Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents 1 Obama WAS Registered "Muslim" in his Schools and attended mosques 2 Relentless Censorship of Anything that Would Hurt Obama 3 Born alive bills 3.1 redundant section - see imediately above 4 Housekeeping Duties / Cleaning Up Article 4.1 Article excessively long? 5 User:KMCtoday's proposed expansion in the State legislature section. 6 Congressional Black Caucus 7 "not easily pegged to typical U.S. categories of the left or right"? 8 Police endorsement discussion 8.1 Let's start fresh 9 Picture 10 Obama's Myspace 11 Anon comment moved from top 12 The exhaustive controversies survey. 12.1 2004: Denied 'unequivocally' running for president in 2008 12.2 Race and "blackness" 12.3 Antoin Rezko real estate 12.4 George W. Haywood stock investing 12.5 Criticism of Wal-Mart and Wake Up Wal-Mart support 12.6 Voting "present" as Illinois state senator 12.7 Hussein 12.8 Obama/Osama 12.9 Effort to quit smoking 12.10 Criticism from Australian Prime Minister John Howard 12.11 False "madrassa" report/smear/attack 12.12 Mother's ancestors owned slaves 12.13 Parking tickets at Harvard 13 Obama's comments on violence 14 Rotating Picture? 15 Taking this off protection 16 This article 17 possible deceptive editing 18 Middle eastern heritage. 19 Link to MySpace site? 20 Are political geeks romance challenged? 21 Proposed merge 22 No controversies? Cmon guys!! 23 Obama's myspace 24 Referred to as "African American" Senator in first paragraph, when not fully African. Barack is of mixed Ancestry 25 professor 26 Category:Ex-atheists/agnostics 27 Infobox Uniformity 28 Semi-protection? 29 Obama is Christian, not Muslim 30 The INFAMOUS Rezko land deal 31 Image:Obama sr.jpg is a candidate for speedy deletion 32 "Barry" and Basketball 33 Barack O'Bama 33.1 Wikipedia has spoken 34 Semi-protection tag - appearance 35 Barack Obama place 36 Rezko 36.1 My thoughts on Rezko 36.2 very big omission and lopsided 37 Identifying Muslims 37.1 Articles where parents'/family's religion is noted 38 Clinton lead in polls 39 Religious beliefs 40 Request for Comment 40.1 Why cover up, Obama didn't 41 Barry O'Bama 42 Re-Reading Spoken Word Version of this Article 43 a auto 44 Mention of polling in the lead. 45 Image 46 I've added a Pie Chart Showing the Number of Delegates that Clinton, Obama and Edwards Based on Polling Data and DNC's 15% Threshold Rule 47 More Rezko 48 Maybe insert "It was a Roman Catholic school" 49 A new UCC paragraph? 50 UCC additions by MPS 51 Barack Obama Navigation box

Obama WAS Registered "Muslim" in his Schools and attended mosques

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obama15mar15,0,5315525,full.story

Here is a quote from the article: "His former Roman Catholic and Muslim teachers, along with two people who were identified by Obama's grade-school teacher as childhood friends, say Obama was registered by his family as a Muslim at both of the schools he attended."

Barack was called Barry in Indonesia. And here's what someone who knew him told the LA Times

"His mother often went to the church, but Barry was Muslim. He went to the mosque," Adi said. "I remember him wearing a sarong." This is a valid source and this story should be mentioned in the article. It is very noteworthy as to the canditade's childhood background as this likely shapes his world-view as an adult. The previous unsigned commment was added by User: 69.125.108.189 at 01:56, 2 April 2007

Obama's statements in this article and in several public forums contradict what these sources say and that should be noted in the article. If the Obama supporters don't think there is anything wrong with having been registered as a Muslim, they should have no problem with this fact being in the article and its NPOV becaue having been is Muslim is not a bad thing, but the facts are the facts.

I hope we can dicuss this civilly and hopefully find a sentence that represents accurately this issue and that everyone can agree on. But consistently undoing my attempts is not the way to accomplish this and violates wikipedia's 3 undo edit rule. Rebyid 00:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Please actually read the article. 'The childhood friends say Obama sometimes went to Friday prayers at the local mosque. "We prayed but not really seriously, just following actions done by older people in the mosque. But as kids, we loved to meet our friends and went to the mosque together and played," said Zulfin Adi, who describes himself as among Obama's closest childhood friends.' If you are going to quote items 40 years old subject to a lot of mixed evidence including in the article itself, why not quote the following "Instead of using his fists, Obama gained respect — and friends — by using his imposing stature to protect weaker children against the strong, Dharmawan said." Obviously I think neither of these types of things positive or negative belong in the article. Augustz 01:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Are my quotes from the article not accurate? Are you saying he was NOT registered as a Muslim in both of his elementary schools?! This went uncontradicted in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rebyid (talk • contribs).

It's probably worth noting here that under Indonesian law, everyone is forced to register as a member of one of a half-dozen set religions. "Non-religious" is definitely not an option. The relevant quote from the article is "He was registered as a Muslim because his father, Lolo Soetoro, was Muslim."--Pharos 02:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That is correct.Tvoz |talk 03:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• "The relevant quote from the article is "He was registered as a Muslim because his father, Lolo Soetoro, was Muslim."

1. Interesting. You are conceding that Obama's father was a Muslim. You will have to take that up with the others on this talk page who insist that he was an atheist. See Discussion on Origin of Obama's first name above.

Lolo Soetoro was Obama's stepfather, not his father. Obama's mother married Soetoro when Sen. Obama was a child. Sen. Obama's father, Barack Obama, Sr., was an atheist. Italiavivi 22:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

2. It also should be noted that under Muslim law, religion passes paternally, so if Obama's father was Muslim that means he was born a Muslim.Rebyid 22:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And thankfully, Wikipedia isn't obligated to identify individuals in strict accordance with Islamic Law. Welcome back from your ban, by the way, Rebyid. Italiavivi 22:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It's good to be back.Rebyid 23:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. </two cents> Fifty7 00:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Relentless Censorship of Anything that Would Hurt Obama

Why is it that I added something to this article about Barack Obama's opposition to a bill protecting infant victims of botched abortions and it was deleted by another user MINUTES later? Can somebody explain why CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM of Barack Obama is deleted with no explanation? Also, there is NOTHING negative about him in the whole article. Compare that to any article about a REPUBLICAN Presidential candidate and you will see what I mean. But for now, I will re-add the article from world net daily and hope that none of the censors (obama supporters/staffers) don't delete for fear it will take away from the positiveness of this fluff piece.

Has anyone else noticed how any mention of anything controversial regarding Obama does not survive in this article. It appears to be a tool for the Obama '08 campaign and they are stomping out all opposition in fascistic style. Can someone please report what's been going on here to the wikipedia administrators.

Propaganda placed into an article, any article, for the explicit purpose of hurting the candidate, especially when that material is not just controversial but unfounded, and further, during an election year is... Not proper. If there are articles you feel are being similarly treated, then you should patrol them similarly. Nothing is stopping you, so long as you can provide a legitimate case. AltonBrownFTW 21:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please can we put these type of distorting type selective facts somewhere else? Most congressional bills are complex. Many times bills are voted up or down many times. I can always pull apart some bill and say, see, republicans didn't vote for xxx (ignoring that they voted against it for another valid reason). This type of tactic is NOT encyclopedic, and should be rejected on pages of candidates for all parties. Augustz 00:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not correct. Just because something is "complicated" does not mean it is exluded from a a wikipedia entery. Try again. But yes, this wiki is joke, little more than a propaganda tool at this point. Ernham 02:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else here smell a rat? The lightning speed with which any edit that put Obama in a bad light by so many users is downright frightening. The pro-Obama editors seem to all be vertible experts in wikipedia policy and regular folk are dicredited relentlessly undone and pushed aside even when their edits offer factual and sourced information. When one pro-Obama user has undone an edit 3 times, another one pops up MINUTES later to to do the fourth ensuring that none of them will violate the 3 unedit rules. In an election cycle, it is scary that this sort of control of information could take place.

The sheer SPEED of removal of these edits points to the fact that there must be a staff of editors paid to moniter this page. How else could so many people be watching this article at the same time all with the same agenda? It is high time we report the behavior on this page to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes disputes for an investigation. Rebyid 16:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I've also been accused of being on Hillary's and John Edwards' staffs, and I've been known to edit Nelson Rockefeller, George W. Bush and George Washington. What can I say - those paychecks are just rolling in. Tvoz |talk 17:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I too am rolling in the dough from the checks Sen. Obama sends me every month. He paid me tons to highlight his cigarette smoking and contested "blackness" in this article! Italiavivi 17:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If you guys are not being paid to be on this page all day, then how can you afford to do it? Are you all independently wealthy and have nothing better to do? I find that hard to beleive. Most people edit articles in their SPARE TIME, not ALL THE TIME. So depite you're sarcasm I still think it's suspicious and should be investigated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.125.108.189 (talk • contribs).

It's called checking your watchlist a lot. Reverting inappropriate edits takes seconds; re-writing takes a bit longer. After a while you can do it in your sleep, which I sometimes do. Not to sound hokey, but I think the only agenda that the regular editors here share is a desire to have balanced and fair articles, without distortions inserted by people who really do have agendas, and without the annoying petty vandalism that articles like these attract. I've said before, we don't agree on everything at all. Read the talk pages and archives. I have just under 3500 edits, and only 181 are to the Obama page, and another 183 to the Obama Talk page (which I actually find to be kind of an interesting fact - as many edits talking about the article as actually changing the article). If I work for Obama, then he's one hell of an understanding boss, seeing as I spend so much of my time here not editing his page. We've already established that Hillary and the Edwardses have me on staff - what about Cat Stevens? John Lennon? Phil Ochs? Sorry if this doesn't convince you, but that's life. And if you don't like my sense of humor, that's ok too. Tvoz |talk 22:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, no fighting. Reverting inappropriate edits can be done quickly. This does not justify the accusation of "campaign worker is watching the board." No name calling! However, I must add that inappropriate reverting can also be done quickly. Unbalanced editing and unbalanced censorship of unflattering, but accurate, information about the subject of any article is inappropriate. This type of high profile article requires reputable citation for just about every statement made, whether negative or positive. I haven't examined what was reverted so I have no opinion as of yet.KMCtoday 00:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Born alive bills

Okay, how about we discuss whether the segment below should be included in the article rather than adding and reverting it without any real discussion. --Bobblehead 03:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

“

Obama has been heavily criticized for his vote on a series of bills while serving in the Illinois State Senate that sought to protect the infant survivors of botched abortions. In 2001, Sen. Obama voted "present" on bills S.B. 1093, S.B. 1094, and S.B. 1095 even though he has been supportive of abortion in the past. However, this can be construed as a “no” vote as a vote in the affirmative is required to pass legislation in Illinois State Senate.[1][2][3] ^ Gonzalez, Nathan. "The Ever-'Present' Obama", Wall Street Journal, February 14, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-04-05.  ^ Youngman, Sam. "Abortion foes target Obama because of his vote record on Illinois legislation", The Hill, February 15, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-04-05.  ^ Pearson, Rick. "Keyes says game plan is controversy", Chicago Tribune, September 14, 2004. Retrieved on 2007-04-05.

”

The Nathan Gonzalez blog post is not a reliable source. Consensus in past Talk discussion is clear on the "present" issue, and describing "present" votes as "against" votes is decidedly POV-pushing. Abortion advocacy is already covered (from better sources) in the article. Italiavivi 03:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we should keep any of this, but I would propose this version of the paragraph:

Opponents of abortion have criticized Obama for his "present" votes in 2001 on a series of bills, S.B. 1093, S.B. 1094, and S.B. 1095, that sought to protect the infant survivors of botched abortions.

About the WSJ piece: I think it was referenced because it named the bills Obama voted "present" on. The WSJ guy is criticizing Obama for being weak by not voting outright no, rather than criticizing Obama solely for his abortion stance. I think the Keyes reference definitely should go, though. Dce7 04:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not a "WSJ piece," to be clear. It is a blog post from RealClearPolitics that has been syndicated at WSJ. Turning the "present" votes into a controversy based upon a single op-ed blog post is unacceptable Wikipedia practice, and creating an entire new abortion section based upon one of these present votes is decidedly undue weight. Italiavivi 04:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it may be undue weight (I wasn't the one who originally wrote this). However, I would suggest that the cited article from The Hill is the only reference that is needed, and the rephrased section as I wrote it above will stand by itself with only that one citation. So let's consider its propriety in light of the claims in the article from The Hill. Dce7 04:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Obama's record on abortion is already adequately covered in the article: he is pro-choice, and has been criticized by those who are pro-life. To insert further criticism from pro-lifers into this (featured status) article constitutes construing a typical political position (being pro-choice) as a controversy, and is unquestionably POV. Italiavivi 04:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The "Ever present Obama" article may have began on RealClearPolitics, but it did make it onto the Wall Street Journal opinion pages and that adds a measure of reliability to the article. The WSJ doesn't reprint just any blog post. Now, onto the article itself, the paragraph in it's current form probably shouldn't remain in the article as the "present" votes do not appear to be an issue outside of Gonzales's opinion piece. However, the criticism he's gotten from pro-life groups should be mentioned in the article in regards to the Born Alive bills and the other anti-abortion bills should probably be added as another sentence or two in the political advocacy section. Definitely not a paragraph though. --Bobblehead 04:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. It is unacceptable to continue adding lines to a pro-choice politician's article every time he or she is criticized by a pro-life op-ed author. This is, again, turning a typical political position into a controversy. Italiavivi 04:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys — as I just suggested, forget the op-ed. Assume that the only citation we will keep is the one from The Hill which mentions a small protest and the advocacy of some pro-life groups. Dce7 04:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

My point still stands. It is unacceptable to continue adding lines to a pro-choice politician's article every time he or she is criticized by a pro-life group or author. Italiavivi 04:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

