Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 10

message: When did he graduate college? --In Defense of the Artist (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See "Early life and career".  He got his BA from Columbia in 1983 and his JD from Harvard in 1991. johnpseudo 18:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  college 

message: I, for one, would like to see a better picture of him for the top of the article. The current one reminds me of a bad driver's license photo. 75.16.248.253 (talk) 05:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photograph 

message: Where is the discussion of race on the talk page? Shouldn't he be labeled Multiracial instead of African American? He is not black or white. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The U.S. Senate Historical Office considers him to be African-American. (Formerly, this was attributed to that office rather than stated directly by Wikipedia itself; I'm not sure why that change was made, but presumably it's because of a lack of contention and a desire to keep the lead section simple.) He's considered African-American in addition to being multiracial because being an African-American is not conceived of as "all-or-nothing": it means that you are an American with recent African heritage, not that your ancestors have all been exclusively 100% African-American or black (a standard by which even Al Sharpton couldn't be considered African-American). If an American with 50% Kenyan ancestry is not African-American, than what about one with 75% Kenyan ancestry? 99%? Where do you draw the line? In any case, this seems to be the standard usage; our Halle Berry article, for example, lists her as "the first African-American woman to receive a Best Actress Academy Award", even though her mother was white. -Silence (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the US it's based on self-identification, there is no line to draw. However I couldn't find a source for his self-identification. Personally, I think it's a very racist attitude to say that pure European ancestry is white, and any part African is black (aka African American). Clinton's article doesn't call her a European-American. Well if the Senate page says he's African American, then he is. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, "black" is not a synonym for "African-American", as commonly used (especially in a text intended for international readers, like Wikipedia). That may be the main source of your problem: pretty much no one disputes that Obama is African-American, but there is more controversy over whether he is "black", because of the many complex connotations of that term in U.S. society. "African-American" and other heritage designators are not mutually exclusive, unlike "white" and "black": it is entirely possible to be both "African-American" and an "Asian-American", for example. (Indeed, we have Tiger Woods categorized under both :Category:African American sportspeople and :Category:Asian American sportspeople; whether he or Obama are "black" is something of a nonissue, and not for Wikipedia to unilaterally decide.) Clinton's article doesn't call her a European-American because third-party sources do not make note of that, whereas they regularly make note of Obama's heritage. -Silence (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  race 

message: I added the pronunciation of Barack in the opening section and it was removed (with the comment 'Why?'). Since I often hear people - even BBC news reporters - refer to him wrongly as [ˈbærək], I thought it was a useful addition to the article.--Sdoerr (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed it to English pronunciation. kwami (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: The text below the picture says "Obama's campaign estimates 20,000 people attended this event", with a source of two separate news articles, both giving only Senator Obama and his campaign as sources of the attendance numbers. In the first instance, it specifically states the number is an estimate given by the campaign. In the second, Senator Obama is quoted as mentioning crowds of 20,000 in his stump speeches. Should what Senator Obama tells supporters during stump speeches or an estimate by his campaign be considered encyclopedic? Crowd estimates are notoriously skewed depending on who you ask, supporters or the opposition, on this I hope we all agree. I think the text below the picture would be better left as just the first sentence, "Supporters at a campaign rally in Austin, Texas, on 23 February 2007", which is factual and verifiable.
I removed "continues to draw large crowds" below the same picture not six months ago (large? larger than what?), though I guess someone really wants to quote those two news articles which repeat the campaign and Senator Obama mentioning crowds of 20,000. I'm sorry, I just don't think that either of them are an unbiased source for that information, nor, speaking towards the number being verifiable, do I trust the reporter (from one of the two sources) who repeatedly referred to a standing senator as "Mr.Obama". Revolen (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a good call.  I dislike a lot of extra information and/or opinions being put in picture captions anyway. Redddogg (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Condensed caption. --HailFire (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo byline quoting estimate by campaign staff 

