Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 5

message: According to this article he wrote for Time:
"In sum, my mother viewed religion through the eyes of the anthropologist that she would become; it was a phenomenon to be treated with a suitable respect, but with a suitable detachment as well. Moreover, as a child I rarely came in contact with those who might offer a substantially different view of faith. My father was almost entirely absent from my childhood, having been divorced from my mother when I was 2 years old; in any event, although my father had been raised a Muslim, by the time he met my mother he was a confirmed atheist, thinking religion to be so much superstition."
His mother exposed him to many different religions when he was young, but didn't raise him with any. His father was an atheist when his parents married, so it is highly unlikely that for the first two years of his life Obama was "Muslim," whatever that would mean. So his Muslim name is only that, a name. Arrow740 22:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arrow740 is completely correct - this is consonant with all that I have read as well.  He was not raised as a Muslim (see discussion above on this page about this too), and his Indonesian stepfather with whom he lived for only 4 years was a NON-practicing Muslim.  The IP address edits that have been made that say otherwise are pushing a POV, for whatever reasons they have, not reporting facts.  Tvoz | talk 23:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: Well, you could always review the personal life section. --Bobblehead 01:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And read the infobox on the top of the page for his religious affiliation. Tvoz | talk 01:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Never Muslim 

message: I have recommended that this article be referred to Featured Article review to be reevaluated because of concerns that it no longer meets the Featured Article criteria and, unless remedied, it should have its Featured Article status revoked.  Please see and comment here: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama —ExplorerCDT 23:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ExplorerCDT has withdrawn the FAR request  (see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama) - does anyone know what the next step is in terms of removing the tag and any other places the FAR might have been listed?  Tvoz | talk 07:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article referred to Featured Article review

message: Pursuant to the FAR, I ran through all of the references yesterday:  it is extremely rare to find an article this well referenced on WP:FAC - never at WP:FAR.  It is also rare to find an article that completely conforms to guidelines such as WP:MOS, WP:MSH, WP:GTL, and so on. Kudos to editors here, mainly HailFire, I understand.
I found no unreliable sources, and only one dead link (in Presidential ambitions - pls have a look - I put a  tag on it).
I made the following changes:
*Added last access date on all websources.  Last access date should always be given on websources.  Last access dates are not necessarily required on newspaper links, since the biblio info provided allows one to find them in hardprint, but I went ahead and added them on lesser known news sources that I checked - no reason not to include the date when the link has been verified.
*I wikified dates so that date preferences would work.
*I changed authors to last name first, to agree with citation style guides.
*I changed news sources to agree with style guides, author last name first, article title in quotes, newspaper in italics, date, (and last access date on lesser known sources that might not have stable links).
*I switched the FindArticles.com format, since I've found those links not to be stable.  (It might be good to replace those with internet archive links.)
*I found a couple of wayward errors - a few typos in publication dates, and a few inconsistencies in the way Obama's Senate Office was listed on his Senate website - made those consistent.
*I wasn't sure why CNN and some other live news sources had the news source listed before the title rather than after, but I left them that way.
*Probably more could be done per the MLA citation guide, but the refs are way better than most FAs right now.
I found one thing that should be addressed:  there are four specific citations from a book authored by Obama (Dreams something), that had been combined into one named ref.  I split them out because page numbers should be provided for each one (along with an ISBN on the ref now listed in References, so we know which edition the page numbers refer to).  Can someone pls fill in that information?   I left them with p. x.  
This article is far superior to what usually comes through FAR:  I hope you're all able to keep it that way, and that new editors appreciate the quality of the work relative to the kind of stuff that is getting promoted daily at WP:FAC.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work, SandyGeorgia - thank you. I don't have the Obama book, but I'm sure some editors do, and will enter the correct page refs.   About the FindArticle links - a few days ago (before your edit) I had found that several of the Sun-Times direct links were dead, and I wasn't able to find them archived on the Sun-Times site, which is why I switched to the FindArticle links that did come up on search.  If anyone can find the direct links that would be better, but would you agree that as long as the full citations are there for the print pieces we don't even need online links, if the FindArticle links end up dead?  One other question - do you think the piece is over-wikified or is the balance ok as it is now. I'm thinking particularly in terms of dates, but am interested in your view of that. Tvoz | talk 20:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's wise to leave the FindArticles links (and all others) as courtesy links; because they are news sources, you're not required to provide a link at all (you satisfy WP:V without the URL), but when you have one, may as well leave it there. I didn't look at the wikilinking yet, since you were going to be doing some re-writing.  WRT dates, it's tricky - there's a proposal in the works to eliminate date wikilinking with a new function that will make preferences on dates work, but for now, in order for date preferences to work right, we're stuck with linking them. (Is 03-05 May 3 or March 5?) Some reviewers insist that all full dates, and even month-day combos, are linked, but don't link solo years.  For now, until the new function is resolved, I think it's best to link except solo years - hopefully if the new function is approved, a bot will be able to convert them.  I'll look at the rest of your wikilinks later:  generally, wikilink only the first occurrence of any term, but with an article of some length, it's OK to wikilink "complex" or technical terms - or terms that just may need definition - in subsequent sections, because not everyone reads linearly.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks SG - that pretty much is what I thought. (I don't quite get what you mean by date preference - is there a page where I can read up on that?) Tvoz | talk 22:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), but I know a bot request has been submitted to establish a new function so that date preferences will work without us having to see the blue wiki date links.  Not sure if/when that will happen.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was given a copy of Dreams from My Father and am planning on reading it soon. I will keep an eye open for the referenced material, but where do I find the references you mentioned? I don't see anything specific in the references section, just a single bulleted citation. -Fadookie Talk 23:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obama's books are referenced throughout the article with page numbers specified in the  Notes section. --HailFire 01:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ref check