(starting back on the margin) Italiavivi, I generally agree with you. However, I think the one italicized sentence above (my rewriting of the original section), with only the citation from The Hill, might be relevant at the end of the political advocacy section. It clarifies why those people were mad at Obama. Dce7 04:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarification? They are upset with him because they are pro-life, and he is pro-choice. Obama's article is not the place for the minutiae of why every individual pro-life group condemns a pro-choice politician. The article follows: He said that while his group “won’t concentrate on Obama,” he wanted to cut through a 'ga-ga' media following to ensure that voters know the senator’s position on the issue. This article already makes clear Obama's position on abortion. Italiavivi 04:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dce7. A google search for "Born Alive" and "Barack Obama" returns more reliable sources than just The Hill saying there is concern over Obama's votes against that bill and the partial-birth abortion ban bills. --Bobblehead 04:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I am shocked that pro-life organizations are "concerned" over a pro-choice politician's stance on late-term abortions. Italiavivi 04:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm shocked that you didn't add anything substantive to this discussion with the preceding comment.;) His voting record in the state legislature is a more accurate measure of his pro-choice stance than his answer in a questionnaire and they are the source of the pro-life criticisms. --Bobblehead 04:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to insist that a specific "concern" from a pro-life organization warrants a new line of pro-life criticism in this article, but it's a pretty weak argument. You've in no way responded to the substance of my argument, that this is simply an anti-abortion group criticizing a pro-abortion politician over his stance on a form of abortion -- and it's not even his stance, actually, but their attempt to portray his "present" vote as a vote against. Italiavivi 04:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

We need to understand that he has been criticized from both sides about the "present" votes. Please note that the footnote (122 presently) already points to an article (page 3 of that article) that talks about the criticism from a pro-choice rival for the nomination regarding the "present" votes. So the paragraphs as added were misleading and extremely POV. Since the criticism from the pro-choice side is already discussed in note 122, I added a line and the reference from The HIll to that note to indicate the criticism from the anti-abortion groups about those "present" votes. There is now balance, and links to articles that more fully explain the two sets of criticism. More than that, I think, is unwarranted, and would be POV-pushing again. Tvoz |talk 05:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I support Tvoz's solution. It compliments the information already present (without placing undue weight in the article's text), and is an adequate solution to this conflict. Italiavivi 05:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I just replaced The Hill article citation with a more neutral reference, a news article, talking about anti-abortion groups' criticism of Obama's "present" votes. Tvoz |talk 06:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I've always disliked the use of ref tags to cover content as they're often used to bury controversial topics. I'm also unsure how him being criticized by pro-life groups in the article's text is undue weight as long as the praise he's received from pro-choice groups is also included. Abortion is an important issue in American politics and the text of this article minimizes his support for legal abortion by only mentioning it in the context of him being criticized for being invited to an evangelical church to talk about AIDS. If anything, how that paragraph is written now is POV as the only thing it mentions in the readable text in regards to his support for abortion is the criticism he's gotten for his opinion and using the most negative quote available. I could also argue that the paragraph itself is undue weight and not particularly notable. The pro-life groups criticizing his support for abortion as why he shouldn't be invited to a church to talk about AIDS is the equivalent to including references to Westboro Baptist Church in Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003.--Bobblehead 07:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

As said prevously, I think the voting "present" material belongs where it is in the footnote, but I moved the Planned Parenthood point out of the fn and into the text - I think it's a bit clearer and more balanced now. (I also found that church quote to be excessively negative when left on its own.) But it's also important to remember that there is an entire article on his political views which appropriately goes into more detail about his position on legal abortion and other issues.Tvoz |talk 08:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even sure the "present" issue is worthy of mention in the footnotes really. All the sources have said a "Present" vote is equivalent to a "No" vote and it didn't seem to impact his Planned Parenthood rating. I headed over to the political views article and made the same edits there right after I left the above comment (I'll have to go back though. I like your wording better than mine).--Bobblehead 08:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This seems more neutral. Adding a sentence saying that he recieved a 100% rating from NARAL seems hardly a way to thouroughly cover this issue. Maybe we should add how strange it is that a 100% NARAL ratee only felt strong enough to vote "present" on this bill?

"Obama has been heavily criticized for his vote on a series of bills while serving in the Illinois State Senate that sought to protect the infant survivors of botched abortions. In 2001, Sen. Obama voted "present" on bills S.B. 1093, S.B. 1094, and S.B. 1095 even though he has been highly supportive of abortion in the past. Obama explained his problems with the "born alive" bills, specifically arguing that they would overturn Roe v. Wade. But he did not mention how he only felt strongly enough to vote "present" on the bills instead of "no,” and how giving medical attention to babies who were already born as the result of abortion abortions, as the bills required, "overturned" any existing laws."

--Pic82101 8:45, 8 April 2007 (EST)

This seems "neutral" to you? Well, any objective reader will see that it is quite far from neutral. You are blowing this up way beyond its actual importance, and like Bobblehead, I question the inclusion of these "present" votes in any form - but to satisfy your concern that the present votes be acknowledged here, we have included them in a balanced way, with criticism coming from both sides of the spectrum. You clearly only want to represent your POV and that has no place here. Unless you reach consensus here to include anything else on this, please don't change what we have. (And when you add comments to Talk it is helpful if you place them on the bottom of the discussion, or at least indented under a specific point you're replying to, not at the top of the discussion - it is confusing that way.) Tvoz |talk 15:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you want Tvoz, 500 links??? You just can't stand criticism and Obama's failure to explain his actions can you? I don't like him and I don't hate him but this is a BIG issue considering that he's running for PRESIDENT which requires an enormous decision making capability that he clearly lacked on many issues including this, when he was in the Illinois Senate. Voting "present" is a sign a politician can't make up his mind or fears the political consequences of casting a straight vote. Just because criticism of him disagrees with YOU it doesn't mean it's not neutral. And stop claiming the Born Alive controversy is something that doesn't mean anything. I including his response to the issue and showed the errors in it. I am not pushing any POV but you seem to be doing a bit of it with your constant censoring and disagreeable attitude towards anybody who wants to bring some balance to this article. And where did you include the "present" controversy in the article and where are both pov? If I missed it, please quote me where I diverged from the facts in my paragraph and I will be more than happy to drop the whole matter. Hmmm...

• I wrote he was criticized, true.
• I wrote he voted "present" on S.B. 1093, 1094, and 1095, true.
• I wrote he was highly supportive of abortion in the past, true.(maybe "supportive," then.)
• I wrote that he had objections and concerns about the bill and asked why he did not say why he didn't vote "no" on it if he said he was opposed to it, true.
• I wrote that he also did not address why giving medical attention to babies who already born as the result of botched abortions, as the bills would allow, violated Roe vs. Wade as he said it did, true.

How am I pushing MY pov here? Did I make all these facts up? No. Am I offending your support of Barack Obama? Maybe. But we're in a free wiki where facts matter more than opinions. But anything critical of Obama that is true is fanatically censored by you who seem to be more concerned about pushing your povs than having a true and balanced article? If this was any other politician I can assure that the criticism section would be a whole lot bigger. Let's be factual, not opinionated.

--Pic82101 11:54, 8 April 2007 (EST)

• Any time you feel a need to point out something someone didn't do -- for example, "failed to mention" something or another -- you can and should assume that you are attempting to insert POV. "Failed to mention" means you think that he should have mentioned something; but what you and I think should have happened is our own opinion. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

redundant section - see imediately above

O.k., this is the talk page. Let's discuss this paragraph.

"Obama has been heavily criticized for his vote on a series of bills while serving in the Illinois State Senate that sought to protect the infant survivors of botched abortions. In 2001, Sen. Obama voted "present" on bills S.B. 1093, S.B. 1094, and S.B. 1095 even though he has been supportive of abortion in the past. Obama explained his problems with the "born alive" bills, specifically arguing that they would overturn Roe v. Wade. But he failed to mention that he only felt strongly enough to vote "present" on the bills instead of "no." He also failed to mention how giving medical attention to babies who were already born "overturned" any existing laws."

Pic82101 00:21, 8 April 2007 (EST)

See the section immediately above this one. Tvoz |talk 00:32, 8 April 2007

Housekeeping Duties / Cleaning Up Article

Article excessively long?

This article is over 100k long, which seems to indicate that the creation of a number of child articles are in order here. The Senate career section is almost 30k in length on it's own and could be easily copied and pasted into a Senate career of Barack Obama article and then expanded/reformatted into a quality article. I could even see the senate campaign moved off to the career article with a short6 summary of the sections left here hitting the high points of the election and his senate career. The cultural and political image section is also ripe for being made into a summary for a child article. The political advocacy section and the presidential election section seem to be excessively long for summaries of another article. I know there isn't a chance in heck of getting this article down to 32k without leaving a pile of drek behind, but it should be doable to reduce the length down to a more acceptable and quality 60k with a proper application of WP:SS. What does everyone else think? --Bobblehead 02:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

After copy and pasting the printable version to an edit window and removing the Notes, References, Further reading, and External links sections, I get "This page is 32 kilobytes long." See Wikipedia:Article size#What is and is not included as "readable prose". --HailFire 09:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia says this article is 102kb. Clicking on the link, it recommends articles be 32 kb but says that the size doesn't have to be strictly followed because there aren't too many obsolete browsers. Still, the article is long. There are sections broken out but then there's still a lot of text in those same sections. I just looked at Mitt Romney's article. He was Governor yet his article is short and sweet, not so wordy like this one. Granted, his needs to be beefed up a little. Anyone want to try?

Again, with regard to the interface saying 102kb, please see Wikipedia:Article size#What is and is not included as "readable prose" as linked above. Italiavivi 02:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Consider

• Cutting out 2004 Democratic Convention speech. What is notable was that Obama gave the speech. That's what his claim to fame and recognition comes from, not the contents of the speech. Likewise, the late Governor Ann Richards came into the spotlight for the same reason. However, nothing she said was notable except the silver spoon joke. Do you remember what she said? See how lack of notability these convention speeches are!
• Presidential Campaign section. Why do we need to devote 8 lines to his announcement speech? This is an article, not a campaign press release. If we treat Bush and Clinton in the same respect, then their articles would be 50 times longer because of their many speeches. Equal treatment is what we should strive for because that is NPOV. Unequal treatment hints of POV or at least unintentional POV. What's important is that he announced and was predicted for a while that he would announce before he actually did.
• Political advocacy section. This is just a rehash of a link to "Political positions of Barack Obama" article. Consider moving all of this out to that link.
• Cultural and Political Image Section. This is all opinion. What ever happened to the NPOV? In the US, there are probably half a million different opinions on the guy's image, if not more. If people want to save it, consider a new article and link to "Public Image of Barack Obama".....(edit: oh, that's just what Bobblehead said)

KMCtoday 01:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I very strongly disagree with your proposed removals. As pointed out above, this article's readable prose is well within guidelines. Italiavivi 02:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup. This article gets nailed by the amount of references used in it, alas. Oh, the irony. --Bobblehead 02:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the proposal as well. First, it's not necessary: as was noted several times above, the readable prose is within recommended guidelines. If you follow that link you'll see what we're referring to. The references are comprehensive - that's a good thing - and that's part of what adds to the total amount of K you saw. But the guideline is about "readable prose" and we've worked to keep it within those guidelines. On your other points, much discussion has taken place and continues to on the talk pages about what should be included and what not, and we've shortened and lengthened sections, and forked off sections to separate articles, and added things that were earlier deemed less notable, changing emphasis as events dictate, and have done it pretty successfully by consensus. I expect that will continue, as we have a lot of eyes on this article. As for the article on Mitt Romney - it sounds like a good project. Good luck with it. Tvoz |talk 03:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagree as well. This is a well referenced article. Ronbo76 03:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

User:KMCtoday's proposed expansion in the State legislature section.

From User_talk:Italiavivi:

I saw your edit on Obama reverting mine. Actually, the vast majority of my edit is just to add "citation needed" when things are not referenced and very little editing of the actual text. The Obama article is the type that should be very well referenced because of the nature of it. Whoever wrote the original police part is very biased because that's not what the reference said at all. He may have got the FOP endorsement but he got a very chilly reception at ANOTHER police association meeting (which is what the reference was about). There, the audience applauded only once, which shows how little support he has there. So here we have a sentence in the wikipedia article which is clearly POV hence my correction. KMCtoday 03:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You did quite a bit of editing to the actual text, including the addition of phrases such as "not pro-law enforcement" and "anti-public safety" under an edit summary of "small clarifications." [1] I believe your edit summary was quite disingenuous, reading now. Italiavivi 03:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Editing was initially just to add citations when big error was noted. However, you made corrections that were along the same line of thought in trying to more accurately have this article reflect what the citation was actually saying.KMCtoday 20:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It's quite clearly POV to call his bills "detrimental to law enforcement" and I've rewritten the sentence to conform with the source. FCYTravis 20:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

From User_talk:Italiavivi:

You (Italiavivi) mention concensus. There is agreement by FCYTravis. However, the point is NPOV, not necessarily concensus if consensus is for inaccurate reporting. Hitler had concensus. He won the vote fair and square. Even Bush won the election. I am for accountability, i.e. citing material and citing it accurately. This is for not only Obama, but also Romney. I am not picking on Obama specifically. I have raised citation issues for Bush, too.KMCtoday 01:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Congressional Black Caucus

After a bit of spamming by an overeager congressional worker, I noticed that some members were not noted as such. Would it be alright to add to the "Senate career" section, after the ending sentence beginning "He is a member of the following Senate committees:" a note saying ", and also a member of the Congressional Black Caucus." ? Shenme 23:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say absolutely yes, as long as it is confirmed that he is actually a member of the Caucus, not a supposition that because he is African American he would be. I don't mean to imply that you are making that supposition, Shenme, just think a citation would be a good thing for this.Tvoz |talk 23:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

And - I looked at their official website and confirmed his membership, so added it to the article. I didn't anticipate any objections, but of course it can be discussed here if there are any. Thanks for bringing it up. Tvoz |talk 23:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"not easily pegged to typical U.S. categories of the left or right"?