message: For those of us who would be spared 3-5 hours of surfing if it is simply included here, let me suggest that some more info on this guy's father (a Senior Official in the Financial Section of the Government of Kenya with a Harvard Phd, which I guess means that he should be identified as Dr. Obama, best guess I have is that he is sort of notable and maybe should have his own biog). For the sake of simplicity somewhere (maybe just here in the discussion if it offends everybody's sensibilities) a very brief almost maybe just a statistical mention maybe just the names and numbers and dates for his mother's family slaves, (especially answering the question: did his mother's family still own their slave/s in 1863 ? I.e. at the time of Lincoln's Proclamation),
Maybe it is irrelevant however if someone whose mother's family owned slaves(and his father's family--being East African Muslims of some wealth-- likely also owned slaves) is put forward as a great representative of the African American Equality movement despite being the descendant of their opressors, perhaps he or someone else needs to deal with the issues of him being a wolf in sheep's clothing sort of thing here. 
John5Russell3Finley 23:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your rant is not all all relevent to this article (or the discussion of the article for that matter).  Please see Wikipedia is not a soapbox for further explanation.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Loonymonkey:  The issues raised by John5Russell3Finley are valid issues for discussion.  The article is written as an advertisement for Obama.  There is no criticism of him and inconvenient facts about him are completely left out of removed entirely.  At one time, there was information about Obama attending a Muslim-centered elementary school when very young, but that information has been removed.  This article does not have balance.  It puts a halo on Obama's head.  Now, I don't necessarily agree with everything that John5Russell has written, but your flippant dismissal of his comments is inappropriate.--InaMaka (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except, InaMaka, that there is information about the false rumor regarding his attendance at a Muslim school as a child in Jakarta - read the Presidential campaign section.  (And Loonymonkey is correct that the talk page is for constructive discussion of ways to edit the article, not a place to vent someone's own personal POV agenda as the previous commenter was doing.) Tvoz |talk 17:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not state that Obama attended a Muslim school.  I stated that he attended a "Muslim-centered" school.  According the outside article that is referenced in this article, Obama was listed as "Muslim" on his paperwork and child that were considered Muslim--whether they were or not--were encouraged to practice Islam.  So, no, what you stated above is incorrect.  I was not repeating the "false rumor."  I am stating facts that are not in the article.  Also, John5Russell3finley has a right to express his opinion whether you or Loonymonkey agrees with that opinion or not.  Now, his comments can and should be worked into the article if John5 has outside reliable sources to back up his claims.  And, once again, the comments of another editor should not be dismissed out of hand by Looneymonkey or any other editor.  That is not in line with Wikipedia process.--InaMaka (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no.  He doesn't "have a right to express his opinion," at least not in a Wikipedia article.  NPOV is one of the core prinicipals of Wikipedia as well as the fact that Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  There are plenty of places out there on the internet in which one can rant to their heart's delight about whatever opinions and theories they patched together during "3-5 hours of surfing" but this isn't one of them. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Not true. You don't like what he stated, but that has nothing to do whether he has a right to express an opinion.  He did suggest changes to the article.  Now, you don't like those suggestions, but whether you agree with the suggestions or not does not negate his right to express opinion on those changes.  Now, there are plenty of places out there on the Internet where you can go to express your dislike of his opinion, but that does not negate his right to express his opinion about changes to the article.  You don't like his opinion, but that is not the criteria that Wikipedia is based upon.  Also, Obama attended a school as a child that described Obama as "Muslim" and that school did encourage children that were classified as "Muslim" to practice Islam, whether they were really Muslim or not and those facts have been removed from the article.  So, yes, the article does place a halo on his head.  It does not touch on facts that might be considered by some to be negative and it does not provide substantive criticisms of his opinions and work, which almost all bios have--as long as those criticisms fall within the rules of BLP.  So to sum up, John5 expressed his opinion on a substantive change to the article, which is his right, and then you stated that he is on a soapbox, which he was not, because apparently you did not like his suggestion.  Now, we don't know if those changes are valid or should be implemented because he did not outline what he wanted the changes to and he did not provide reliable sources to back up his claims, but that is another issue.  I'm not even sure that I agree with his premise, but we can't have people running around throwing out the soapbox claim without more evidence.  That does not agree with the premise of Wikipedia.--InaMaka (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? What specific changes did he propose to the article?  I've just re-read the rant that started this whole thread and I still can't figure out what he is actually proposing for the article.  There's something about Obama being a "wolf in sheep's clothes" because his mother's ancestors may have owned slaves but that's just conjecture.  There isn't any new (or credible) information given and there aren't any suggestions for how this opinion would be incorporated into the article.  There's no point in going back and forth here. This talk page is for discussing proposed changes to the article. Complaining that ones own opinions aren't represented in the article isn't a proposed change, it's just a rant.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, you are wrong.--InaMaka (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: No, Bobblehead, I'm not a troll.  However, if you would like to get into a match where we call each names I don't think that is within the rules of Wikipedia.  I have suggested a change to the article.  Obama attended a public school that provided time for students to engage in religious activity.  He was characterized as "Muslim" whether he really was or not.  That information should be in the article.--InaMaka (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Regarding Point 2): I do not agree that anyone living today should have to suffer comments about the actions their ancestors 5 generations back. They are somewhat interesting anecdotes; that is all. They are pointless in (brief) encyclopedic articles that appear on Wikipedia, except, possibly, for someone who descended from royalty. Anecdotes about former slaveholding ancestors of current public figures are appropriate for "entertainment-news" stories on CNN, FoxNews, Oprah, and in book-length biographies - not here. (If you were interviewing for a job, do you think it is appropriate for a prospective employer to consider information about the actions of your maternal great-great-grandfather?) Charvex (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bit more family back ground please 