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

message: The article contains no old pics. Here is a good one for the "early years" section of the article. I don't know how to include it...
http://starbulletin.com/2004/07/25/news/story7.html—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.35.141.146 (talk • contribs).
:Haha, well that's one of the more unflattering pictures I've seen recently. Anyway, high school yearbook pictures are almost certainly copyrighted, and I don't think there's a good fair use rationale, so I doubt we can use it in this article. Gzkn 00:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Gzkn 09:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: He was in Hawaii, and I'm sure he tans at least a bit (more than he would in Illinois!) Samatva 05:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please take your nonsense somewhere else. Tvoz | talk 05:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great High School Yearbook Photo 

message: I haven't read this article yet, but I did see this in the early part, that left me confused:
:In his 1995 memoir, Dreams from My Father, Obama describes a nearly race-blind early childhood. He writes: "That my father looked nothing like the people around me—that he was black as pitch, my mother white as milk—barely registered in my mind."[3][4]
But the very next sentence indicates he didn't grow up with his father, his father wasn't even in the same country, so this quote seems to give undue importance to something that he might have barely remembered - can this be resolved?  His memories before the age of two aren't meaningful ????
:When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced and his father returned to Kenya.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a guess (which of course is not a reliable source!) - so someone should look at Dreams and see the context of the quote - but I would assume that he had photographs of his father when he was growing up, and therefore was aware of who he was and what he looked like.  Tvoz | talk 22:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Oops -what I meant to say was someone should look at Dreams and see the context of the quote - and then add a few words of context so that it's clearer for readers.)Tvoz | talk 22:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone did. :) --HailFire 14:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Hail - exactly what I figured. Welcome back into the fray.Tvoz | talk 18:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that if he said it in his book we could include it in the article.  If people wonder about it they can write to him and ask.  Steve Dufour 03:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you missed the point, Steve - SG wasn't saying it didn't belong, just that it wasn't quite making sense. HailFire has clarified it and all's well now. Tvoz | talk 18:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Resolve confusion

message: I ran a prose size check in case this comes up on review - readable prose becomes a concern if it passes 40KB.
*January 10; overall size - 74KB, prose size - 35KB  
(I don't have this page watchlisted, so ping me if you have questions during review, or post to the FAR.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It really would be better, and more in line with WP's purpose, if the article were about half the size or less and just gave the basic facts about Senator Obama and explained a little why he is considered important, plus any worthwhile published criticism of course.  As it is much of the article is about minute points of his career and his opinions on every issue anyone can think of.  This seems to be mainly for the purpose of debating back and forth about his prospects of being the president someday.  I would like to see the article trimmed down, but I don't expect this to happen.  Why?  Because it is much more fun to debate about his presidental chances!  :-) Steve Dufour 03:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's really an apt characterization - most editors here are just adding information that they find which helps to describe and explain this up-and-coming politician - every major news outlet went to Obama Thursday night after Bush's speech, for his reaction/response, fo example - presumably because they think he is of great interest to their viewers. Likewise, he is of interest to Wikipedia readers.  Nor do I see why we should be limited to "a little" of why he's important.  I don't want to have unneeded verbiage - like, maybe not every piece of legislation he has had anything to do with - but we have plenty of room, and I think the article gives a good, well-rounded view. I do not at all think we should cut it in half.  I do think, though, that we're not running a news site here, so the moment-by-mooment updates on if he's going to announce, when he's going to announce, who thinks what about his announcement - are all kind of useless and certainly won't stand the test of time.  So I'd say we should just put it out of our minds are get the page otherwise in shape.  If/when he annbounces, there will be a lot more readers here.   Tvoz | talk 09:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason he is "of great interest" to the media and people in general is because he might become president soon, not because his opinions about President Bush are better than somebody else's opinions. Steve Dufour 19:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Tvoz, reducing the size of the article does not necessarily mean a deletion of the information in the article, just removing the details from this article and moving the detail to a child article.  As an example, the section on his senate career is extremely long and delves into the minutia of his career as a senator.  It's all important and encyclopedic, but it can get in the way of a reader making it down to the rest of this article.  It's also something that should be relatively easy to summarize. What could happen is the details of his senate career are moved to United States Senate career of Barack Obama (or some other similar name) and a summarization of the high points of his senate career can be left here.  That way the content is retained in Wikipedia, the article size of this article is reduced while still leaving important details behind, and any readers that want to read more about his senate career just have to click on the link to the article. --Bobblehead 18:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree that having the minutiae of his Senate career here will become oppressive - I said so too above - but Steve didn't seem to be saying that it should be forked off: I was responding to his point that we should explain "a little of why he is considered important" and to cutting the piece in half, both of which I think are too extreme. Also I didn't agree with the characterization that the purpose of having the details seems to be to debate his presidential chances - I think editors are genuinely trying to maintain FA status with a comprehensive article.   I worry about minutiae here too - as in the mmoment to moment speculation on when an announcement will be made, as I said, and as I've removed.  And yes - when his Senate career material is sufficiently large as to warrant its own article, then sure that makes sense.  Tvoz | talk 19:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I wasn't complaining.  He is much more important than the average Pokemon character after all.  :-)  Steve Dufour 19:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not if you're Pikachu.Tvoz | talk 19:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Size check