Hi. While I am inclined to support Obama (we're both left-handed smokers), my BS detector lights up a little after reading this. In the Political Image section it describes him as being neither lefty nor righty. He's been against the Iraq war since day one (a position typically reserved for the extremes on both sides - like Ron Paul or Denis Kucinich), is pro-choice and advocates universal healthcare. In 2007 America this combination puts you on the left. Not neccessarily far from the center, but absolutely NOT on the right half of the scale. If there are some lesser known positions that move him to the right, you really ought to mention them. I'd have to unfortunately agree with the swiftboaters above who speculate that this page has been 'caputured' by members of his campaign. 24.98.251.37 23:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, throughout the article, it is clear where his political allegiances lie. The section you're referring to is specifically referring to his "image", and cites numerous reliable sources that allude to the bipartisanship he has displayed throughout his career, and does not say that his beliefs are anywhere other than on the liberal side of the American political spectrum. I agree that we can probably make that more clear in the text. (Also, it isn't very nice to make the claim that you did at the end, as it's entirely untrue.) —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The article clearly states on numerous occasions that he's a Democrat. The line you're referring to is more of a comment on his insistence to treat each political issue individually, instead of adhering to party lines for the sake of party/political reasons. Did you not read the rest of the section? It has multiple criticisms, etc. --Ubiq 23:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know just why he is so popular in the democratic party. How does someone so young and with so little experience get seen as such a visionary? Everything I have read about his politics leads me believe he is moderate democrat ideologically close to both Clintons. I do not get any notion that he is suggesting anything particularly new. Yet there is all the buz around him versus any other Democratic Senator? If anyone has some ideas about this I would very much like to see them discussed here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Custodiet ipsos custodes (talk • contribs).

Because the democrats are race hucksters at every turn. Sadly, blacks tend to overwhelmingly vote democrat anyway, so he is really more bluster than anything.Ernham 01:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not our place to speculate. We are only here to write the article about him. All we can do is cite what reputable sources have said about him. Anything else would fall under WP:NOR. Please remember that this is not the place to discuss Barak, but the place to discuss the article about Barak. --StuffOfInterest 12:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Then whose place is it to speculate???? Hello? The point of the discussion page is go places and talk about things that wont make it on the main page. (Again I am not advocating putting original research on the main page.) One could though explain with sources his popularity. If it can be done this way it is essential to an article about him. In the future when people look back at him in history they will be wondering why he was so popular. This is a very important point. History is not just dry facts but an explanation of them to provide coherence to those facts. If this is not the place where is the place??? Custodiet ipsos custodes 19:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe StuffOfInterest is talking about WP:TALK where it says the talk page is to only discuss improving the article. So, if you want to discuss why he's popular, perhaps you should head over to one of the discussion boards dedicated to talking politics. However, if you'd like to add why he is popular to this article, I'd suggest you find a reliable source that explains that. One thing I've noticed is that requesting others to look up information for you tends to be ignored. --Bobblehead 20:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"One thing I've noticed is that requesting others to look up information for you tends to be ignored." - given the importance of the question especially because Barak Obama may be the next President of the United States perhaps those doing the ignoring should stop and think....Custodiet ipsos custodes

You're raising a question about why he's popular - it's bothering you, you believe that is something that ought to be addressed in the article, am I right? I think what Stuff and Bobble are saying is that the best way to proceed is for you, a person who has expressed interest in the topic, to do some research and see if you find reliable sources that speak to this, then add it, or post it here on talk for discussion about if, how and where to add it. There are a lot of things to be considered in this article - each of us focuses on what we think is important - so if you think this is important to be included, find something to include and I'm sure you'll find people here to talk about its inclusion. Bobblehead is just pointing out that leaving your concern here and expecting others to share it and research it is less likely to get a result than doing it yourself and giving the group something to work with. We're all busy - do the legwork and then let's talk. Tvoz |talk 22:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Police endorsement discussion

Hellfire made an edit in September. Essentially, it says that Obama got the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police and a citation is given. However, looking at that citation [2], the Chicago Tribune article actually said " 'I don't see him as pro-law enforcement," said Wheaton police Chief Mark Field. "I could spend hours with this man talking about his voting record. It is very anti-public safety." The crowd of 60 police officials applauded only once during Obama's 20-minute remarks. The whole article is about the chilly reception that Obama got.

This does not seem like very balanced reporting by Hellfire. It seems like there is a POV being pushed, i.e. trying to convince the reader that Obama has police support.

It's really very hard for me to see that this is other than biased editing by Hellfire. Furthermore, it wasn't just an honest mistake in editing because Hellfire recently reverted Italiavivi's correction accurately summarizing the citation back to the biased, one sided summary of the Chicago Tribune citation. I was just editing to make sure edits have citations when I found this irregularity. (For now, I'm just checking facts on this and other news articles, not really writing much). Let's not pick on Hellfire for now but the question remains, it's really hard to see why the long standing wording isn't pushing a POV by being biased editing.KMCtoday 20:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, KMC, the only "unbalanced" or "biased" thing I see here is an attempt to place offhand criticism from a single police chief on par with an official endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police. See Wikipedia:Undue weight. I would also ask that you cease the innuendo you are directing toward User:HailFire; despite my past disagreements with him on this article's content, he is a fine Wikipedia editor in general and has made a phenomenal positive contribution to this particular article. Italiavivi 21:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If Obama got the endorsement of the FOP, then prima facie he's got significant law enforcement support. The Chicago Tribune article essentially said there were some FOP opponents and some FOP supporters - I think "mixed reaction" is a far better term to use there than "subdued," which is rather ambiguous. Is a "subdued reaction" to be construed as opposition or merely indifference? So we can say the FOP supported him but the Illinois police chiefs were split. FCYTravis 20:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Your (FCYTravis) rewrite does reflect what the Tribune article said. The problem I have with Hailfire's edit was he or she twisted what the Tribune said and wrote it here in wikipedia.KMCtoday 20:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I am actually more in agreement with HailFire's (his username is not "Hellfire") philosophy that context is important, and that sources support relevant parts of the article's text, not the other way around. That one member of the Police Chiefs Association had bad things to say about Obama is nowhere near as notable as the Fraternal Order of Police endorsement, and drawing extra attention to this one police chief's disagreements (when there were other chiefs there to get Obama's autograph, per the source) is decidedly undue weight. I can compromise to my version (not your "version like mine") if consensus deems it absolutely necessary, but foremost support HailFire's version (the past consensus version, which I am restoring now). Italiavivi 21:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Italiavivi's revert to HailFire's text- and changed IACP back to HF's "police union" (=FOP) because that is what this citation is supporting. The cite says: "Last week, Obama won the endorsement of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police. Union officials cited Obama's longtime support of gun-control measures and his willingness to negotiate compromises on bills backed or opposed by the FOP." Citations are there to support the text. If there are other reliable source citations to present a different point of view, please submit them. Meanwhile, I find the header for this section, and the implication in KMCToday's comments, to be offensive. The twisting that I'm seeing is not coming from HailFire or from Italiavivi. Tvoz |talk 00:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What seems like the real story is that Obama did get the FOP endorsement but there's significant dislike of his policies. That's why Obama got the icy reception at his talk. To be applauded only once is worse than the chilly reception that Bush got at the NAACP where they applauded a few times. When the sentence was placed before, it essentially said "FOP supports Obama" and gave the citation. Anyone reading the citation can see that it's deceptive (whether intentional or not). A balanced viewpoint would be "some support, but some police oppose".

An example of being one sided like the above would be to say "Hillary supports the war" citing a newspaper article which might have said "Hillary supported the war by voting for such and such bill. Now she is for a planned, stage withdrawal." FCYTravis' revision just corrects it. It does not say Obama is wrong.KMCtoday 01:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's start fresh

• I consider myself a fact checker, have no strong opinion for or against Obama, and have done fact checking on Republicans, too.
• If anyone has been offended by the past discussion, I am sorry. Consider starting fresh like now.
• The main issue that I see is that there is a lack of unbiased reporting in the police issues. An editor made it a point to include FOP endorsement and provided a reference. Upon reading the reference, the wikipedia article seems unbalanced. The wikipedia article should reflect a balance of police opinions about him, not just an endorsement. Therefore, it would be inaccurate and a POV to include only the FOP endorsement and not include an overall police opinion of him(although I am willing to accept on good faith that it was an unintentional POV for the sake of compromise).
• Although I generally fact check and not edit, my editing about Obama has been continual revision not just reverting as some have done. Can you make a similar sign of good faith.KMCtoday 02:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this "fresh start" the reason that, only 12 minutes ago, you posted a message to another editor's User_Talk page accusing editors here of 'censorship'? Between referring to my edits as "vandalism" and your accusing editors of "censorship" immediately before posting this "fresh start" offer, my assumption of good faith on your part has near run out, KMC. Italiavivi 02:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an attempt to step back. The use of the term censorship was because of quick reverting though, in the interest of good faith, I'll decline from explaining further. Please note that messages to others may be done to get a better understanding of the problem without a big arguement here. Please respect privacy.KMCtoday 02:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no - that's not going to wash. if you have something to say about "quick reverting", why don't you just come out and say it. Accusation by innuendo is really not ok. Tvoz |talk 03:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

All of you need to deep breath here. This is a simple content dispute and the claims of censorship and complaints about the claim are not helping. It is generally more helpful to discuss the content in question and not assume the reasons behind an editor's actions.--Bobblehead 04:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Bobblehead, that we should keep to the issue of content. But I think saying "The use of the term censorship was because of quick reverting though, in the interest of good faith, I'll decline from explaining further." is exactly the opposite of assuming good faith - as was the original heading to this section - and I don't think it should be condoned.Tvoz |talk 04:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've always been a big fan of not feeding trolls. If you ignore the pointy bits they get bored and go away. --Bobblehead 19:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little confused as to the nature of this latest round of edit warring. The primary purpose of the source used to support Obama's endorsement is to report the subdued response he got from Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police so while the wording proposed by FCYTravis and KMCtoday might be a little too much POV, not mentioning the subdued reaction at all fails to provide all points of view. Can't have one and not the other, so either remove his endorsement by the Fraternal Order of Police or give the subdued reaction from IACP equal time in a less POV manner.--Bobblehead 04:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. My reading of the source article is that there was a subdued response at one meeting of a police chief group, but that there also was support at that meeting. That organization does not endorse candidates, so it seems to me the response by one group of people one day is not a notable point worth including. The FOP, on the other hand, formally endorsed him - that means that they as an organization took a public stand of support for someone who had some positions that they disagreed with. To me, that is notable. I have no problem at all including something about other police groups supporting or not supporting, if there are reliable sources for it, and if it was more than one police chief saying he had a problem and others being subdued. That's just not notable. I haven't researched this issue - for all I know there are articles out there that talk about police groups who formally supported his opponent or made a public statement =as a group= that they opposed him. And if those exist, maybe someone will bring them forward,, and maybe they belong here. But the point of the paragraph is that despite his having some positions that some people in law enforcement oppose, a police union - the FOP - came out in support of his candidacy. That is notable. Tvoz |talk 04:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The obvious answer to this problem is to find a new source, one addressing only his endorsement by the Fraternal Order of Police. Italiavivi 16:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem is moot at the moment, I think, because User:KMCtoday was indef blocked for being, unsurprisingly, yet another disruptive sock of dereks1x.Tvoz |talk 18:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Picture

I don't feel Barak's picture is from a neutral point of view. This looks like an image from the campaign for his presidency. Before you judge compare it to the image for Tom Delay. Don't get me wrong, I think Delay's is fair, the images IMHO should be more raw photos, not photo ops or in a good light. --User:kibbled_bits 11:17 PM, 9 April 2007

It's a picture from his US Senate website, while Tom's is from the congressional pictorial directory. Perhaps the editors of Tom's website should use better pictures on that article. *shrug* It's a picture of Obama in front of the building where he works, not sure how it's a violation of NPOV. Now, a picture of Obama in front of the White House, that might be questionable. --Bobblehead 04:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Let me get this straight. A flattering picture of a person violates NPOV? Are you serious? KyuzoGator 15:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Obama's Myspace

It seems to be here. Myspace advertised it in the "Cool New People" section. Any way or reason to fit it in his wiki article? --Ubiq 01:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That profile is not officially managed or sanctioned by the Obama campaign, it even carries a disclaimer right on the profile: "This profile was not created, and is not managed or endorsed by Senator Barack Obama. For more information, please contact the moderator." Bjewiki 01:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh. My bad. Silly me. --Ubiq 02:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Anon comment moved from top

Using the words controversy and scrutiny are meaningless-- what did he do that was terrible? Nothing.

Smearing another human being requires very little intelligence. People who love to do it the most tend to be of low character themselves.

128.138.230.150 18:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The exhaustive controversies survey.

Obama's comments on violence

In regards to the murders at Virginia Tech he said: "There's also another kind of violence that we're going to have to think about. It's not necessarily the physical violence, but the violence that we perpetrate on each other in other ways," he said, and goes on to catalogue other forms of "violence."

There's the 'verbal violence' of Imus.

There's "the violence of men and women who have worked all their lives and suddenly have the rug pulled out from under them because their job is moved to another country."

There's "the violence of children whose voices are not heard in communities that are ignored,""there's a lot of different forms of violence in our society, and so much of it is rooted in our incapacity to recognize ourselves in each other."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20070419/cm_rcp/obama_not_ready_for_prime_time

This may be one of the biggest blunders yet in the primaries. If this article has any trace of NPOV left it should be mentioned. It may very well cost him the election.71.183.135.248 01:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Now bring on all the Obama fans who run this page to predictibly tell me why this is not notable. C'mon Tvoz, Italiativiti, BobbleHead. You guys can figure out ways anything is not notable when it hurts your candidate. So let's hear it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.183.135.248 (talk • contribs).