message: Latin Wikipedia (i.e. Vicipaedia) now has an entry for Barack Obama.  Please add the following interwiki to this page: la:Barack Obama.  Thanks, 71.208.238.48 (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added here. --HailFire (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin Language interwiki 

message: I doubt this is correct! Why should he have the same surname as Saddam Hussein (unless he is Saddams son of course)? Solomon Stein (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Hussein is Barack's middle name.  By the way, Hussein is not Saddam's surname - Arabic naming conventions differ from Western conventions.  Hussein was Saddam's father's name.--Rise Above The Vile 21:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barack HUSSEIN Obama? 

message: added the part about how he said he used drugs to help him in his book.RYNORT 22:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, the information you added was both factually and grammatically incorrect. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  added drug specifics 

message: I am a Republican who likes Senator Obama, but probably will not vote for him.  I would much prefer to read an article telling the positive points about someone. Of course criticism should be mentioned but it shouldn't be the major thing.  I would like to see the other articles more like this one rather than the other way around. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on complaint about lack of criticism section, which was removed just before I hit "Save page" 

message: As I assume most people would, I can here looking for an enumeration of his political positions.  I find it beyond strange that there is none.  The closest thing I could find is the statement that he took the opposing position to Alan Keys on a number of issues. Erikmartin (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His positions are located at Political positions of Barack Obama. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Positions? 

message: I'm not a political partisan but love presidential politics - particularly during incumbency change. In that light, I see a stark distinction between the Hillary Clinton website and the Obama Wiki site (as well as other candidate sites). So, I'm wondering if there is parity between the authorship agreements between all candidate sites. My impression is that the Clinton writers crafted her Wiki site to have no edges. This quality is not the same for the Obama Wiki site, for example (IMHO). Is it possible that Wiki editors are developing the Clinton Wiki to be superior to the Obama (Edwards, Romney, McCain, and Giuliani) Wiki(s)? If you review all of the comments in all the major candidate Wiki's - one can understand the general principle of this assertion. But then again, who has time to do that aside from junkies like me ... Oxford Den (151.197.127.231 (talk) 04:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia does not have "owners" of articles, it's actually prohibited here. However, this article is currently semi-protected, which means IP editors (such as yourself) and new users can not currently edit the article. You are more than welcome to post suggestions on the talk page, or if you have a specific edit that you'd like to make, just post it here with an explanation of where in the article you'd like it. --Bobblehead (rants) 16:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would make a wild guess that there are more Obama supporters here on WP than those of any other candidate.  Even if this article is not "owned" it is well defended against attacks by Republicans or fans of Hillary. :-)  Steve Dufour (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked out Hillary Clinton article and it does seem to be better written. On the other hand, it contains far more negative information than this one. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Hillary has been in the national public eye for a lot longer and accumulated a lot more negative things than Obama has. Not to worry, I'm sure Barack will start piling them up soon enough. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then again, she is running on "experience" not "nice person-ness" :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 06:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parity with [[Hillary Clinton]] Wikipedia site? 