message: I'm not sure why it keeps changing back and forth from "Junior Senator" to "Junior U.S. Senator". I changed it to the second one, and I'm not sure why it reverts. Why is this? 
N734LQ 08:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another editor wanted the link to the senate seniority  page  included  (which Junior Senator would) - so I added a pipe link so that it says "Junior U.S. Senator" as you wanted  and links to the senate seniority page as the other editor wanted.   Solomon-like, I might add.... seriously - this should satisfy both needs, I think.  Tvoz | talk 08:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah probably should have just done that the first time... sorry. --Rtrev 05:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem at all - it's refreshing to come up with a solution that doesn't get shot down ..... Tvoz | talk 06:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Junior Senator title

message: I question this section - I don't see anything similar on a quick look at 15 or more other senators' pages, and it seems unnotable to me.  I'm removing it, but as always am interested in other opinions.    Tvoz | talk 04:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably not too important. A lot of the staff members/advisers had red links, which says something about their notability. If Obama announces and some famous political advisers join his campaign, that would probably be worthy of inclusion, albeit in the presidential campaign section. Gzkn 05:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I think that was a good call.  There has been a lot of "triviality creep" in this article because Obama is a hot topic right now.  THe article is pretty large already (and some editors have expressed concern re: size). --Rtrev 05:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed as well, though of course let's keep what Gzkn said in mind--advisors for his presidential campaign would be worth discussing, of course. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Obama quickly assembled an unusually seasoned staff for a freshman senator. Several aides and associates of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who had just lost his reelection bid, joined Obama’s team.  Cillizza, Chris. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2006/12/the_obamadaschle_connection.html 'The Fix: The Obama-Daschle Connection], "Washington Post", December 11, 2006. Retrieved on January 14, 2007 Other key aides included policy director Karen Kornbluh, an economist who was deputy chief of staff to Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin  Enda, Jodi. Great Expectations, The American Prospect Online Edition, February 5, 2006. Retrieved on January 14, 2007] and foreign policy expert Samantha Power, a Harvard Professor and Pulitzer-winning author on human rights and genocide. .Linn, Brendan R. , "Harvard Crimson", July 25, 2005</ref>
-Hickoryhillster 14:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a good point, and I'd support including the short graf - I'm on my way out the door or I'd do it myself. Tvoz | talk 18:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I've added it. I made it a seperate subsection under "Senate Career," because I wasn't sure which existing subsection I could include it in. I hope that's OK.-Hickoryhillster 20:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  staff and advisers 

message: Thoughts on this recent addition? Is it undue weight? I've only read the Nation one before, but is criticism by the Socialist Worker really notable? Wouldn't the Socialist Worker kind of...criticize anyone who's not a socialist (which is everybody in the Senate and House)? And I could've sworn we had established that the Nation article was not exactly notable criticism (back in Archive page 3), as Mr. Sirota's actual criticism came in the form of blog posts; the article itself was much more nuanced. Gzkn 00:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) The Counterpunch link doesn't seem to be working for me right now, (2) the socialist worker criticism is, well, the socialist worker criticism, and (3) the Nation article isn't really that critical of Obama. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just read the addition and was coming over here to ask the same thing.  The idea of critical voices is sound, of course, but this section doesn't seem to rise to the proper level of objectivity or reliability. I'd be in favor of removing this graf but keeping an eye out for more appropriate critical voices.  Tvoz | talk 01:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical voices 