Is there any source other than some random opinion column? If not, then it probably is not that big a deal. Abeg92We are all Hokies! 01:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What makes this article be labeled "random"? Search and ye shall find several other articles. But I'll be darned if there aren't other opinion peices cited in this article. I think the last cite if from the Huffington Post if I'm not mistaken. But then again... that was flattering so it get's in. This is not so it won't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.135.248 (talk • contribs)

Well that's because it is an opinion section while your is trying to be news unless you are admitting it is nothing but an opinion. Gdo01 04:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I had not seen this discussion when I came on tonight and removed the Huffington item, so it was not done in response to the above. Why did I remove it? Well, for one thing it is pure opinion published in a blog by a music writer who is a bit more qualified to write about Sanjaya than about Obama, and the item was posted without attribution to the writer anyway - it said "opponents have compared" - which opponents? Not supported by the source. Actually not flattering if you bothered to read the source, but that's not why I took it out either. Yes, we have some opinion pieces as references, but sparingly. Let's see, there's an opinion piece by Peggy Noonan. Well, I'd say she's pretty qualified to have a political opinion piece quoted, and it was from that hotbed of liberalism, The Wall Street Journal - and I doubt she'd appreciate being called an Obama supporter. Stanley Crouch's opinion piece is here - from The Daily News, and I'm not sure that one can be called a flattering piece by a supporter either. So essentially 71.183.135.248's implication that we keep only flattering opinion pieces in the article is just incorrect. As for the comments about violence? The source you're presenting is pure opinion, and completely misrepresents the speech that Obama gave, which was linked on the front page of RealClearPOlitics where your piece appeared. Here it is for your convenience. I don't think this speech is necessarily notable enough to be included in our article, but if we do I assure you it won't be from the second-hand slanted piece you linked above, but will be to what the man actually said. And I'm changing the offensive and misleading heading of this section. I don't think a talk page is a place for sensationalist editorializing. And one last thing: WP:CABAL. Give it a rest. Tvoz |talk 07:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"It may very well cost him the election"??? I don't think so. Copy his entire, actual speech into Wikisource and be done with it.Flatterworld 17:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

@the person who said it would cost him the elections: i think not, his numbers have gone up in the latest polls, he is equal with Hilary now so this isn't particularly notable. We shouldn't put it comments he has made that don't affect anyone's opinion in him. And i don't think it is a good source.

Rotating Picture?

The picture we have at the top of the page is the third picture in the last three days. I don't have any particular preference, but it would be a good idea to keep it relatively stable. Thoughts? — mrmaroon25 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not really rotating. Image:SenatorBarackObama.jpg is apparently owned by the photographer and not the US Senate, therefore is not free and can't be used, Image:Barack Obama.jpg was deleted, and now we're on to Image:ObamaBarack.jpg. --Bobblehead 02:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What happened to Sen. Obama's official Senate portrait, standing in front of the Capitol? This is the image that should be used. Italiavivi 22:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the J.smith Wikipedia received an email from the photographer claiming ownership and when J.smith contacted Barack Obama's "people" and they confirmed the ownership.[25] Basically, the picture of him in front of the capitol building is copyrighted. --Bobblehead 01:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That was a good picture :( He looks goofy in the current one. --Ubiq 14:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Taking this off protection

Hi, I have some substantive edits I'd like to make involving Obama staffers and his campaign that aren't covered in the article, but its on protection. What's the timeline for taking it off protection? I'm also a new user - is that the problem? thanks Nitroleviathan 15:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This page is semi-protected and you appear to be past the 48-hour new account restriction, so you should be able to edit the page. Happy editing. --Bobblehead 18:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This article

This entire wikipedia article seems like it was written by the candidate himself...or possibly a Republican wishing to stamp out Hillary Clinton. Clinton supporters, Obama is just Republican ploy to stop Clinton at whatever cost... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.48.134.139 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 29 April 2007

This is very likely because when some slightly less than positive (but not negative) info is placed, it immediately gets reverted by a very loyal band of 3-4 users who only allow the most positive info. This is proof of POV.Lawman8 23:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

possible deceptive editing

In archive 8, there is an interesting discussion about Obama's police endorsement. The current language may give the reader the impression that he has police support but the real story is that he possibly is OPPOSED by a majority of police. See the very informative article that's listed as a footnote (reference). If so, the current version (before my edit \) is POV, contrary to wikipedia policy. I hope Obama supporters don't just plain revert it but abide by NPOV.Lawman8 18:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This has been hashed out, as you know, and the objections that were raised were bogus ones raised by a sockpuppet of a user who is under a community ban - done to disrupt. Nothing has changed since then - this endorsement is ancient history about a long-past election. The wording is being reverted as it was neutral and accurate. If you object, the thing to do is to say so here, especially since you are well aware of the previous discussion, according to the comment you just posted - not to go in and change it to how you want it to be. So, go ahead and make your objection here, but don't start an edit war. And, not for the first time, you don't know who is an Obama supporter and who is not, so don't make assumptions. Tvoz |talk 19:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that the only person would reverts to pro-Obama language is an Obama supporter. However, an Obama supporter is likely to do so. I also see that there was no edit war but rather those favoring POV pro-Obama language kicked out KCtoday. The communist party does that. They send people with NPOV and opposite views to the labor camp. This is not to say that Obama editors here are communist but they MAY behave in the same way. Let's try to find compromise language!Lawman8 17:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

KMCToday was one of a series of ids banned as sockpuppets attempting to evade dereks1x's community ban. It had nothing to do with his views. Tvoz |talk 18:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

::I was reading the content of KMCtoday's comments, not the mechanics of the ban. Some of the comments make sense. Hitler drank water. However, water is not bad just because Hitler drank it.Lawman8 18:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz, you say to discuss things on talk page. Yet, you just revert and don't add talk page comments. I have made yet another attempt for compromise language, not simply reverting. This is discussion, not edit warring. Edit warring is when you just revert.Lawman8 20:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You'll get one response: Go back to archive 8 and re-read the discussion that took place there. Nothing has changed, as I said above. I reinstated the NPOV and accurate wording that we had - I have nothing more to say on the matter at present, unless someone brings up something new, which you have not. Your complaint was bogus then and it is bogus now. And your concept of "compromise" wording, which dereks1x used across several articles, under several names, is also invalid as you're using it here: a compromise requires more than one party's agreement. So what you are doing, as I am quite sure you know, is merely being disruptive. Tvoz |talk 20:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It is only disruptive if one considers that trying to eliminate NPOV is disruptive. Actually, advocating a POV view is disruptive to the whole wikipedia community, not just this article. The behavior of bobblehead is wrong because he says to talk on the talk page yet reverts without doing so or even offering compromise language. Lawman8 21:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Lawman8 confirmed as another sockpuppet of banned User: dereks1x, again attempting to evade his ban. I struck out his comments. Tvoz |talk 00:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Middle eastern heritage.

I don't quite understand the 'African-American' thing or hybridised nationality nomenclature very well, but I understand Africa is the content of origin of his fathers side, but there's no mention anywhere in the article of his middle eastern origins? Is this because in the current American socio-political climate there is a dogma around the middle east forming? Or has he personally overlooked this because of such? Jachin 06:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It could also be because he has no Middle Eastern heritage? His biological father was Kenyan (That's in Africa), his biological mother was from Kansas with European ancestry. Hope that answers your question about why there is no mention of Middle Eastern heritage. --Bobblehead 18:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Link to MySpace site?

I'm not sure if this article needs a link to Barack Obama's MySpace account. It seems legit enough, but I'm just wondering if this is the sort of link that is worthy of inclusion in this article. It just seems a bit to, I dunno, *lowbrow* for this article maybe. Let's talk about this. Thanks, Rahzel 21:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Assuming the MySpace account's now officially "owned" and maintained by the Obama campaign, I see no reason why it wouldn't be notable enough for inclusion. Shem^(talk) 15:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Who said Barack is a Muslim? He isn't, and never has been, so the statement that he is the first Muslim Senator is wrong. He identifies himself as a Christian. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14961215/site/newsweek/

Are political geeks romance challenged?

Does anyone else see a problem with this sentence?

"Obama met Michelle Robinson in 1988 while employed as a summer associate at Sidley & Austin, the law firm where she also worked.[128]"

Why does the name of the law firm need to be mentioned? People are interested in how the two met, not in the name of the firm. If that is important put in somewhere else. Just my opinion. Thanks. Steve Dufour 02:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it is not relevant information to the reader. If the reader wishes to know what law firm they worked at, it may be researched further. Nuclearj 20:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed the wording of this section a little, hoping to make it a little more natural without removing anyone's precious tidbit of information. Steve Dufour 23:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Somebody nominated Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. to be merged into this article .The discussion on the merge links here.--Sefringle 04:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Barack Senior deserves an article beacuse he is an immediate family member of a Democratic presidential candidate. As the primarys approach, though, the page will obviously grow if Barack's campaign picks up a decent following.--Pyromancer102 01:24, 3 May (EST)

I dont't hink so. Barack Obama sr. has done no things which would have made him so special that he would deserve an articl. please forgive my bad english, i am native speaker of german --86.103.206.146 09:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said over there, and on the page about his mother, I haven't seen anything on those pages that would demand separate pages - I'm in favor of merge/redirect to here unless and until some new information is revealed making them notable beond their status as his parents. Yes, there may be interest, but at this point I think this article can handle it. Since both are deceased, there won't be new things happening with them in the way that Miz Lillian or Clinton's mother or Rose Kennedy did and no one has demonstrated any independent notability. Tvoz |talk 17:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Merge - Merge away. Aside from producing Barack Obama they are not notable and, as such, their notability is properly noted here in the Barack Obama article. --Bobblehead 17:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems for now that everything mentioned in these articles is already mentioned within this article. If you want to merge them, I suggest nominating them for an Afd.--Sefringle 00:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No controversies? Cmon guys!!

Myspace / Obama on Rezko deal: It was a mistake / Obama says he was unaware of stocks in trust fund

http://www.suntimes.com/news/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-0703080154mar08,0,5354218.story

Barack's disclosure of actions surrounding these events circumvents any foul play. These accusations have been dismissed largely for the most part, they are simply speculation. Media organization have already taken notice of this with strict scrutiny. Nuclearj 20:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Still, shouldnt it be mentioned?? Just coz someone dislosed soemthing doesnt mean it wasnt a controversy?? Peterpressurepeterp

His disclosure effectively ended the controversy. The relevence of this so-called controversy is small compared to that of an ecyclopedia article. It is more suited for a bibliography Michiganw12 02:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Last I checked, biography articles here on Wikipedia are full of this kind of information. If we took statments, like those from Obama, at face value then any information even remotely critical of an individual would never make it in an article here. Hempbilly 16:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It was not only his statements, it was his actions and evidence provided. There is no controversyNuclearj 16:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I still think it should be mentioned, here why don't you read this, than claim Wiki shouldnt be used for this type of info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudy_Giuliani#Controversies

Some claim that Giuliani knew all along that his first wife Regina Peruggi was his second cousin (Peruggi was the daughter of Giuliani's father's cousin[citation needed]) No citation, no names of who, I mean c'mon peopel this is horrible... --Peterpressure 20:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Obama's myspace

The media is all over this, he had MySpace yank down a fan site with 160,000 friends to have it himself! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.205.32.93 (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

I think it could be mentioned. However, it is a little more complex than you say. Steve Dufour 14:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, "more complex" meaning the guy running the unofficial setup locked the campaign out of the MySpace profile and demanded $50,000 to give them access again. Obama's camp then invoked MySpace's policy concerning names of notable public figures, and was given the URL. I came back to Wikipedia after reading about this MySpace controversy, and want to make sure that any inclusion of it in Obama's article is accurate 'bout the situation's context. Shem^(talk) 15:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This is probably more appropriate for the Obama presidential election campaign article than this one, though. --Bobblehead 17:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Bobblehead - if appropriate at all. And Shem's concern seems valid - care should be taken in researching what actually happened before posting POV conclusions like "to have it himself" in the article. Tvoz |talk 17:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw the story in the newspaper yesterday and again today. One sentence thing really sums it up. "The dispute hightlights a balancing act for the presidential candidates, who are trying to harness the energy and enthusiasm of online activists while trying to maintain some control over the candidates' image" WSJ May 3, 2007 p. A7. The same article said the guy asked for $39,000, not $50,000. Feddhicks 20:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Referred to as "African American" Senator in first paragraph, when not fully African. Barack is of mixed Ancestry

Barack Obama has been cited consistently of having African and European ancestry. I feel that the label "the 5th African American senator" should be replaced with "5th Senator with African American heritage". The term "with" is more accurate than "of" African American heritage. I propose the following revision:

The U.S. Senate Historical Office lists him as only the fifth Senator with African American heritage in U.S. history and the only Senator with African American heritage currently serving in the U.S. Senate.^[1] Nuclearj 22:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

But that's not the language the US Senate Historical Office uses. Read the source please. He is identified there as being the 5th African American senator, which is the language we reached consensus on here. Tvoz |talk 22:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Although the US historical office refers to him solely as an "African American", it does not make it factually correct. The list was made to compile the few senators of African American heritage and subsequently Barack was included. The statement is inherently incomplete and gives readers a FALSE impression of his heritage. It can easily be corrected by including the term "with" African American heritage. If references are desired, one easily recognizing his mixed heritage may be included. 165.91.99.20 23:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

But he does not have "African American heritage" since he is the first African American in his family. Steve Dufour 23:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, agreed/correct Steve, perhaps something along the line of "with African heritage" would be best suited. Nuclearj 23:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

We all have African heritage. :-) Steve Dufour 00:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That comment does not aid to the conversation. The Africa you mention is before the concept of continent was created Michiganw12 02:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that his racial/ethnic description should be factual, rather that a popular catagorization. The lanuage can be made clear and concise to do this, without a description of his family tree. Michiganw12 02:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, and he is African American. Tvoz |talk 03:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

*Upon researching he considers himself to be African American and keeping within Wikipedia policy of living biographies and to avoid smear it is deemed adequate to leave it as such. This is my original error creating this discussion, though I am new and am surprised that nobody mentioned this information at the onset of discussion.Nuclearj 03:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

professor

this blog post states that after being a lecturer at the university of chicago, he became a full professor (i don't know for how long) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnjosephbachir (talk • contribs) 16:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Not according to his posted Univ of Chicago curriculum vitae, which would be more reliable than a blogpost. Tvoz |talk 16:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Ex-atheists/agnostics

Is it appropriate to list him in this category if he has not explicitly stated having been an atheist/agnostic in his earlier years? Doubting God or questioning God doesn't automatically make one an atheist. Italiavivi 20:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree - I removed it earlier because the article does not specifically support the contention, despite what edit summaries say. There is an implication in one of the quotes, but I'd say if being agnostic or atheist was an important identification for him in his younger days that should be expressed, and then the cat makes sense. Otherwise, I think it should be out. Tvoz |talk 21:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's also keep in mind that being agnostic oftentimes goes in conjunction with being an atheist or a theist (i.e. there are agnostic Christians, Jews, etc). --Ubiq 00:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Uniformity

Please leave Obama's infobox as is. They current method is the unform method used on other senator's aticles. The infoboxes allow for uniform representation of information of similar items. Obama is no different from any other senator and as such his aricle should be treated the same. Rougher07 22:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

Hmm.. In the last 2 days, there have been 50 edits. 2 of them have been productive, 1 by Windyjarhead[26] and one by OrphanBot[27]. Thoughts on semi-protecting this article again? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It definitely seems to be attracting a lot of hostile attention. I think semi-protection would be a good thing. CSWarren 23:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it seems prudent. Tvoz |talk 05:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Obama is Christian, not Muslim

See http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp, among many others. The article currently states in the opening paragraph that he is Muslim. This is incorrect. This has also been mentioned once already on this page, and has been ignored. 208.120.16.139 05:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You are correct - it was vandalism. Tvoz |talk 05:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The INFAMOUS Rezko land deal

ABC news said the Rezko deal is INFAMOUS: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/05/obama_looks_to_.html Time to put it in the article! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.149.249.41 (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Image:Obama sr.jpg is a candidate for speedy deletion

Our policy regarding non-free content indicates that on the image description page of non-free content, the source and, if different, the copyright owner must be clearly identified. The copyright owner of the photograph is not identified and, as such, I have tagged the image with {{no copyright holder}}. The image is a candidate for speedy deletion per the fourth criterion.