message: On December 21, 2007 Barack Obama appeared on The Today Show.
:That kind of thing is part of his job. However, his article can not mention everything he does.  Only if he says something that other media comment on and it seems important. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barack Obama on The Today Show 12-21-07 

message: Might be good to introduce Michelle Obama (when she's first mentioned in the text) as his wife. Something along the lines of "Obama met his future wife Michelle Robinson in 1988". I know it's in the caption, but some people might not read the caption. Also, could the caption be fleshed out a bit more? Where are they in that photo? 69.202.60.86 (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. I went ahead and followed your first suggestion. I think it sounds a little more dignified for an encyclopedia article. I will check out the picture too. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor comment 

message: : Of his early childhood, Obama 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."[19]
I have the feeling that it was put in to introduce the fact that his mother was white and his father black.  What Obama is saying here is the same as any child would feel. There is nothing remarkable or even interesting that it should take up space in the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that the consensus here is that this (to me anyway) weird sentence is better than just saying what "races" his parents were. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this sentence really needed? 

message: Note to everyone - in particular Steve Dufour - I have repeatedly removed the classifications "white" and "black" from Obama's parents for several reasons.  The first is that the portion of the article in question is discussing the cultural diversity that influenced Obama's surroundings while he grew up.  Race and culture are separate things.  Race is a false construct created by racists to justify categorizing people in ways that do not correspond to their biological or cultural identities.  But that's another and longer conversation.  The point is that by simply stating that Obama's mother is American and his father Kenyan, the point of his diverse cultural background is expressed without bringing the arbitrary construction of race into the picture.  There IS a difference between race and ethnicity, and ethnicity is what is relevant here. Godheval (talk) 04:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that "race" is a false construct created by racists.  However, in the world we live in it is considered an important thing.  One of the things that Senator Obama is noted for is his background of mixed "race", not just mixed culture. People coming to this article, and some will come from outside of the USA and not know much about him, will want some information on his "racial" background.  I think it is important that the article explain this right away.  As I said in my edit summary (I will not edit this sentence again) the words "black" and "white" are not offensive to most people and are the simplest way to give them the information they want. Not all Kenyans are "black" (99% according to its article) and not all Americans are "white."  Also, as I mentioned before I find it offensive when people say "American" and expect that to be understood as "white American." Merely saying that Senator Obama's mother was an American could create the impression that this is being said. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe the races should be retained and a single word for each parent is appropriate weight and prominence. To say race is invented by racists is silly - we also group people by hair colour, but few people are prejudice against redheads. It would be one thing if it were completely immaterial, but Obama's racial background is frequently commented on as a unique characteristic among nominees past and present. Whether or not a point ought to be made of it, this has a big impact on his campaign and is necessary to mention. Dcoetzee 19:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. That is how I feel too. I am not going to put the words "black" and "white" back in the sentence since I have already done that 2 or 3 times. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Race and Culture 

message: Are the end of December 2007 drop in poll numbers reported by the Concord Monitor and Des Moines register of importance. the Monitoe cites a percieved unwillngness to engage Mrs, clinton or Republican rivals.Will his lining up behind President Bush on the assisantion of Mrs Bhutto, rather than charging the administration's foreign policy as a part of this an example? CApitol3 (talk) 03:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These newspapers have a right to express their opinions.  However the result of the caucuses is what will be notable. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  December 2007 drop in poll numbers 

message: For many years I have known that in Hawaii white people are in the minority and that is cool with me. However, I find the term "majority-minority" a bit offensive.  Since this is said as if it was a good thing what is really being said is the white people are no good and society would be better off with fewer of them. (Side note to Obama supporters, others please skip White people make up most of the people who will be voting in the primaries in the next few weeks. Close side note) Thanks for your consideration of this point. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on your basic point. Takes me back to undergrad sociology class. I don't find the term offensive but (in this context) a bit arrogant and out of place. I certainly have not seen the established relevance. We could also say the (Island of Hawaii) or (Tropical Hawaii) or even (the non-contiguous state of Hawaii). I don't see the relevance to Obama's introduction. Turtlescrubber (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trying this. --HailFire (talk) 11:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Majority-minority 