message: Currently you have
When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced and his father returned to Kenya
But, the BBC says
When Mr Obama was a toddler, his father got a chance to study at Harvard but there was no money for the family to go with him. He later returned to Kenya alone, where he worked as a government economist, and the couple divorced.
Which has quite a different point-of-view to it I think.  I would change it myself, but I can't be arsed creating an account and waiting several days. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.237.72.98 (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked a more comprehensive reference - the Salon article by Scott Turow - and added a few words of clarification.  Turow's take is a little different from the BBC piece, in that he talks about difficulties the parents faced in an interracial marriage in 1961 Hawaii leading to the separation and eventual divorce. Neither piece  specifies sources - but Turow knows Obama personally and I believe his piece is based on Obama's book and has a good deal more detail than the BBC piece, so I went with that description.  Regardless - my opinion is that this is not an overly significant point, nor do I think it is worthy of any more explanation than we have now.Tvoz | talk 07:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps Obama's books would clarify things? I'm afraid I don't own them, nor do I have access to them. Gzkn 07:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither do I - but if you look at the Turow Salon piece, it appears that he is using Dreams from my Father as his source.  Someone will check further I'm sure (can't recall now who was adding page refs from the book a day or two ago - I'm sure several others have it) - but in any case I don't see that this point is as significant as 125.237.72.98 seemed to think it is. Tvoz | talk 08:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early life 

message: I removed the line that tells what celebrities are backing Obama. I really just don't think that has any real merit or purpose in a section devoted to the 2008 election. Why should the political affilation of a few celebrities have any meaning on the 2008 election. "Oh look, Oprah's backing Obama, he's going to win now". That's laughable. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 19:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reinstated the few sentences and citations about celebrity support, because it is notable that such public support - meaning not just quiet contributions, but vocal support at a time when the name had not yet been seriously discussed as a candidate - began before any candidacy was announced.  Let's see what other editors think rather than having an edit war, shall we?  Tvoz | talk 19:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: To clarify, having now read the above note:  I don't think the sentences in the article about celebrity support are saying "oprah's backing him, he;s going to win" -  they are there because the celebrities'  talking up his name seemed to have a significant impact on raising awareness about him, and therefore  encouraging him to for an exploratory committee and perhaps annoounce that he'll run.  That is notable. Tvoz | talk 20:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celebrities 

message: There is a glaring hole in this article regarding criticism from leftists and progressives of Obama. There has been a mountain of criticism printed, and there should be a section on it. I offered a small section today that featured five citations, but it was immediately deleted by another user. If I do not get a good explanation as to why this criticism should be omitted, I will repost my paragraph. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Organ123 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but the criticism exists. Those points of view exist. They should be mentioned.  An article is not POV just because it quotes people who have a POV. Also, if you don't mention the criticism, the article becomes even more POV in the opposite direction. Somebody reading this article might think that there is no criticism of Obama from the left, and that would be a shame, since there is a ton. Noam Chomsky, whom I cite, has an entire page called "Criticism of Noam Chomsky," which exists just fine. Organ123 21:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: Putting a criticism section into a biography is a bad idea. Jasper23 21:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: That's fair enough.  It seems like only the far left and far right is criticizing him. BTW I think calling the section on his books "Works" is kind of awkward.  If he was known as an author that would be fine.  However just calling it "Books" would let the reader know what the section was about.  It seems to me that his real works are the elections he has won.  I changed the subtitle to "Authorship" thinking that maybe that was more dignified sounding than "Books", but that didn't seem to make people happy.  Steve Dufour 16:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It is now called "Books authored".  That works for me :-)  Steve Dufour 22:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Criticism is generally left for books, theories, movements, and things of that sort. If you notice on the John McCain page, there is not a section for criticism, even though it's quite obvious he has taken far more and harsh criticism than Barack Obama has in the last few years. Also look at Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards, Bill Frist, John Kerry, Newt Gingrich for further comparison. No criticism sections. Controversies sections are for listing controversies in a BLP, and should be done only if a particular controversy is noteable. If you're going to argue for including any bit of criticism or controversy, you are going to have to illustrate why and how it is noteable. For now, I would suggest not writing up a criticism section, as there is not significant criticism for Obama such that any of it would be relevant, or noteable. I don't mind if someone tones down some of the wording on anything in this article that seems POV or complimentary towards Obama, but I don't think the way to go about making an article more NPOV would be to add a "Criticisms" section just to make the article seem balanced, especially if it is not warranted or significant criticism. Anyone who is looking to find or include criticism/controversy for Obama is not adhering to the NPOV policy. --Ubiq 01:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism from the left sorely missing. 