I would like to suggest that the situation may be resolved amicably by attempting to contact Barack Obama via his campaign manager or Senate secretary. If he is the copyright owner of an image of his father, he may be willing to license a free image of his father under the GFDL, and that option should definitely be first in correspondence with his staff. --Iamunknown 21:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If such a attempt were to be made, I'd suggest that either this image or this image would be stronger candidates for inclusion in the Barack Obama#Early life and career section. However, I would also suggest that none of these images are essential, and this WPCD Selection feature article, which currently contains only free-use images, should aim to stay that way. --HailFire 22:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Though those images were given courtesy of Barack Obama, he may not be the copyright owner. He might know, of course, who is. --Iamunknown 19:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"Barry" and Basketball

Obama's Basketball Years Should we find a place for this info? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.16.121.195 (talk) 02:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Added here. --HailFire 15:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe this should be included into personal life with the theme "youth" Nuclearj 20:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Barack O'Bama

I would like to include a comment indicating Obama's Irish heritage (See here. ) and add him to the list of "Irish-American politicians." Any suggestions as to what would be appropriate? Windyjarhead 23:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I support this measure, given that it is completely factual and Obama is listed as an African-American politician despite being only 50% of African heritage. The listing is of equal bearing. Nuclearj 00:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I would not object to him being called an "Irish-American". However he is 100% a "black" American, or "African-American" which is how "black" Americans are normally called in political conversations. (I put the word "black" in quotation marks since no human is literally black in color and the word is used in a special way in the USA, according to which Senator Obama is a perfectly good example of a "black" person.) Steve Dufour 00:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That is a character/appearance opinion which varies from person to person. It is not the duty of this article to label a particular character upon an individual. It is up to the reader to make that distinction. Factually, he is half European, half African. Nuclearj 00:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Still he is a "black American". Steve Dufour 02:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That kind of slavish devotion to categorization is why racism is so persistent, IMO. There is no REQUIREMENT that an article mention the ethnicity of the subject. Personally I say leave it out or simply note the country of origin of his parents.MikeURL 18:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

i support cross-categorization and multiracial rather than exclusively racial descriptions. the word "black" would be a useless addition. people can draw whatever conclusions they want from his image. i would like to note that it is somewhat disconcerting to :mention his race twice in the opening paragraph though, as it currently is. he's also the first Hawaiian to run for president yeah?75.57.118.193 02:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this additional catagorization. There seems to be no grand argument against it, move to proceed? Michiganw12 02:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not agree. We have had this discussion before - look in the archives. The consensus wording, discussed over a period of time by people who were working on the article, should stand.Tvoz |talk 03:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The comment was in reference to the additional catagorization to the list of "irish-american" politicians, not the wording. From your response, you did not mention any objection to the additonal catagorization. Please read throughly. Michiganw12 03:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I read it. He is not an Irish-American politician, whether or not he has an ancestor or two who were Irish. Tvoz |talk 03:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

*Note Barack cites himself as African-American, in accordance with Wikipedia policy of living biographies it is adequate to leave it as such, otherwise it would be subject to smear scrutiny on his behalf. However, his Irish ancestry is becoming evident from that article, and could be included with information about his parents Nuclearj 03:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• • How is he not Irish American, Tvoz? Being an American of Irish descent is enough to qualify for that label. Windyjarhead 04:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Because you are talking about one or two possible distant ancestors. The common understanding of a phrase like "Irish-American" or "Italian-American" would be the son or daughter, or perhaps grandson or granddaughter, of someone born in Ireland or Italy - immigrants to the US. Like John Kennedy and Rudy Giuliani. Not someone's distant ancestors. What point are you trying to make anyway by including this? The heading you gave the section would suggest that you have something in mind. Why don't you spell it out? Tvoz |talk 04:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz, you are destroying you argument by saying that his ancestors are distant. His mother very well may qualify as an Irish-american. The point is that he has referred to himself as an African-American and attends a largely African-American religious congregation and never has otherwised labeled himself. His irish ancestry shoudl be included, but not as a label.Nuclearj 05:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There is more than one point. As far as I can see from the source provided, his mother wouldn't be called Irish-American either. Maybe someone wants to write an article on the genealogy of Barack Obama and other Presidential candidates - geneaology can be interesting. But this article doesn't need a detailed analysis of possible ancestors - I agree, he's African American. That's where the conversation began.Tvoz |talk 05:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I never said detailed, it can be simply stated in 5 words or less. Mother of traceable Irish-American heritage, etc. If the reader wants further information, he/she could research further that is what the goal of the article should be. Apparently this is just being discovered, so more information should become available as time goes one. I don't understand what the fear is about inserting a small tidbit about his mother. Nuclearj 06:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no agenda here, I don't dispute his "African-ness" or "black-ness." I simply assert his "Irish-ness." Most Americans I know are of multiple ethnicities/heritages. And for the record, it was JFK's great-grandfather that was from Ireland. Windyjarhead 07:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Windyjarhead, then what exactly do you propose? Adding a label to his ethnicity? Let's get the facts straight, he is labeled African-American, because that is the label he recognizes and chooses to associate with. His mother's Irish heritage is only applicable regarding herself. Nuclearj 14:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I really didn't think this would be such a hot issue. Here's a straightforward fact: Barack Obama's great great great grandfather came from Ireland. It has been reported by RTÉ, BBC, MSNBC, Reuters, The Telegraph, The Guardian and The Mirror, and that's just from a 2 minute Google search.

Yes, of course he's an African American, his father came from Kenya. But that does not change the fact that he is also an Irish American (being a descendent of Irishmen) and a politician (being an elected United States Senator and candidate for the Presidency of the United States.)

Therefore he is an "Irish American Politician." Simple as that, with no implications or hidden agenda. (See WP:AGF) Windyjarhead 16:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It is such a hot issue because there are individuals that base their entire characterization of a person upon a race or ethnic label. Barack cites himself as an American-American, I think we owe him the dignity to label him as he wishes and it is consistent with Wikipedia's policy on living biographies. We can mention his mother's heritage of Irish ancestry, I don't see any problem with that. If anyone disagrees with labeling his mother with Irish ancestry would they please state a reason other than the number of generations she is removed of Ireland? That is not a concrete point, JFK was considered Irish-American and was several generations removed from Ireland. I consider myself as well to a point, and I'm 8 generations removed. Keep in mind this is about his mother and not directly about BarackNuclearj 17:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, I don't follow the logic, how is this "about his mother and not directly about Barack"? We're talking about direct, linear, biological descent, which, while through his mother, is very much directly about Barack. It's his ancestry. Windyjarhead 01:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

We would need further info on Obama's mother's ethnicity. Obama's Irish ancestor could very well have married someone of Scottish descent and their child married someone of French descent and their child married someone of German descent, etc. to the point where Obama's mother would be considered someone of mixed European ancestry and her Irish heritage is very distant. There might even be a Native American in there for all we know. But maybe there could at least be a mention of it somewhere in the article simply because it was a fairly big new story at the time. MrBlondNYC 06:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The category should be put on the article. I don't see why there's any argument on this.--Gloriamarie 06:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has spoken

After reviewing the ongoing discussion regarding Senator Barack Obama's categorization as an "Irish American Politician," I have found that eight registered Wikipedians and one unregistered IP contributor have offered opinions. Of those, five have expressed support for the categorization, two have expressed opposition and one was unsure. This discussion has been open for a period of seven days.

Support	Oppose	Unsure
Windyjarhead	MikeURL	MrBlondNYC
Nuclearj	Tvoz
Steve Dufour	Italiavivi
Michiganw12
Gloriamarie

I therefore conclude that the Wikipedia community consents to Obama's categorization as an Irish American Politician, albeit with some hesitation. I will add the category to the article, and I ask that no user remove it without the courtesy of reading and contributing to this discussion. Windyjarhead 16:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to go on record saying that I oppose the category "Irish-American" being applied to Barack Obama until further info about his mother's heritage is provided. Furthermore, the discovery of his Irish ancestor isn't even mentioned in the article. If this ruling is valid, some proof of why the category applies should be in the article. MrBlondNYC 02:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Except that you neglected to mention to anyone that you were planning to close discussion at a given time, or that this was some kind of poll, and it's quite a stretch to say that the Wikipedia community thinks any such thing based on comments from a few editors. But in the interests of moving this along, here's an idea: I personally have no problem with an indication of anyone's ancestry, if it is confirmed, so I have no problem in theory with saying that such and such an ancestor on his mother's side was from Ireland. But I think calling him an Irish-American politician is misleading and kind of silly, at best, assuming good faith. So maybe you can look through available categories and see if there are any more specifically for ancestry. I maintain that the concept of "Irish-American" implies a larger part of a person;s ancestry, and implies a self-identification as such or an identification by reliable sources as such. I expect that you won't find sources that refer to Obama as an Irish -American politician, and therefore I think putting him in that category is inappropriate. Tvoz |talk 05:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:People of Irish descent - let's try that. Tvoz |talk 05:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Except even then it's a stretch to refer to Barack Obama as being of "Irish descent". Ethnicity is generally defined by the largest components of your ancestry and is more often then not identified by the group that you most associate with. As an example, my father's side of the family had the unfortunate distinction of being Protestants in Catholic France. During the Inquisition era they fled to Holland and remained there for a couple of generations, popped over to Scotland and Ireland for a couple more generations, and then off to the US. So even though I have a few Dutch, Scottish, and Irish ancestors in my family tree doesn't mean I'm of those descents. My father's side of the family is still considered solely of French descent because that is the majority of their descent and the group they most associate with. As MrBlondNYC says, we just don't know enough about Obama's mother ancestry to know if her families connection to Ireland is more in passing or if there is a stronger connection. Heck, even the source used to claim his heritage says that the connection has possibly been traced. It would probably be good to include Obama's ancestry via his mother's side of the family, but at this point all that is known is that some unknown percentage of that ancestry may have been from Ireland. Although, I can tell you that the Dunham name is possibly of English descent and there was a John Dunham that appeared in the US shortly after the Mayflower... Of course, no idea if Obama's mom was at all related to that Dunham, so saying Obama is an English American is just as sketchy.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree with that. I was trying to find a category that I could live with, if indeed there was consensus that one was needed, as I can't live with Irish-American politicians, but the fact is I am not comfortable with this one either and I don't see any consensus for including it. Tvoz |talk 00:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Trying this. --HailFire 15:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection tag - appearance

On many articles with semi-protection, instead of having the tag splayed across the top of the article (not really what a first-time visitor to Wikipedia, looking for information really needs to see), we only have to see the little icon in the upper righthand corner. For example, look at the article, George W. Bush? It really improves the professional appearance of the article, and serves the same purpose. Can we not just have the same thing here? Unschool 02:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup, we've done that before. Some people like the larger box because it gives more information. I happen to not be one of them. Tvoz |talk 03:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Its ugly, but brand new editors/anons often don't notice the {{sprotect2}} template and don't understand why they can't edit the article. My problem with the current tag is that it says when the protection will be lifted - don't you people ever listen to our president? Timetables only embolden the enemy!--Mbc³⁶² 03:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No comment about the president, but I don't get the value of a deadline here anyway - is there some reason to think the IP vandals will disappear? They haven't yet. Tvoz |talk 03:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you about the deadline—that makes no sense in an article like this (unless we want to make the deadline something like July 2008, with extension possible, depending on the outcome of the convention.)