message: The caption that was used with this photo was inadequate. Where and when was the photo taken?  How does it illustrate relevant material in the adjoining text? Perhaps more to the point: there is a hangdog quality to this image that makes it unlike any other photo of Obama and his wife that I have ever seen. That also makes it a curious addition to this article which seems otherwise well-illustrated. For these reasons, I've removed it. Please discuss here before reverting, stating reasons for its relevance and notability in illustrating the adjoining section text.  Thanks. --HailFire (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article should have a picture of Michelle Obama, since she is discussed in the text; and of course is very important to Senator Obama.  I agree that this is not such a great picture. I will try to find a better one which is in the public domain. There were none on Senator Obama's site.Steve Dufour (talk) 10:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barack and Michelle Obama image 

message: I've reported some of my concerns with this article on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Barack Obama and Michelle Obama. Steve Dufour (talk) 11:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP board 

message: I believe that Obama's views on the USA's relationship with Israel should be mentioned.  He has made a few comments, such as those detailed in this piece (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269112,00.html) that bring his support for Israel into question.  Maybe under a "Controversies" section?69.212.65.64 (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or even better.. How about in an article called Political positions of Barack Obama in a section called Arab-Israeli conflict. Oops, already done.;) --Bobblehead (rants) 19:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views on Israel 

message: I think this has been brought up before, however:
:He has authored two bestselling books...
This makes it sound like he did not really write them.  I would guess that Herman Melville's article says that he wrote Moby Dick, not that he authored it. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty widely-used wording on Wikipedia, Steve.  Tvoz |talk 19:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Steve, is "authored"  really a difficult word to understand?  If you'll look back, you'll see you agreed in January that it was better than what we had previously as a heading, and it seems quite direct and clear to me, especially for a heading, but I myself don't have a problem with changing the first sentence in that section to "written", leaving "Books authored" as the header - but maybe others had a reason for that wording -we'll see.   As for your other changes - I disagree as follows: we say (and properly wikilink) in the intro to just "Honolulu" because a few words later we say and link to Hawaii - your way is unnecessarily redundant;   to say his father was "born into the Luo people" is very odd wording which doesn't seem  preferable to referring to his father as Luo in context below as we have had it for a long time;  "majority-minority" may not be instantly understood, but that's why it is wiki-linked, and it is an important concept that adds more valuable information than the tired "ethnically diverse" which doesn't add anything beyond the previous sentence's "culturally diverse" and is repetitive, too, with "multi-ethnic" a few words later in reference to Jakarta;  similarly your removal of "describes his experiences growing up in his mother's middle class American family" leaving "Obama wrote about his experiences" takes away information that adds to our understanding and leaves a rather bland useless sentence - what else is a memoir other than writing about one's experiences?;  taking out the reference to his father as "absent" removes important information and that's where the Luo mention makes sense.  I just don't see that these changes improve the article at all, and in fact they seem to remove valuable information for no clear reason, so I've reinstated.  Tvoz |talk 21:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, "authored" is not hard to understand it just makes a person sound like a geek to use it. "Honolulu, Hawaii" reminds people that he was born an American citizen.   "Majority-minority" I discussed below.  "His mother's middle class American family" sounds like a coded message saying he is not really an African American.  His father's absence is already explained so it doesn't have to be said again. Besides that how do we know that he didn't remember his father from 2 years old?  My daughter has memories from her third birthday. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec)Unfortunately, encyclopedias are rarely written in simple English, but rather in an English that requires one to read the encyclopedia with a dictionary next to you. That's why there is a Simple English Wikipedia. Granted, many of the articles on the Simple English Wikipedia are lacking. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the World Book Encyclopedia on my computer and it is written in ordinary English (although for younger readers).  Some subjects are more technical and require technical language. However a discussion of Obama's personal life is something anyone can relate to and there is no need for any special jargon there.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Just a thought, on the ethnicity of his father perhaps it could be worked into the first sentence something like this "(a Luo born in Nyanza Province, Kenya)"? Waiting until later to use the term Luo is a bit confusing because it isn't clear which father the term is in reference to, so by clarifying that Obama, Sr. is the Luo that confusion is rectified. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I don't know - Soetero isn't referred to as his father or even stepfather anywhere in the article - the only "father", his father,  is Obama Sr. It says he talks about his "absent Luo father"  which is wikilinked and is fully explained in the footnote (now 17) at the end of that sentence, so is it really needed again a paragraph above? I don't feel strongly about this, but don't really see the need.  Tvoz |talk 21:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: But you changed it anyway. Tvoz |talk 02:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed my mind. Now I like Obama better. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 05:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange comments from someone who claims to be a Republican Paisan30 (talk) 05:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Claim" is a "WP word to avoid." :-)  If the Republicans decide to nominate someone I might  vote for him. But realistically it looks like whoever wins the Democratic nomination will be the next president. (I am predicting it will be Hillary because from what I have seen here her supporters are really smart or else Obama's are really stupid. ;-) )Steve Dufour (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authored? 