message: I removed the Chicago Tribune editorial board interview that talked about not ruling out missile strikes against Iran. It was from 2004 (and by the way, the date was not indicated as it should have been), and I think it is misleading to include it without a much more recent quote on the subject.  The Olbermann interview was more recent but Iran was such a passing reference that I don't find it notable so I removed it as well.   I do hope we can find more recent, more specific quotes that demonstrate his thinking on these issues - but this seemed to me to stretching for citable material, and I don't find either one to be of value.  I didn't remove the Cockburn quote that was added to the Popular Culture section because I think it adds some needed balance - but I don't think it's the best example of that point of view so I hope we find some better. Tvoz | talk 23:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for leaving the Cockburn quote, which I think represents an important concept which is not considered at any other point in the article, and balances the quote preceding it. ... To my knowledge there is no statement since 2004 by Obama that indicates any change of his mind about attacking Iran. Many newspapers and magazines today still mention this militant stance towards Iran, referencing the very quote I used. And this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, so quotes from 2004 are fair game to use. In conclusion, unless people take major issue, I may repost the sentences, but with mention that the quote is from 2004, noting that he has not updated his position since then. Otherwise there will continue to be no mention of Obama's Iran stance, even though it exists. Organ123 00:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Please. This is anti-wiki. I'll help watch the page for vandalism.--Hollerbackgril 19:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not anti-wiki - if it were anti-wiki there wouldn't be a Wikipedia option for semi-protection. This page has been plagued by IP address vandals - like Hillary Clinton's - and both have semi-protection (as do many other articles) as a means of limiting and controlling the damage. We have lots to monitor with editing by registered users already.  By the way - changing the tag without an edit summary or comment here to me seems not the best way to start off helping out.  Discussion first is more helpful.  Thanks. Tvoz | talk 19:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  what vandalism doth thou speak of? "We have lots to monitor with editing by registered users already." There hasn't been one edit on the main page. for several hours. good bad. nothing. What are you talking about??? Also, if rape were unhuman, i wouldn't have a penis. q.e.d.--Hollerbackgril 20:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting comment at the end, but ignoring that, check out the edit history for the period leading up to the protection of the article. Only about a third of the edits are actually constructive edits. The rest are either reverts or less than constructive edits. --Bobblehead 21:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, so lets unprotect now since no one is editing it. duh. there is less than one edit per hour. all non-vandal. what is the deal??? --Hollerbackgril 21:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hollerbackgril, your rhetorical flourishes are not helping discussion here.  Try to remain civil (per "duh" etc). I'm unprotecting based on this discussion.  Let's remain vigilant to watch the page.  Of course, we can protect again if vandalism increases again. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one on wikipedia is "civil" give it a break. thanks for unprotect. personal attack removed--Hollerbackgril 21:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey look! nothing happened! let's bomb iran because they might attack us = lets protect page because a high schooler might get nasty. shock. yo, nothing is happening. im waiting, though. personal attack removed  --Hollerbackgril 21:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, need to knock it down a few notches. The page was just unprotected, takes the vandals awhile to figure out the page isn't protected anymore. Not like they circle around clicking on the page every three seconds waiting for an opportunity. --Bobblehead 21:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude the point is, you've protected a page at the very point it should be open. you can get a lot of good stuff from the jump in interest. if you all get pissed and protect, every time a high schooler drops an n-bomb on this page, you've cowered to the terrorists. don't treat me like a fool, this page is protected because your afraid of the n-bombs people will drop, and for no other reason. the volume of vandalism is controlable, the pain of the n-bomb is, evidently, not.--Hollerbackgril 21:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:TROLL is relevant at this point.  <ignore> · j e r s y k o talk · 21:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jersyko, you're funny and i like you. block me. --Hollerbackgril 22:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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

message: *http://www.thechrismatthewsshow.com/transcripts/10292006.shtml
these are THE MAN'S OWN WORDS as transcribed by MSNBC and Chris Matthews, you have NO justification in removing them in a section on his pot smoking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.255.19.118 (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Grrrrrr!!!!Jasper23 19:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The article already discusses his drug use as a teen.  Why is this particular quote so important?  That's a rhetorical question, by the way. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would attribute its importance to the quote being notable, widely covered, more recent, on video recording, and phrased in a way that many Americans are quite familiar with.  Again, I've seen nothing but praise toward Obama for this quote, despite the (apparently anti-Obama) anons who've added it in the past.  What makes "to push questions of who I was out of my mind" any more important, if I might posit another hypothetical in response? Italiavivi 00:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not (nor is the unimportant 2 yrs he spent at age 6 in a school in Jakarta)  but they are like bad pennies that I am afraid will keep turning up, so my thinking was that we make a straightforward statement in the text and move on.  But I guess we'll try it this way. Tvoz | talk 01:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find the quote kind of amusing because it's a direct slap at Bill Clinton and nicely puts the issue to bed. Macduff 05:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to admit, I came here looking for this quote, too.  I don't find it a "bad penny" at all, and nor does Obama, from watching the clip. 198.205.32.94 14:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Someone just wants to make him look bad so they post all the faults they know about the person. Funny, I don't see anything about Dubya's drug use on his page. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 17:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If not there should be, if it can be cited that is. Steve Dufour 17:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: How is it not encyclopedic, if it's both notable, pertinent, and straight from his mouth, is all?  I don't see any ground for calling it unencyclopedic, at all.  I don't understand how the line from his book is more notable than the interview quote, where the subject is concerned.  I also dislike that HailFire's version places a completely different quote in a reference meant to detail his book.  If someone comes to this article looking for the television interview quote, and doesn't see it in the "drug use" section, why must they look in a book's reference to find it?  Not exactly straightforward. Italiavivi 18:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I can agree to that version, HailFire.  I'm not sure I understand this subsequent edit, though.  The full quote is already given, with context and appropriate references, in the footnote.  While I'm willing to concede the notability of the quote for one mention in the article (preferably the footnote, where more context and sources can be provided per undue weight), I'm not willing to admit that undue weight allows for a second instance.  Perhaps this was just a misunderstanding.  I'm going to revert the change for now, though if anyone can offer a counterargument here, I'm all ears, as always. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote can be noted in the article's main body, with context (and speculative Clinton comparisons, did Obama himself state that he was referring to Clinton's comments?) in footnootes if necessary. Italiavivi 16:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "I inhaled, frequently, that was the point."  Direct quote and reliably sourced. 