As to the issue of the new editors not knowing what to do: I'm somewhat sympathetic, but any new experience involves learning the rules, even when they're not explicity stated. (Think about new jobs that you may have done in your youth. You're only 22 years old, fresh out of college, the new kid at the workplace, and your introduction to the rules is sparse. Is it harsh? Perhaps. But you survive it, and are probably better off for not having your hand held every step of the way. There are ways for the newbies to learn the rules, if they are motivated. As to the anons: screw 'em.) Unschool 03:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

anons: screw them? screw you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.149.249.41 (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Sorry, but so many anonymous IP addresses have vandalized this article in a targeted, often vicious, destructive way, that they have ruined it for honest anons, like I am sure you must be. Tvoz |talk 04:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you ask about the RfC, it was in fact filed under 'Politics' by the above IP[28]. Hornplease 04:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I see, thanks. Tvoz |talk 04:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Barack Obama place

Barack Obama is in third place according to this poll [29]

That poll's over a month old, and the only poll that shows such results. There was also one poll that showed Obama above Hillary, but someone removed it on grounds of Undue Weight. Italiavivi 02:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Rezko

Putting aside the question of whether Rezko should be discussed in this article, certainly this addition violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight. · jersyko talk 16:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

What does and does not violate WP:NPOV#Undue weight is certainly a matter of opinion, but we can certainly discuss it. Google news currently has 135 hits for this link, and Google has 71,900. What significance this has is also open to debate, but this a major issue. Hempbilly 16:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The significance of the Rezko scandal generally is distinct from the relevance of Rezko to Obama. A several paragraph subsection in this article is far too much, especially given that it appears for now that Obama was hardly in the wrong. · jersyko talk 16:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

See archives for earlier discussions of this matter (summarized in archive 8) - consensus was that it was not notable enough for inclusion here.Tvoz |talk 16:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The section may be condensed, but not shit canned. To remove the material in its entirety is grossly POV. Obama’s relationship with Rezko (land deal, campaign contributions, and what not) are a matter of fact, as for Obama “hardly in the wrong” that is a matter of opinion. consensus does not dictate policy and is subject to change. Hempbilly 16:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes of course consensus is subject to change, which is why I said in edit summary that we can certainly discuss. But should do that before reinstating the large section you had added.Tvoz |talk 16:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have justified it. Articles from several mainstream publications have commented on it and are continuing to comment on it, and Obama’s own campaign felt it notable enough to address it. It appears to be an active topic in Google and Google news. If I understand stand correctly article ownership and gate keeping is strongly discouraged here. Hempbilly 17:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It would also appear that the consensus reached was on the land deals, not the campaign contributions, which if memory serves, is one of the driving factors in the inclusion of Jack Abramof in many articles. As one who grew up in a family tied to the political machine in Chicago, no one associated with that comes out without skeletons in their closet. Hempbilly 17:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no article ownership or gate keeping going on here, please don't accuse Tvoz of any wrong doing. I'd have to agree in part with Hempbilly that this should be mentioned in the article, however its current form is far too long. May I suggest:

Obama’s 17 year friendship and business dealings with Tony Rezko, an Illinois restaurant and real estate developer came under scrutiny after Rezko's indictment on charges of attempted extortion, money laundering, and fraud. ^[2] This scrutiny has centered on two real estate deals^[3] involving Obama's South Side home and campaign contributions made to Obama’s state senate campaign and US senate campaign.^[4][5] Obama responded to the scrutiny by saying, “I've always held myself to the highest ethical standards. During the 10 years I have been in public office, I believe I have met those standards and I know that is what people expect of me. I have also understood the importance of appearances. With respect to the purchase of my home, I am confident that everything was handled ethically and aboveboard” ^[6]

--Mbc³⁶² 18:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hempbilly, much of your inclusion is pure speculation. Your personal experience in chicaga political affairs hold no bearings in this discussion. As previously mentioned by another user the significance of the Rezko scandal generally is distinct from the relevance of Rezko to Obama. I do not dis-persuade you from adding a small insert within a section about Obama's relationship with Rezko, because it is factually correct. It is hardly unworthy of entire dedicated section. 165.91.99.20 18:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Good work, Mbc362. Clear and concise. I will support this inclusion in Cultural and political image section. Nuclearj 18:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I would also agree that this is better than completely disregarding the material in its entirety. I guarantee this will become an issue in the primary. Hempbilly 18:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I reckon you'd do better not offering your guarantees of what'll be an issue, 'cause Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, Billy. Shem^(talk) 18:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

And I'd recon you'd do better keeping on subject. Ignoring this material does not make it any less relevant to the article. Hempbilly 19:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you're the one who started playing fortune-teller ("I guarantee this will become an issue") with what'll become an issue in the primaries. Far's "on subject" goes, you need to read WP:NOT, that's all I'm saying. Shem^(talk) 20:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot... where, exactly did I try and interject this belief into the article? Oh, thats right no where. Hempbilly 20:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Things always change with time. I remind you that even though you have edited the article, several individuals monitoring the article have yet to provide their input.Nuclearj 18:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I like this Obama quote: "One of the perils of public life is that you end up being responsible for, or you're held responsible for, associations that you didn't necessarily know were a problem". [30] johnpseudo 19:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, since they're both participating in this discussion, I want to note that I strongly suspect that Nuclearj and Hempbilly are sockpuppets of a banned user. If that is the case, if confirmed, I will remove all of their comments from this discussion per WP:BAN. Thanks. · jersyko talk 19:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no affiliation with with Hempbilly, banned user, etc. I am located in an apartment complex and university with a shared IP, look at my most recently created article. I am not a gimmick. Nuclearj 21:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

And just to tie a little bow on Jersyko's comment above, the result of the RFCU was inconclusive. --Bobblehead 17:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts on Rezko

Since this whole Rezko section is rather convoluted in the various ongoing discussions, many of which are unrelated to the content and I'm trying to avoid the appearance of replying to an unrelated comment by making a new subsection. Anyways, Mdc362's proposal is a definite improvement over the excessively long addition by Hempbilly, but still seems a bit too detailed for what (so far) is just a poor choice in friends. At this point there hasn't been any evidence of Obama exchanging political favors for Rezko's campaign contributions (which is a key point in the Abramoff scandal) or receiving any special treatment in the real estate deals (unlike Duke Cunningham). I don't have time for further thoughts right now, just wanted to at least do a partial reply to the content now that the RFCU is completed. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems (at least to me) that this topic has been mentioned in the press enough to warrant inclusion in this article. When I compare it to material in other politician's articles, it seems of equal noteworthiness (ex. these controversies, specifically the one about AIDS, on Bill Frist). I don't see how devoting a few sentences to it under "Personal life" would violate WP:NPOV.--Mbc³⁶² 01:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've never been comfortable comparing one article to another. The editors on Bill Frist's article should definitely take a look at his article and remove some of the content in the "controversies" section (which I don't believe should exist at all). That being said, I'm also not of the opinion that Rezko can not being mentioned in this article. Just that if it is included, it should be limited to at most two sentences and make very clear that Rezko's charges have nothing to do with Obama. As far as I've seen so far in the press coverage, it's a guilt by association situation, perhaps made worse by the Abramoff situation. All in all, it's still nothing more than Obama made a poor choice in friends 17 years ago. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Bobblehead. The editors at Bill Frist's article should tighten their standards for "controversy" inclusion, rather than pass those standards here to Obama's article. Italiavivi 20:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bobblehead, but think the Rezko relationship is noteworthy enough (e.g., signficant amount of local press coverage here in Chicago) to add to the article. That said, no more is needed than a description of the relationship which clearly indicates that Obama has nothing to do with Rezko's charges. Jogurney 19:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Man I've been saying to include the Rezco deal for months. Finally some of you are coming around Manic Hispanic 06:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

First off, my apologies for taking so long to reply. On to business now. I was trying to compare Obama's article to other politicians in general and used Frists' as an example, sorry for not being clear in my reasoning (and to anyone who thinks that Frists' article includes non-noteworthy controversies, I implore you to discuss it on that talk page-I brought the subject up myself and was quickly shot down). Perhaps a new proposal is in order:

Obama’s friendship and business dealings with Tony Rezko, an Illinois restaurant and real estate developer indicted on charges of attempted extortion, money laundering, and fraud, ^[7] came under scrutiny for two real estate deals^[8] and contributions made to Obama’s state and US senate campaigns and federal fund.^[9][10] No laws are alleged to have been broken and Obama is not under investigation. Obama responded to the scrutiny by saying, “I've always held myself to the highest ethical standards...I am confident that everything was handled ethically and aboveboard,” and went on to say that his campaign would divest the federal donation.^[11]

would this satisfy everyone?--Mbc³⁶² 02:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Trying this edit about Obama's 2005 house purchase. The above edit by Mbc362 might be better integrated with the Antoin Rezko article that is now also linked from the Notes section of this one. --HailFire 15:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

HailFire's edit works for me - gives the information, but also gives it proper weight. Tvoz |talk 15:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

very big omission and lopsided

There is a section about his book being translated into other languages and a picture. Yet nothing about Rezko. The smart reader is going to think that this article is lopsided.

About mbc's edit, the smart reader may conclude that the edit (though well intentioned) seems to sound like an Obama deposition denying involvement. Why not just say what happened which actually makes Obama look like a good guy because he admits that everything was legal even though the whole deal doesn't look good in the papers. Why not....

......(mbc's edit with new sentence at the end)...Although no laws are alleged to have been broken, Obama said that "There's no doubt that this was a mistake on my part. 'Boneheaded' would be accurate," Obama said in a telephone interview Friday. "There's no doubt I should have seen some red flags in terms of me purchasing a piece of property from him." (from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/16/AR2006121600729.html)

If too long, you could cut out the phrase about boneheaded.Chergles 01:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Identifying Muslims

69.149.249.41 and I seem to disagree about whether or not people in Obama's life should be identified as Muslims. I think this is unnecessary (it's not common practice to tag every name in an article with that person's religious description). I'm not so dedicated to this that I'm going to keep pushing it from my angle, but does anyone else have opinions on this? CSWarren 22:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Indonesians are predominately Muslim, coastal Kenyans are predominately Muslims. If people need to have this shoved down their throats then its truly sad how little we know of the world. Anyway, this is not common practice on other articles and the user is trolling. DNFTT Gdo01 22:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, identifying people as Muslims is not common practice, and shouldn't be used here. Bjewiki 23:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Joe Lieberman

"Lieberman was born in Stamford, Connecticut, to Henry Lieberman, the son of Jewish immigrants from Poland, and Marcia Manger, of Austrian Jewish background. The Liebermans owned the Hamilton Liquor Store, which the couple operated until Henry Lieberman's retirement in 1977.[3] Along with Joseph the couple had two daughters, Rietta Miller and Ellen Lieberman. Joe Lieberman attended Stamford High School and was elected president of his senior class in 1960.[4] In the fall of 1963, Lieberman traveled to Mississippi for several weeks, helping African-Americans register to vote.[5]"

Treat them the same way! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.249.41 (talk • contribs)

I MAKE A GOOD POINT SO YOU IGNORE IT COMPLETELY

I'm Budhism Javanese, so You can see. Not all indonesian is Muslim, and people dhuld change their view that Indonesia=muslim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.249.41 (talk • contribs)

Being Jewish is an ethnicity as well as a religion. Being Muslim is not. I read the passage in Lieberman's article as talking about his ethnicity, not his parents' religion. In any event, using one Wikipedia article to prove that something needs to be said in a different Wikipedia ariticle, without reference to guidelines or policy, is a dangerous proposition. For what it's worth, by the same logic, we would need to edit every single politician's article to add "his/her parents were (fill in religion here)", which, obviously, shouldn't be done. One inherits one's ethnicity from one's parents, which makes discussing ancestry relevant. Religion, not so much. Unless, for example, the politician's father was a well-known evangelist or the like or their parents' religion has had a verifiable effect on the subject politician, I'm not sure how it's relevant. · jersyko talk 14:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, if the anon objects to the identification in Lieberman's case, those arguments are best made on that article talkpage.

In this particular case, I have seen nothing indicating that Obama's stepfather's religion is relevant to his notability. Hornplease 21:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Jersyko, using Jewish peoples' biographies as an example is apples and oranges. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton's article does note that she was "raised in a Methodist family," John Kerry's notes that "His mother was a Protestant, but his other immediate family members were reportedly observant Roman Catholics," and Rudy Giuliani's notes "The [Giuliani] family was Roman Catholic." Another article from my watchlist which Tvoz is familiar with, Yusuf Islam/Cat Stevens, notes that "his father was Greek Orthodox and his mother a Baptist, and Steven was sent to a Catholic school." Noting a subject's family's religious background doesn't seem uncommon at all, though I will note and acknowledge the POV-pushing motivation behind some editors' insertion of Obama's. Italiavivi 00:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Cat Stevens article is easy to discredit as an example of if a parent's religion should be included in an article. Yusuf Islam is a convert to Islam that is socially active in the London Muslim community and has used his varied religious upraising as part of that activity. The difference in the Obama article and the other politicians' articles is that the parent's religion were important in that politician's upbringing. The importance of Obama's parents' religion has been quite the opposite. The Obamas have made a point of noting that Obama's fathers' religion has not been that influential on his upbringing. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly right - in fact the point has been made that religion played no part in Obama's upbringing - his father was not present and not an influence in any case, his mother did not raise him with any religion, he lived with his stepfather for only 4 years of his life if I recall correctly, and sources say that he was non-practicing as well. Joe Lieberman is an entirely different matter - he always was and still is Jewish both ethnically and religiously. It is not relevant to Obama. And Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam's religious background is central to who he is - the religions he was raised in, the search for his spiritual home, his conversion - so Bobblehead is right about that, and I see absolutely no relevance to this article either. Barack Obama's religious life began as an adult, and it is included in the article. This entire issue being raised here is, I believe, for reasons that have nothing to do with the reality of his religious belief. By the way, I see "Rfc" has been mentioned in a couple of edit summaries - is there an Rfc out on this? I see no note on this page about one. Tvoz |talk 03:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles where parents'/family's religion is noted

• Joe Biden ("was raised in his Irish American mother's Catholic religion.")
• Wesley Clark ("Although his mother was Methodist, Clark chose a Baptist church after moving to Little Rock and continued attending it throughout his childhood.")
• Hillary Rodham Clinton (she was "raised in a Methodist family")
• Mike Gravel ("he was raised and educated (in parochial schools) as a Roman Catholic.")
• John Kerry ("His mother was a Protestant, but his other immediate family members were reportedly observant Roman Catholics")
• Rudy Giuliani ("The [Giuliani] family was Roman Catholic.")
• Cat Stevens ("his father was Greek Orthodox and his mother a Baptist, and Steven was sent to a Catholic school.") Italiavivi 00:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with stating his parents' religions. I think problems can arise though if it's done out of context. If you're talking about Obama's religion, it makes sense to mention his parents' religions. If you're just mentioning the existence of his parents, however, it doesn't make sense to state their religions. I speculate that this is a delicate neutrality issue because of anti-Muslim sentimentality in the US, where if editors perceive that Obama's Muslimness is being highlighted in the article, they may become concerned that others are trying to promote it to spur racist/religious-based hatred of Obama. In conclusion, I don't think that for Obama, the religions should be stated in a context unaffiliated with religious discussion. Organ123 02:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. Just please note also that Obama has no "Muslimness". Tvoz |talk 03:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Noted. I meant to say his parents' Muslimness, although I don't have any particular knowledge about Obama's religion. Organ123 05:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It depends on whether it is really relevant to his notability. In the case of Giulani and Kerry, their catholicism was in itself remarked on and discussed. If Obama's stepfather's religion meets that bar at sometime in the future, then OK. As I said, I've seen nothing yet that indicates it does now. Hornplease 03:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty silly to claim that the parts of Obama's past that've intersected with Islam haven't been remarked on or discussed. Also, editors responded excessively to the Cat Stevens example, said nothing of Hillary, Wes Clark, Rudy, and the other politicians listed above. Why can we mention Methodist family backgrounds, Baptist family backgrounds, and Catholic family backgrounds but not Islam (his father formerly, and his step-father) or atheism/agnosticism (both his mother and father)? Italiavivi 02:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Retain - In response to the request for comment: The religion of some of his family members is relevant to the extent that a) it could influence his point of view (negatively or positively), b) it could influence the opinions of voters (negatively or positively), c) it may have a bearing on his political choices. To wit: If he is elected president surely White House caterers would want to know that certain family members would prefer their food Halal.