message: I find something a little odd about this sentence:
:In the memoir, Obama describes his experiences growing up in his mother's American middle class family.
In the first two years of his life his Kenyan father was in the home. Then for four years he and his mom lived in Indonesia with her Indonesian husband. Then he lived with his grandparents in Hawaii. Do you think the expression "his mother's American middle class family" is the right way to describe all this? Steve Dufour (talk) 10:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the expression, merging two sentences. I raised 2 kids and I know that a father has a great influence from the start. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Steve, that's your OR and irrelevant to this. No one came in to agree with this change that you've been pushing - you're missing the point of the section which talks about a particular aspect of his upbringing.   There's de facto consensus on this because it has stood for a long time and you have no support, so please don't make changes that you have no agreement on, when there have been objections to them. If consensus changes there's time enough to make a change, but your saying it over and over doesn't equal consensus.  And didn't we talk about this yesterday or the day before?  Thank you. Tvoz |talk 02:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I have been the main one talking. :-)  Once again, when we say "his mother's American middle class family" that sounds like his father had little or no influence on him as a child. I used myself as an example to explain one reason I think this is not so. I am sorry if that is considered OR.  Steve Dufour (talk) 04:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't mean to sound harsh Steve.  The fact is, as he reports it, his father was absent and he learned about him from his mother's family. Read his book. The father was gone and didn't influence him - he was only two years old when he left. That is very young Steve. I have kids too, and of course a father has great influence but if he's gone by age 2 there is a very good chance that he's not remembered first hand at all.  But we don't have to speculate - these are his own words.  He should know.Tvoz |talk 06:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Find a quote where he says "my mother's middle class family." Steve Dufour (talk) 12:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I stand corrected on that. I still think his father and step father should not be excluded, even if they were not as important influences to him as his mother. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "His mother's American middle class family"? 

message: I would propose sharply cutting down on the size of the section on Obama's keynote address to the 2004 Democratic Convention.  As it stands now there are 3 rather large block quotes which do not play much of a role.  Certainly the speech is important enough in Obama's career trajectory to merit a section, but the size of this article is already pushing the limits, and there is plenty of non-critical/not-very-relevant information here.  I think a concise summary can cover most of the speech with several sentences on its aftermath. Joshdboz (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about this - seems to me it's a defining moment, similar perhaps in weight to the space section in JFK,  although I do see your point.  Let's se what others think. Tvoz |talk 20:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut down Keynote section 