message: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/19/fox-obama-madrassa/
"In Indonesia, I’d spent 2 years at a Muslim school, 2 years at a Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Koranic studies. In the Catholic school, when it came time to pray, I’d pretend to close my eyes, then peek around the room. Nothing happened. No angels descended."
In his more recent book, The Audacity of Hope, Obama writes (p.274), “Without the money to go to the international school that most expatriate children attended, I went to local Indonesian schools and ran the streets with the children of farmers, servants, tailors, and clerks.” —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.136.128.7 (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  do you really think obama is muslim? read this 

message: I look at this page and it seems to focus an awfully lot on his personal life, struggles, etc; without ever really telling what he stands fro specifically, or his voting record. I think a section for his voting histoy (liek these pages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton#Legislation_and_programs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Domestic_policy
etc. I think this would improve the uality greatly. I would do it, but I'm not really sure what his stances are, hence why I came here to look. :P20:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, check out discussion topic  Political Beliefs which already exists for discussing this purpose. Bjewiki 20:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Political Stances

message: In the article here it states "Obama likened the linguistic roots of his East African first name Barack to the Hebrew word baruch, meaning blessed."  I was watching Late Night with Conan O'Brien, where Obama was the guest and during his appearence there he stated that his first name was Celtic.  I don't know what the original air date was or have a specific reference so I did not type it into the article, but it could be noteworthy if anyone can find it.  The particular episode of Late Night was the last in a particular string of episodes taped in Chicago in 2006.  Kenallen 00:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe he thought there were more Celtic voters than Jewish voters watching TV that night.  :-)  Steve Dufour 05:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Folks, it's a comedy show. Not very likely that Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. of Kenya had a Celtic first name, is it?  Tvoz | talk 05:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Removing joke.)  I am a conservative (mostly) Republican and I support Obama.  For one thing having a black president (and first lady!) would be a very good thing for our society.  For another I don't think there is a Republican who can win in 2008 and I think Obama would make a better president than Hillary.  The third thing is that the main-stream, liberal media establishment, etc.  seems to be supporting Hillary. Steve Dufour 13:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: I just wanted to say that I'm planning on recording a Spoken Word version of this article, once we learn more about Obama's status in the 2008 Presidential race.  If anyone has any suggestions or comments about this recording, please let me know.  Otherwise, I just wanted to alert any potential other Spoken Word-ers and/or major article contributors about my plans!  Regards, Rahzel 04:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Curious - is this a wikipedia project?  (forgive my ignorance - it sounds interesting)Tvoz | talk 06:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That could be cool.  I guess articles could be downloaded and listened to on an Ipod type thing.  Steve Dufour 07:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely.  Also, having a Spoken Word version of the article will make it easier for people who don't necessarily understand written English, but understand conversational English, to read the article.  See Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia for more information on why Spoken Word articles are Useful and generally a Good Thing.  Regards, Rahzel 07:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - I'll look at that - I didn't mean to sound discouraging - it sounds like an excellent idea, bringing articles to wider audiences. I totally approve of that.  Tvoz | talk 21:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planning a Spoken Word Version of Article 

message: http://www.lp.org/yourturn/archives/000530.shtml
Can somebody mention his support for Socialized Medicine?  This is one of the most important issues of the 2008 campaign and his extreme-left viewpoint should be mentioned.  66.59.106.102 18:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger supported the new Californian plan to expand coverage for the uninsured through a measure of government intervention. Even Bush was talking about expanding government role in health care (albeit on a rather low level) in the SOTU address just a few days ago.  Extreme left my ass.  Additionally, the libertarian party's website is probably not a reliable source for characterizing Obama's position on health care.  Finally, if Obama has taken a firm stance on health care and the uninsured and reliable sources are discussing it, I'm all for including it in the article. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick blurb added, based on this AP report. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good addition.  And I assume no one has recent;y accused Newt Gingrich of being "extreme-left" either, yet he and Hillary Clinton worked together on a plan in 2005. Tvoz | talk 21:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obama supports Socialized Medicine 