The logic in the above doesn't exactly flow: White House caterers probably won't be consulting his Wikipedia article for food preferences. Tvoz |talk 00:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to jump back into the conversation abruptly, but as I've already said, using one Wikipedia article (or a string of a few articles) to justify inclusion of something in another article or articles without reference to policy or guidelines is a dangerous proposition. We need to get back to talking about this in terms of relevance and editorial judgment and ask which guidelines apply. · jersyko talk 13:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason why none of this discussion concerns policy is because there aren't really any relevant policies for this debate. Not everything is covered by policy. Sometimes we have to rely on informed judgment. --notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 16:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I mentioned editorial judgment and relevance. My point is that we shouldn't be relying on what is done or not done in other Wikipedia articles to justify what we do without reference to policy or guidelines and as a substitute for editorial judgment and assessing relevance. · jersyko talk 21:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep the part on religious identification. It only makes sense to mention it because parents' religion inevitably impacts their children in some way. Not mentioning this would hinder the article as biography. Isn't the point of an encyclopedia to be informative? I can't see any good arguments for not including it. --notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 16:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

How about that his atheist father left when he was 2 years old and had no impact on his growing up and that he says his mother had no religious identification? it is just simply irrelevant and seems to be raised here from time to time in order to push a particular POV. Tvoz |talk 19:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't he largely raised by his grandparents for much of his life, and might that be a factor? Unschool 19:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter really what the POV is behind the editors trying to include this, since we should focus on what makes sense. As for relevance, of course it is relevant; at the very least it indicates he has some familiarity with Islam, which, for example, a Muslim-American voter might like to know. The only reason I can see against inclusion is that somehow ignorant people might take his familial connections to Islam the wrong way--not a very strong justification for omitting information from an encyclopedia. --notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 22:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Trying this. --HailFire 21:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Clinton lead in polls

The third para is incorrect, since the latest polls show H Clinton widening her lead. Please correct this lest the article slip into POV territory. Decoratrix 14:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Religious beliefs

The category indicating that the subject is a former atheist/agnostic has been removed. I believe that the inclusion of that category is based upon statements the subject himself may have made in his autobiography. If anyone can point to any specific information from that book, or any other reliable primary source, (specifically not including book reviews and the like) which indicates that the subject was at any time something that could be described as non-Christian, or clearly states that he "converted" to Christianity, then I believe the category might be able to be replaced. John Carter 14:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

See also past discussion last time someone tried adding this category. It was agreed that this category is not appropriate for Obama's article. [31] Italiavivi 20:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Still agree that it doesn't belong. Tvoz |talk 20:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have seen no argument that warrants the inclusion of this category into the article. It should be left out until one is made.Turtlescrubber 21:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Why cover up, Obama didn't

Why cover up and hide Rezko affair. Even Obama doesn't cover up and confesses what really happened (what he did was not a crime). Why cover it up here and hide it in the fine print? Whatever the intent, the product is bad (cover up). The discussion has also been removed here to. I think everyone agreed to the language but not the cover up into fine printUTAFA 01:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

REQUEST FOR COMMENT This is a dispute about whether to report a controversy (much reported in the news) about a Rezko-Obama land deal in fine print in the references or out in the open in the article. There is also a dispute on whether to place a comment Obama honestly says that the deal was legal but that he regrets doing it.

1. Comment 1. A homeowner was selling their house and split the sale into two, the house and a vacant lot next to the house. Obama and Rezko’s wife bought the property. Rezko’s wife (a supporter) bought the lot at the full asking price and Obama paid $300,000 less than the asking price. Obama then bought part of the vacant lot for $100-something. Obama says he did nothing illegal but that it was not a good thing to do (as Rezko seems to be a corrupt person and is in legal trouble now for other things).

This issue is all over the papers, especially in Chicago.

Some people here want to have a skimpy sentence and have it hidden in fine print in the footnote section.

I think the fair thing to do is to have in the main text but explain that Obama says he’s a “bonehead” for doing it. That is the honest thing to do (not hide it) and the honest thing for Obama to have said.

Other politicians don’t have the same wisdom as Obama. For example, Clinton could have said Yeah, I had some inappropriate contact with Monica but I regret it and have discussed it with my wife instead of denying it and then found to be a liar. Bush could have said Yeah, Saddam is evil and I will do everything I can to get rid of him, even an invasion instead of making up a WMD excuse. So a Rezko explanation is better than trying to hide it and make some people think there is something to hide.UTAFA 02:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing has been covered up - the discussions (for example:[32], [33] and maybe others)- have been archived along with all other discussions that are over a certain number of days old (I forget what it's set at now) because of the volume. Nothing nefarious is going on. As for the article - we have discussed this over and over and some people had a poll, others had long exchanges, and the net result was consensus that the Rezko matter was not notable enough to merit a major mention in this main article. The footnote covers it - there is a reference article and a wikilink to the main Antoin Rezko article where there is more information about this. There is really no story here - to say "confesses" , "not a crime" and "cover up" here is misleading and POV and makes me wonder why you are so insistent that this be given such weight in this article. As has been said over and over and over, it is a non-story. Tvoz |talk 02:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the archive part explains it, but "not a story" is untrue. Why then did Obama tell the Chicago Tribune that he is sorry he did the deal? That's news. That's why it belongs in the article. It actually helps him because others, like Clinton and Bush, were not so candid and got bit in the *** afterwards. At least Obama is upfront about the whole thing. That's another reason why it's worthy of inclusion and not in the fine print.UTAFA 02:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree - the relevant information is here, but putting it into the text is elevating it into a higher level of notability, where it does not belong. And whether or not it "helps him" is not relevant and is not at all a reason to add it to the main text - this article isn't trying to help him or hurt him - it's a biography, with a great deal to cover in a limited amount of space if we want to retain our FA status, so choices of what should be prominent are made, and the choice here was to not include this in the main text. Same decision was made about lots of other things that could be written about him, and same decisions are made all the time all over the project. I say again, this is a non-story. Tvoz |talk 03:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

From what I've seen, Obama's "apology" was not in regards to having done anything wrong by purchasing the home but more of an expression of regret for purchasing the home because it gives Obama the appearance of being related to the crap that Rezko has done. So a better correlation that you could have made would have been for Al Gore to say he was sorry for being Vice President when Clinton had inappropriate contact with Monica.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

And after about 5 minutes of google searching, here's an article that pretty much explains what I'm talking about.[34] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This Rezko scandal is a big deal. Obama accepts a $300,000 under the table donation from gangster Rezko and wikipedia wants to relegate that to a footnote. Notability yes: the New Republic states this scandal is the single greatest thing to derail obama's pursuit of the presidency. Put this material back in the text where it belongs or this article slips even deeper into an obama POV advert. Decoratrix 19:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that comment an example of assessing and writing about the subject in an NPOV way? There was no $300,000 donation. Tvoz |talk 19:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the article Decoratrix? I'm guessing not, (especially since the direct link doesn't work, but if you go to this google search Obama Rezko below market value its the link called "The plot against Obama"). There was no exchange of money between Rezko and Obama. If there was a $300,000 "donation" to Obama, it was by the owner of the property, not Rezko.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes i read the article. Please avoid ad hominem remarks. In fact i hope all will read the article and take a course in real estate 101. Obama underpaid by $300 K while Rezko overpaid by $300 K on transactions (purchases from the identical seller) closing escrow on the identical day. (Now there is an odd coincidnence, if this is not a donation!) In real estate fraud this is considered a donation by the overpaying party to the underpaying party. and by the way obama has also covered this up, since he has not yet fessed up to the realities of the transaction and merely called it boneheaded. Decoratrix 21:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Then obviously we're reading different TNR articles... Can you provide me with the link to the TNR article you're talking about? The one I linked to says that Obama paid $300,000 less than the asking price, while the adjacent lot was sold for the full asking price... It also says that the home had been on the market for a number of months prior to Obama's purchase and that it is standard practice to reduce the price of property when it doesn't sell for an extended period. It also says that the sale posting on the same day was a requirement of the sellers, not of Obama's or Rezko's. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your courteous and constructive response. You have made an important observation, that all of the vital info is not just in the TNR article cited. I ll have to look through my stacks of articles and links on this topic and then I ll post it for you. As I recall the other data is not in a TNR article. By the way the fact that the seller made the simultaneous closing a condition is further proof that collusion was present, since this method was the seller's only recourse to make sure he got $300,000 more on one lot and was not left holding the bag. This whole mechanism is a very common mechanism in real estate fraud cases. Decoratrix 22:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Barry O'Bama

It doesnt bother me in the slightest if Barack is or isnt categorised as Irish American but looking here it seems that per WP:CONSENSUS that there is a consensus to include it (and more importantly it is backed up with information from some of the most reliable sources).--Vintagekits 22:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that other editors objected without putting themselves into Windyjarhead's table format. Windyjarhead did a very poor job handling that discussion, and "closed" it (claiming "Wikipedia has spoken") without any regard for actual consensus-building. HailFire did add this citation, and that's all is warranted far's I'm concerned. Also: Even were Windyjarhead's table accurate, Wikipedia is not a democracy. "Majority rules" is not the policy here, and 5v3v1 does not a clear consensus make. Italiavivi 22:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually 5v3 with one abstaining does make a consensus as its over 60%. Like I said I couldnt give a toss but like I say the information are from the highest possible website news sources.--Vintagekits 22:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, that wasn't the actual count; his table is clearly inaccurate if you read the actual discussion. Italiavivi 22:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

So how many were for/against/neutral then?--Vintagekits 22:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

4 supporting and 5 opposing. I struck User:Michiganw12's vote, given he was an obvious repeat vandal. Italiavivi 22:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Italiavivi is correct on all points. "Counting" was not appropriate here in the first place, and still is not - and the matter was handled in a bizarre manner. Have you read the entire discussion and looked through the edits? You can see for yourself that MrBlond was not "neutral", Bobblehead was opposed, HailFire by edit was opposed to the category, and most importantly HailFire's May 13 edit that Italiavivi mentioned above has the requisite information and has stood since then, as it satisfies this matter. Tvoz |talk 22:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Re-Reading Spoken Word Version of this Article

I think I'm ready to re-read the Spoken Word version of the article at this time. The content of the article has changed substantially since I last read it a few months ago, and a lot has changed in Obama's career as well since that time. So, I'm shooting for some time in the next few days (perhaps Thursday morning), that should give us time to make sure that the article is nice and clean for the new reading. Also, any tips or suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks, Rahzel 00:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason this article is a complete valentine to Obama? Not one critical word in the whole article. You may want to discuss the fact many people feel he is too inexperienced to be president, the fact he got a sweet land deal for his house from a prominent Chicago political advisor, or the fact he claims to be against the Iraq war despite voting the Bush party line on this since being elected to the Senate. Thanks, Amber Lee, 15, June 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.125.199 (talk • contribs)

a auto

Okay, I'm new here, and I don't really know how to edit and stuff yet. But if anyone wants to fix it. in the "Early life and career" section, it says "he died in a auto accident" and this should read "he died in an auto accident". Thanks! Username 07023 10:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice catch. I've made the change you requested. In order to edit here, you just need to select the "Edit" button on the section you wish to edit, make the changes you want to make, put in an edit summary, and then select the "Save page" button. It is also suggested that before you save your changes that you select the "Show preview" so you can see your changes before you save it. Downside, the amount of inline citations in this article can make it difficult to locate your changes, but you get used to it after awhile. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 13:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Mention of polling in the lead.

Other editors have objected to polling summaries in the lead, citing a variety of reasons (POV concerns, so-called "recentism," polls which show Obama tied with or ahead of Clinton). Given the most recent USA Today/Gallup poll showing Obama ahead of Clinton (1% and within the MoE), I think we should discuss how to handle this sentence (if it need stay in the lead at all). For the sake of the article's stability, I would advocate not mentioning polling in the lead. Italiavivi 00:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Opinion polls are unreliable and constantly changing, so there really isn't a need to include it in the lede.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Trying this. --HailFire 09:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Good - the general statement is needed. Tvoz |talk 13:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice. Italiavivi 14:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Image

This picture looks horrendous, where is the original image? (the pic of him standing with the capitol background) Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 18:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The one with him standing in front of the capitol building was removed because the photographer claimed ownership and the Obama senate staff confirmed ownership. Therefore Wikipedia could not use the image. If you can find a better free image of Obama, feel free to add it. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added a Pie Chart Showing the Number of Delegates that Clinton, Obama and Edwards Based on Polling Data and DNC's 15% Threshold Rule

I've added a Pie Chart Showing the Number of Delegates that Clinton, Obama and Edwards Based on Polling Data and DNC's 15% Threshold Rule

--Robapalooza 21:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

More Rezko

Is this AP story [35] worthy of inclusion, or will his link to Tony Rezko be suppressed further to keep his squeaky clean image? Manic Hispanic 01:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The Obama wikipedia article is highly POV and there is no basis for eliminating talk that is adverse to Obama. Unless this wikipedia article becomes more balanced it is subject to POV tagging. Decoratrix 14:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Eliminating talk? Are you talking about the talk page archival system? It's pretty standard for wikipedia articles. Instead of coming to this page, presumably looking to start a fight, it might be better to outline in specific details what you think might be appropriate changes to the article. Or, even better, writeup a section and look for compromise in it's inclusion. Just tagging an article as pov and then complaining about it as pov, won't get you very far in your goals. Just something to think about. Turtlescrubber 21:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Turtlescrubber, you blanked this entire section of the talk page until i restored it. This is not archiving. My request is to cease deleting talk sections. As far as working on the article, i have tried that four times only to have my work deleted (not edited}. It is clear that several editors have a very aggressive agenda of keeping this article sanitized, ie free of any information that casts a bad light on obama. Decoratrix 04:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I blanked a clearly aggressive and inflammatory talk page entry. You can't enter into a discussion when you call everyone on the talk page pov obama hawks in your opening title and then accuse all the editors on the page of suppressing information. I tried to explain how to properly use a talk page (see above) but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. It's counterproductive to reaching any kind of consensus when using unneeded vitriol towards your fellow editors. I was just trying to help out and bring the level of discourse to that of normal people. I obviously failed. Good luck. Turtlescrubber 04:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Turtlescrubber for toning down your hostility. However, please read the remarks of each editor. I did not introduce the term "Obama Hawks"; in fact, i was the one who altered and deleted that title once. The question is yet unanswered as to why this article cannot become balanced and not devoid of facts harmful to obama's candidacy. It's obvious one or more WP:SPA pro-obama editors have made this wikipedia article a full time job. Decoratrix 14:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This story is only being published because it sells newspapers. The entire issue is absent any real scandal or controversy and is non-notable. johnpseudo 16:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The Rezko controversy, including its conclusion (that nothing improper whatsoever took place), is already covered in the article. That you wish to give it undue weight is your problem. Italiavivi 21:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

.

