which I made outside of the discussion section. I don't like it that you impose your POV that such comments should only be included in the discussion section and impugn my motives or imply that I am arguing simply by stating my opinion outside of the discussion section. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 03:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Stop. First of all, m:Polls are evil. Much more is accomplished (with fewer instances of sheep-like behavior) through discussion. I strongly encourage that the "poll" sections be removed and simple discussion take place. Thanks. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks Despite my participation in the poll... thanks for that. Discussion is much better. --Rtrev 03:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe that structured surveys are useful, if not treated as binding democracies. That is also why I strongly discourage Support/Oppose voting, and prefer support statements from all sides with explanations. I do not subscribe to the essay you link, but do not feel it applies to structured discussions/surveys regardless. Italiavivi 03:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment So you take it upon yourself to impose your POV about discouraging Support/Opppose voting and make it mandatory by moving my Oppose statement. I find this attitude and approach to be unacceptable and a violation of my right to disagree with this method and to do so as a part of this survey. It is my right to do so. I still strongly oppose the first statement and you have prevented me from making known my strong opposition by moving my objection to it. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 03:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I moved your opposition statement to the argument/discussion section. I did not "prevent you from making known your strong opposition" in any way. Italiavivi 03:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment Who do you think you are? To move my comments which I do not want included in this discussion here. My opposition to a statement has as much right to be included as a part of the survey as do the support statements made. By moving my comment you down-played my opposition and relegated it simply to a discussion point which it wasn't. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 04:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
User:Edwardlalone's comments are becoming more and more heated, and filled with rhetoric ("Who do you think you are!") and unwarranted accusations. I intend to let him cool down, and will discuss the notability/content questions at hand below. Italiavivi 04:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment If this is not the most passive-aggressive way of attacking others without seeming to do so than I don't know what is. What is unwarranted is you saying what you just did. Your comment itself is far more heated than any that I have made. The condscending, rude, and inconsiderate why you have dealt with me is unacceptable and someone needs to point it out. I came here to discuss an issue and you attack my character and my motives and assume bad faith on my part simply because of one statement I made. Then when I ask a valid question of "Who do you think you are?" You continue to act towards me in a condescending way. I will not continue to allow you to edit my comments, move them, assume bad faith on my part, accuse me of resorting to rhetoric, and resorting to heated comments. I am more than happy to move on to other issues as that was my original intent before your uncivil comments. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 04:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I removed my comments as its clear that this will end up turning into a revert war as you are intent on being rude and uncivil and doing this. You are just forunate that I don't do the same to you as I have far more consideration than that. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 03:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I stand by my previous remark, that I would welcome you reformatting my comments were I arguing in a manner that went against the discussion's guidelines. Italiavivi 03:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment But I do not welcome it when you do it and it is offensive. Your POV that you would welcome it if I did it to you does not change the fact that this is your POV and I do not agree with it and do not welcome it as now my comment is out of context and it seems like I am not responding to a statement that was made which I was. TO allow a point to be made outside of the discussion section in the form of a rationale without allowing editors to respond directly to it is inappropriate. Also, to not be allowed to state your strong opposition to a statement that is part of a survey is not acceptable. Not only do I support the second statement but I oppose the first and for different reasons. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 03:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The two statements are direct polar opposites. One cannot support both. Supporting one is opposing the other. Italiavivi 03:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment This is your POV and you have no right to impose it upon me. I do not agree that the reasons I support the one statement are the same as the reasons I oppose the second and do not consider them polar opposite. While it is true that one cannot support both it is not true that one has to have the same reason for supporting one while opposing the other. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 03:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Supporting one is still intrinsically opposing the other. A discussion section is readily available for arguments/disagreements. Italiavivi 04:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment But I wasn't discussing anything, I was stating my opposition to the statement made instead of my support. Your decision to only allow support statements is unfair and arbitrary. Those who support the statement get to explain their rationale in a prominent location while I who oppose the statement have to have my opposition included as a part of a discussion section which may or may not be read. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 04:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't intend to further nitpick the semantics of your unhappiness with this survey's attempt at structure. I simply ask that you calm down and get back to the article's content. I have created a further discussion on notability arguments below. Would you object to my moving the "Arguments against notability" section below to above this current (rather lengthy) dispute? Italiavivi 04:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment You feel free to move anything you want as its clear that you intend to do so. Also, I wasn't unhappy with the survey's structure. What I am unhappy with is your uncivil conduct. That you can't see how rude your above comment is and how offensive it is than there is no reason to continue this discussion. Also, referring to this as a dispute seems arrogant as it assumes that there is something to dispute as if the decision is yours to make and mine to dispute. It further implies that I did not have the right to object to your moving MY COMMENTS without my consent. Moving sections is one thing but moving comments made by individual editors is another. I have never not been calm but if it makes you feel all fuzzy inside to think, "look at how good I am for being the better person and asking the unhappy "user Edward" to calm down." The passive aggressive way in which you treat others need to be condemned. New editors leave when people accuse them of assuming bad faith and behaving as you have. Being less secure about myself and my opinions I may have done the same but I now that other editors aren't as rude as you have been here. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 04:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I will move the discussion above the dispute here, then. I'm sorry you feel that way, but thank you. Italiavivi 04:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