message: Hillary Clinton  has one, and it's quite nice. As Obama slowly, painfully spills the beans about his viewpoints, wouldn't it be nice to catalog them in a new page? (If it exists already, feel free to erase this post.) The current page is very long and it's difficult to expand on anything. The "political advocacy" section doesn't do justice to displaying Obama's viewpoints. I think there should be a new page that gives space to these ideas. In fact, I think the creation of this page is inevitable, but I think now may be a good time to get it started. I'd be happy to help, of course. Organ123 00:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As when this topic has come up before, I second this nomination.  He's one of the 2 likely major candidates from democratic party for presentident, there should definitely be a page cataloging any viewpoints that have been cited or published. Bjewiki 23:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Page: "Political views of Barack Obama"? 

message: I think it needs to be pointed out somewhere in the article that Barack is very articulate.  He is surprisingly well spoken.  Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs) 
WTF, is he supposed to be inarticulate?  What is wrong with you???? shakam
Please tell me, why is this so surprising to you?  I am African American, and I always bristle a bit when someone remarks how articulate I am.  I have heard this sentiment from many others as well.  Eugene Robinson expressed his unease with this very eloquently (or, should I say, articulately?) in a column in today's Washington Post[].
The point is, I've never heard anyone say that Nancy Pelosi is articulate (although I've read WAY too many remarks about her clothes).  I've never heard it said about Carl Sagan, who made science so accessible for laypeople, or even Ronald Reagan, the "Great Communicator."  Yet I, a lowly horticulturist, have heard it more times than I can count.  So has my sister, my father, etc.  The implied insult is that African Americans are not capable of, or expected to utter articulate speech.
As Eugene Robinson pointed out, something is amiss when a man is graduated from an Ivy League university, earns a law degree from another one, where he was president of the law review, and people express surprise that he can fashion a decent English sentence.  You are welcome to respond on my talk page.Carlaclaws
:I don't know.  Bush went to Yale, has been a governer, and now the president.  I've never heard anyone describe him as articulate (cause he isn't).  However, Ronald Reagan was described as articulate.  So, I don't really think it's solely a black & white issue.  It's more that today, we don't really have many articulate politicians (think the aforementioned Reagan, JFK, etc). Bjewiki 21:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent, Wareq - "eloquent" is exactly right - not insulting, racist or condescending. Tvoz | talk 05:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Absolutely on the money.  When I first heard about the complaints of the implied underlying racism by terming Obama "articulate", I was taken aback—the first thing I had noticed about him (with half of America watching with me) was at his keynote address in '04, that he was the greatest speaker I had ever heard.  I tried to explain to students that this was the kind of speaker that people used to travel two days to listen to in the first half of the 19th century.  I mean, it was his speech that I was noticing.  So WTF--why is it an insult to note this?  Well, now I understand.  Frankly, I don't think that all college educated people are articulate, but the point is, the connotation of the word is minimalist (though I think this may be a newer construction).  As Wareq  says, "eloquent" is the NPOV word for him ("mesmerizing", "inspirational", and others might be accurate as well, but are more POV). Unschool 05:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Not that this is important, but while the article obviously mentions that he is of mixed heritage, it continually refers to him as an African-American. Now in my mind this doesn't really make sense and should be remedied. I know there is a trend as refering to people of mixed race as African-American (obviously only if they are part African-American. See Tiger Woods etc.) but it isn't really correct. Anybody know if he refers to himself as African-American? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 77.178.9.53 (talk • contribs).
:Here we go again. Please read this: Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_4#African-American.2C_again. There's probably even an older one. I'll just copy the basic ending of this which sums it up pretty well:
::"America is a great country, but for if someone has any visible African heritage at all--you can be 100% sure they will encounter racism during their lifetime. Barak Obama is of 50% African heritage and he is American. That is more than enough to call him African American with no hesitation and no second thoughts. Saying, in effect, that his status "doesn't count" also oversimplifies the entire African American community in the USA-- the African American community is hugely diverse-- ranging from predominantly priveledged, highly educated, hugely successful, on the one hand; all the way over to poor and struggling on the other extreme (not unlike the White American community). It encompasses both recent immigrants and those who have roots here going back hundreds of years. Sean7phil 09:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Sean7phil. And to answer your question, yes he has referred to himself as African American several times. Gdo01 21:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: From what I've seen, he is a very moderate Liberal on most issues with the exception of health care where he is more Liberal. 
67.42.243.184 19:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He might just be a "democrat party" believer. -- Walter Humala Godsave him!</span></span> (wanna Talk?) 17:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Obama is concerned with saying as little of significance as possible in order to gain broad support for 2008. For example, from a recent Obama speech: "Our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, commonsense way." "Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions. And that's what we have to change first."    ...  That says absolutely nothing, but it's hard to disagree.  This is in line with Chomsky's recent comments about Obama and NPR, quoted above: "...But they had a section on Barack Obama, the great new hope. And it was very exuberant: what a fantastic personality he is and a great candidate, thousands of people coming out. And it went on for about 15 minutes of excited rhetoric. There's only one thing missing. They didn’t say a word about what his policies were on anything. It’s kind of not -- doesn't matter, you know. He’s a unifier. He looks at you when he talks to you. He’s a really decent guy. Great background. OK, that's an election." Organ123 18:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Walter, take a look at some more articles - some have a "political views" section, some don't - across party lines and ideologies (see for example, Mitt Romney and Dennis Kucinich). Sometimes politicians' records speak for themselves, better than editors' characterizations of them. I'd prefer not to be the one to decide what part of the political spectrum a given politician falls into, but that's just my opinion. Tvoz | talk 19:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think there should definitely be a political view section, listing his beliefs on such topics as abortion, gun control, environment, etc.  However, it should be very tightly moderated, and every listed view should include links to an article(s) that show definitively that that's Obama's view.  He is a Presidential candidate after all (or will officially be shortly), and very little is known about some of his views, so as they come up, I believe they should be cataloged here. Bjewiki 20:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about trying to guess his beliefs, but I would certainly support a run-down of significant votes from his Senate voting record. Italiavivi 23:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: I was under the impression that the NPAT was what vote smart based their data off of? So the current data is old (1998). If it is not then I apologize. :) 69.154.2.3 20:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, PVS provides a person's answers to the NPAT survey.  But it's definitely not the only thing that PVS has in terms of data; I personally place a lot more credibility in a person's voting record.  It's easy to say one thing on a voluntary survey but do another when you're actually in office.  You can see Mr. Obama's voting record here.  —bbatsell ¿? 20:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, just what I was looking for! 162.40.138.163 23:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Beliefs? 