Please cease the ad homonem remarks italiavivi. It is your POV as to what constitutes "undue weight". A neutral observer would be very interested in the details of the Rezko transaction, and let the readers decide what it all means. Readers i think would also be interested in the details of obama's being born muslim and attending mosque and the muslim school. these are merely facts not anyone's POV. But if the cartel wishes to censor all this info, then the article is clearly POV. Decoratrix 04:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You're confused, Decoratrix. Undue weight is determined by Wikipedia's NPOV policy. That aside, you're heading into troll territory with the "cartel" rhetoric. Italiavivi 21:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Cease the uncivil remarks italiavivi and stick to the issues, please. People editing this article obviously have differing opinions as to what constitutes "undue weight". It appears to me that there is undue weight given to the "squeaky clean" image of obama and not a balancing weight on the scandals and religious origins of obama. There is certainly no need to suppress Rezko ties, of which there are many. Wikipedia is not a forum to promote obama's candidacy. our readers are entitled to read the facts--all of them. Decoratrix 01:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok whatevers, but do not censer my comments. Wikipedia is not censored! Manic Hispanic 01:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also not used for agenda-pushing. Italiavivi 21:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Decoratrix, your comments here make it clear that you are the one with the strong POV. Attacking the editors and introducing false information here (e.g., he was not "born Muslim" as you say above) and continuing to insist that such things be included in the article when they have been discussed many, many times and determined to be worthy of the weight we've given them, is indicative of agenda-pushing - yours. And I, for one, am really tired of hearing about being pro-Obama. As I've said before, I've also been accused of being on John Edwards and Hillary's staffs. (Actually, I'm Howard Dean. Who are you?) Oh - and by the way, the expression is "ad hominem" and words like "cartel" and "censor" and "aggressive agenda of keeping this article sanitized" and your comment about editors making this article a "full time job" are the ad hominem attacks, not Italiavivi's pointing out that WP:UNDUE might apply here. Italiavivi's comments in this section are well within the realm of acceptable. Several of yours are not. Tvoz |talk 22:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz, try to keep cool please. Do we have a different understanding of the culture of Indonesia? It is my understanding that to be born of a Muslim father in Indonesia is to be born Muslim. Decoratrix 01:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz's comments were perfectly "cool," and you know this. You're avoiding her arguments by portraying her as emotional, a very transparent (and pathetic, and arguably sexist) tactic. Italiavivi 02:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

(1) I'm not going to dignify that "keep cool" with a response. (2) "It is my understanding that to be born of a Muslim father in Indonesia is to be born Muslim." Huh? Tvoz |talk 03:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Decoratrix, perhaps you should actually read this article? Particularly the part that says that Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii. Then you should continue to read to the part where Obama didn't go to Indonesia until he was 6. If you are going to argue a point, it is generally helpful to actually know what you're talking about. Thanks for playing. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe insert "It was a Roman Catholic school"

from the "Obama madrassa myth debunked" link into the actual text of footnote 14. Many people won't go into all the links, and many others need a "see Jane run" simplicity. Lenngray 16:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A new UCC paragraph?

I consider a new paragraph on the UCC to be undue weight in Sen. Obama's article. It is already covered adequately. Italiavivi 20:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I just tried to remove the new UCC paragraph, but looks like BobbleHead beat me to it. Bjewiki 20:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

UCC additions by MPS

Since I've reverted MPS (talk · contribs)'s additions twice now, what is everyone's opinion on the additions?

• First addition
• Second addition

I'm of the opinion that Obama's religion is adequately covered in the article and that MPS's additions are a little excessive and are not overly notable in the general scheme of things. Particularly in regards to the amount of space that the additions take up in the article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

As stated in the talk topic directly above, I agree that the additions were given undue weight in the article. There was very little notable about the additions that MPS (talk · contribs) was putting in. Bjewiki 20:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

(Third Addition) Sorry I didn't see the talk here. I think it is notable to discuss the fact that Obama's relationship to his faith is more than "personal belief." He is actively stumping at UCC conference and National events, not as a political speeches but as a member of the UCC. In return, the denomination has featured him with a cover story and exclusive interview on the cover of their national publication... the president of the denomination has called him one of the most exciting politicians out there. Obama is not some milquetoast churchgoing politician; he wears his UCC faith on his sleeve -- this is definitive alliance with the UCC. Given his propensity to express faith in his political speeches, and given recent media attention on Obama's beliefs, we need to add weight here, or at least create a Religious beliefs of Barack Obama side article. MPS 20:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I would counter that Bush wears his faith on his sleeve too, and has the propensity to express faith in his speechs. Checking Bush's page, here's what I found out about his religion: "Bush left his family's Episcopal Church to join his wife's United Methodist Church." Bjewiki 21:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I would counter-counter that there are many many side articles in Category:George W. Bush and among them several articles that discuss George W. Bush's religious beliefs to include White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, Compassionate conservatism, and George W. Bush substance abuse controversy. Did the Epsicopalians or United Methodists ever formally invite Bush to speak at their gatherings? Look at how many articles there are in Category:Barack Obama. None. Besides, the Mitt Romney article has a section on his religious beliefs. MPS 21:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Romney's situation is entirely different. The Latter-Day Saint movement is notably controversial, especially in the United States. Many of Romney's Republican opponents have made comments about Romney's Mormonism, a situation which is in no way paralleled by Sen. Obama's church. You seem to have a strong POV concerning the United Church of Christ, and I would ask that you take WP:CONSENSUS into more consideration when editing articles related to your pet project. Italiavivi 21:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

To the contrary, Obama's religious beliefs have been quite the subject of his opponents. Hillary has accused him of madrassa education The Washington Pst Says Obama's religion is "United church of Christ" and Sean Hannity calls Obama's church cult-like and 'scary doctrine'. What more can I say here? I know a lot about the UCC... you know nothing about my POV. MPS 21:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I know that you post about your UCC POV on your User page, and that you just linked the false (and thoroughly debunked) Insight Magazine/Fox News "madrassa" smear. I don't need much more to go on having seen you link that, actually. Italiavivi 22:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You know nothing about my POV. Statements on my personal page are intended to communicate and amplify wikipedia wikipedia:WikiLove and wikipedia:NPOV. I agree that "allegations that Sen. Barack Obama was educated in a radical Muslim school known as a 'madrassa' are not accurate," and I think we can find sources that say this. I don't know what you need, but if the madrassa controversy was thoroughly debunked, that would indicate that the issue was "notably controversial, especially in the United States." MPS 17:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edit history makes your POV obvious. That you are trying to equate a controversial religion (Mormonism) with an orchestrated and wholly false smear campaign only reinforces your obvious POV intent. You still falsely attributed the "madrassa" smear to Hillary Clinton, by the way. Italiavivi 23:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a biography of the man, not a coatrack about the UCC. His religious beliefs are an important topic, but they are already covered adequately - the article doesn't need a giant section about his recent church activities. --BigDT 22:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agreewith you that this is an important topic... I disagree with you that it is covered adequately. What about a Religious beliefs of Barack Obama article. MPS 17:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bobblehead and Italiavivi on this. Tvoz |talk 02:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hot off the presses at UC News ... "Joshua DuBois, the Obama campaign's director of religious affairs, said the senator's Synod speech on Saturday will be his first major address on faith and politics as a presidential candidate. " ... please tell me again why Obama's Speech to GS26 is not notable? MPS 18:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

My first guess is because the only sources pimping his speech at this time are faith based organizations that have a vested interest in advertising his speech. Nothing against faith based sources, but Wikipedia is not in the business of advertising Obama's campaign stops. If his speech turns out to be as important as the campaign's director for religious affairs says it is, then a small entry can be made in the campaign article regarding the content of his speech and responses to the content. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but other publications are "pimping" this speech such as the International Heral Tribune, LA Times, and non-UCC Christian site referred to by the NYT blog. This non-UCC reference reports on the Iowa Speech. What's your standard? I have [36] already tried to add content that includes non-UCC affiliated American Spectator comments on this long-advertised speech but I imagine you will want to wait until after the speech to gather the most lasting comments and criticism. I still don't see why we shouldn't make a side article on his religious beliefs. MPS 20:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

*points you to the campaign article* If you feel his speaking at the UCC conference is notable at this point, the campaign article may be appropriate, but not the main article and not in the manner in which you've been trying to add it. From what I've found and been pointed to by you, at this point it might (emphasis on might) warrant a sentence or two along the lines of "In an attempt to reach out to voters of faith, Obama addressed the Iowa conference and General Synod for his religious denomination, United Church of Christ." As for the religious beliefs article.. If you can find enough information from reliable sources on his religious beliefs that differ from his church and isn't already covered in that article or the Political views of Barack Obama, then go crazy. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Bobblehead, thanks for your considered response! I did not realize there was a campaign article. Perhaps I will start Category: Barack Obama so these sorts of articles are easier to find. The dilemma I have is that the speech is ostensibly not a campaign stop [37] ergo it would be wrong to put this event on the campaign page despite the attention it is being given within the press. I am now thinking that the best place to put religious discussion is in the Political views of Barack Obama article under some sort of "Political beliefs specifically linked to faith" section or some such header. The other complicating factor in this discussion is that the UCC doesn't have a centralized doctrine-setting Synod outside of each local church, so the fact that this article says he's affiliated with the UCC says almost nothing about the content of his religious beliefs or related political actions. Peace, MPS 21:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)Regardless of the Obama campaign saying it is not a campaign stop it is being viewed as one. The AP story you linked to (both the IHT and LATimes links are the same AP story) frame his speech in that context. Unfortunately, it's one of the downsides of being on the campaign, every public speech is framed in the context of the campaign regardless of the candidate claiming it is or not. The category would probably be a good idea as there are a number of articles related to Obama and a category bundling together would be rather convenient. As far as your idea for the section on the political views article. It would probably be a good idea to just include his religious beliefs in the applicable political view. So his religious belief on same sex marriage could be included in the same sex marriage section, etc. But then, you could give it a whirl and see what happens.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. Looks like the Barack Obama category was deleted. So apparently creating a Barack Obama category has already been tried and shot down.;)--Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link... I read the discussion on the delete page. It seems the main reason for deletion was there not being a lot of Barack Obama articles in existence. While the category was deleted, some participants in that discussion specifically voted "without prejudice" to account for the fact that if there were more articles in the future then a category might be warranted. I decided just now to try to list all the Obama-related articles in the seealso section, but I got reverted. I understand where you are coming from as far as "the articles are already linked up above" since there are sections and links in the rest of the article, but it seems to me that most wikipedia biographies have seealso sections, and in my frustration I counted nearly 450 internal wikilinks in the article. It seems to me that there ought to be a place in the article for someone to quickly find out what other Barack Obama articles exist. Given that there is no Barack Obama category, the seealso section would be the natural place. What do you (plural) think? MPS 17:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm.. Perhaps a navigation box would be acceptable. I'll whip something up. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Barack Obama Navigation box

Here's a whack at the navigation box for Barack Obama related articles. Feel free to add/remove articles from the template as you see fit. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Barack Obama

People

Michelle Obama

Books authored

Dreams from My Father | The Audacity of Hope

Political activities

Political positions of Barack Obama | Illinois United States Senate election, 2004 | Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008

US Senate committee assignments

Foreign Relations Committee | Veterans' Affairs | Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions | Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Related topics

United States Senate | 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries | Democratic Party

Is this navigator based on another template located elsewhere? I'd like to compare it with other candidates' navigators. Italiavivi 20:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not based on anyone person's navigator. I was editing on Jericho related articles this morning when MPS added the see also, so I just did a gut and stuff on {{jerichonav}}.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I kind of like {{Bill Clinton}}, which is based on {{navbox generic}}. It's a lot sleeker than what I flung together. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

v • d • e Barack Obama Political activities 2004 Democratic National Convention · Illinois Senate career · U.S. Senate election in Illinois, 2004 · U.S. Senate career · Presidential campaign, 2008 · "A More Perfect Union" · Political positions · Presidential campaign endorsements Books authored Dreams from My Father · The Audacity of Hope Life Early life and career Family Michelle Obama · Barack Obama, Sr. · Ann Dunham · Maya Soetoro-Ng · Madelyn and Stanley Dunham · Sarah Obama

Nice. Italiavivi 22:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Went ahead and added the nav box to the articles for Michelle Obama, his books, political views, and 2008 campaign article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Ooh = I missed this. Good job. Tvoz |talk 23:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we not include articles that aren't specifically about Obama (the bottom 2 sections).--Pharos 02:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Pharos... while it's nice to have ALL that info we might want to split it in two boxes... senate committees and party of a senator could be included in a separate 'Senator Navbox' and the current People/Books/Articles related to a politician could be thoe other one. My IMHO, of course. MPS 14:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)