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

This discussion has little connection to editing the article and is becoming is an open invitation to soapbox (or express an opinion that soapboxing should not happen on talkpages). I think it can safely be put to bed. WjBscribe 07:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

  • My mistake for saying it was OK to include the typos. Sorry. Let's try not to soapbox... --sunstar nettalk 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

How does he expect to win?

Is it just me, or is he in a bad situation to become POTUS? His name is possibly the worst it can get in a time like this (Barack=Iraq; Hussein=Sadam Hussein; Obama=Osama, O-"Bomb"-a), although that's just a cursory glance. He smokes, he's done drugs, he's only been in the senate for less than a full term, the only media coverage he's gotten is when he announced he may run for Pres, he's African-American (which in itself, Americans would question the nation's readiness to elect a black president, but one who is born to interracial parents may spark another question among the black population).

I do not mean to bring any offense to those who think highly of Obama, but it seems that America is taking him into consideration too easily and quickly. It doesn't make sense to me that such a man could decide to run for president out of the blue and get all the support he's getting. His polls may be high, but when it comes election day, I question the feasibility of his becoming president.

Neither this article nor the campaign article takes any of this into account. It is very viable information (maybe minus the name thing) and should be included into the text of the article. While some people may think it's "touchy," it certainly doesn't look too good beating around the bush. └Jared┘┌talk┐  01:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please remember no original research. If you have citations of why his name is a liability then it might be worthy of inclusion. Otherwise it is just your musing. --StuffOfInterest 01:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, that was my own personal view, and I have no sources to back anything up and don't plan on looking for any. But, again, it appears that you have ignored my other comments. It just seems like if people are going to ignore the obvious truth, then they're just cheating themselves. (And I am not referring to the naming thing, which is a fabrication of my own but I'm sure shared by many others.) └Jared┘┌talk┐  01:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
This is not the place for your personal views in any capacity. The "obvious truth" to you is indeed not obvious to everyone, no more than someone else's "obvious truth" would be straightforward to you. Such a discussion can serve no purpose.--Pharos 01:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read his campaign website and find out why he thinks he can win. :) If the information you request is notable enough and covered in a WP:RS, then it can be added to the campaign article. Obama seems to be rather popular despite his biracial ethnicity and the rather nonsensical gyrations some make with his name, but he could be a Howard Dean for all anyone knows at this point in the campaign. --Bobblehead 02:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
If you're not posting here in order to write something in the article, then you should read WP:TALK. Talk pages are not for general discussion, they are strictly for discussing how to improve the article. If you want to talk about how badly Obama will lose then find a forum, Wikipedia is not the place for that. Gdo01 02:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT = Soapbox 74.227.8.218 04:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The advice I like to give is to write a short essay and send it to your local newspaper to publish as an op-ed piece. Then someone can cite it here. Steve Dufour 06:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Please don't advise people to go out of their way to get their own personal opinions published in Wikipedia. Of course, that's just my personal opinion.  :-) 71.198.52.89 07:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Barack Obama Biography

A new biography on Barack Obama is being put out by Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers. It's called Hopes and Dreams The Story of Barack Obama by journalist Steve Dougherty. I think this might be good information to add to the Pop Culture section of the main Obama page.

AlicenSophia (16:02, 16 February 2007)

Removed {{editprotected}} request—this tag is for making a specific request for a change, not a general request for content. —Doug Bell talk 03:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/r/Talk%7EBarack_Obama_Archive_6_4b44.html"