message: I really think there needs to be a "Controversies" section on the main page, a place to deal with the Madrassa hoax, the 'he's really a Muslim' bigotry, etc. Sort of a one-stop-info-shop for dealing quickly with the Swiftboating (and perhaps the real issues) the may come up.
TJ aka Teej 02:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people might say the lady doth protest too much. :-)  Steve Dufour 15:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: CNN supposedly completely debunked the report.  Perhaps we should wait to see how all this plays out, though, as all the evidence is not in, surely. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is this is a single source story that several media outlets have run with.  It is however based on a single anonymous source.  I would say that it might be a good idea to employ WP:DUST in this case. --Rtrev 03:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The question must also be raised, does Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons apply to mentioning the false story in his article?  I agree with Jersysko for now, let the dust settle.  A seperate article can be created later, but we wouldn't even know what to title it, right now. Italiavivi 18:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Supposing the story's been put to rest with the CNN investigation, it was rather short-lived.  It lasted maybe two days after it came out in Insight, and I don't think that merits a separate article. - PoliticalJunkie 01:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree no seperate article. I personally doubt it even merits a mention here. Perhaps it should be mentioned in the Fox News article but perhaps not since from what I can tell it hasn't caused much controversy, probably because it's not unusual for Fox News to completely fail to investigate a story. 203.109.240.93 11:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Here's another article that covers the false allegations, and how they have been covered by the media: Obama gets taste of campaign coverage By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer. BlankVerse 05:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no evidence whatsoever that Hillary Clinton was the source of Insight's false article. Italiavivi 18:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: All of the charges were made by unprofessional, unsubstantiated, sourceless accusations in Insight Magazine, a project spawned by the Unification Church.  Both the Clinton and Obama camps refuted the accusations.  Even the Fox News Network issued a full retraction.  See the entire account in the David D. Kirkpatrick New York Times, 29 January 2007 article. ( http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/us/politics/29media.html?_r=1&oref=slogin )Dogru144 00:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to start an article. It's still reverberating in the press, and is as least significant as the Jamil Hussein issue . - Fairness & Accuracy For All 06:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Would it be useful to include the pronunciation of his name in the opening paragraph of this article?   The BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/magazinemonitor/2007/01/how_to_say_barack_obama.shtml) has published a guideline on the matter. They say it's 'buh-RAAK oh-BAA-muh', which translates to [bəˈrɑːk oʊˈbɑːmə] in IPA. —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your
 posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by 82.34.120.8 (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Can someone with IPA experience confirm? · j e r s y k o talk · 17:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  About to add this, although I believe it is more accurately represented by: [bəˈɹɑːk oʊˈbɑː.mə] —bbatsell ¿? 03:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

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