message: Regarding this reversion, what is the "position C" that is being advanced by including both position A and position B in this article?  WP:SYN says that "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C."  Can't A and B be presented in this article without joining them together to advance position C?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, I think the problem is fixed now to everyone's satisfaction.  A single source is now used to support the statement in the text of the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And thank  you for showing why Wikipedia does not use unreliable sources in BLPs.  The source you provided was an extremely edited version of an AP article and the editing failed to expand upon why Obama was critical of the need to filibuster Alito. --Bobblehead (rants) 05:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Explained on your talkpage.  --Bobblehead (rants) 05:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not, but I invite you to explain, either here or at my talk page.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But for further explanation, all three sources are edited versions of the same AP article, with the Sun-Times article seeming to do the better job of explaining what Obama is saying, including quotes from Obama that expand upon why he thinks the filibuster is necessary for Alito and why the need to filibuster Alito is a failure by the Democrats to explain why Alito is "A Bad ThingTM". His comments about "winning elections" is a minor part of that explanation and is more an explanation of how Democrats can avoid filibustering SCOTUS nominations in the future. --Bobblehead (rants) 06:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you please correct the spelling and the subject-predicate disagreement, and delete the redundant link to the roll call vote?  And where does the Sun-Times article say one word about a filibuster being "needed" or "necessary"?  The first paragraph says that convincing the public is needed or necessary.  It does not say that filibusters are needed or necessary.  Quite the contrary: the article says Obama "agreed [with Biden] that it was not particularly wise" to conduct a filibuster.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for making some of the corrections I suggested.  I have taken the liberty of correcting the spelling.  Where does the Sun-Times article say one word about a filibuster being "needed" or "necessary"?  The first paragraph says that convincing the public is needed or necessary.  It does not say that filibusters are needed or necessary.  Quite the contrary: the article says Obama "agreed [with Biden] that it was not particularly wise" to conduct a filibuster.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Added that he criticized Dems for an over-reliance upon procedural maneuvers as requested. The reword with the second, more verbose quote was a result of your rephrasing and an attempt to incorporate it into a more accurate explanation as to what Obama was saying, but if you no longer want to incorporate the "win elections" bit, I can remove that. --Bobblehead (rants) 07:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't keep the second, more verbose quote on my account.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree.  First of all, this was not merely a "notable confirmation."  It was the confirmation of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, and Senator Obama supported a filibuster of that nomination.  It's doubtful that a United States Senator can do anything more momentous than try to block a Senate majority from confirming a President's nominee to the highest court in the land.  HailFire, you reverted here.  I urge you to please reconsider.  That paragraph was phrased by Bobblehead, who seems to be as sensitive to WP:SYN and WP:OR as anyone on Earth.  If you want to say that the paragraph contained WP:SYN or WP:OR, then I think you should put together an argument to back up your assertion.  Thanks in advance.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:SYN]] 

message: Obama has won the Iowa caucus; is this too newsy, or should it go in the page somewhere? 71.191.37.246 (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the presidential campaign section. --Bobblehead (rants) 04:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iowa 

message: It would be nice if an American native would make a recording of the pronunciation of his name (like in Søren Kirkegaard), thanks. (Yes; I know there is a non-free recording here, but that's not Wikipedia's game) --Morten LJ (talk) 07:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do we even need a pronounciation?  None of the other candidates have one (and it's not like there isn't opportunity to hear his name pronounced in the media). --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking a pronunciation would be a good thing. Relying upon the media to correctly pronounce an "unusual" name like Barack Obama will only get one in trouble. I watched too much news coverage of the Iowa caucuses last night and I heard his name pronounced three or four different ways. Not to mention this is an encyclopedia and we shouldn't be reliant upon the media to take care of content for us. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, and could they spell it right too? --HailFire (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation -- Audio 

message: GO ahead, censor my post again, I'll just repost it.  You wont stop me, unless you ban me.  But why would you ban me?  Because You will not include a section that other candidates have?  BIAS!   Wikipedia has a terrible reputation, and the hawks here are proof.  I speak for A LOT of people.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.63.188 (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this is the IP of , who has constantly been warned for POV pushing.  See my [[{User_talk:Blaxthos#excuse_me|this thread]] and the one below it for more info.  I will again issue words of caution to him.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gzkn responded well to the idea of a separate criticism section almost a year ago, saying:  "think about whether a general 'praise' section would make sense".  Critical commentary should be woven into the text, or the notes, or the subarticles as appropriate - and we do. Tvoz |talk 07:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the Obama Criticism section? 

message: It seems kind of odd to introduce his dad's ethnic group in the sentence that says he was absent. I tried before to move the information to the first introduction of the dad. I guess my choice of wording wasn't so great and it was moved back. However, I really think that is where the info belongs, if it is needed at all. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be helpful to keep the discussion in one place rather than starting a new section every time the same point is made, as if it hadn't already been discussed in the last 2 days. Tvoz |talk 02:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then please explain your reasons for putting "Luo" and "absent" next to each other rather than telling the readers what the father's ethnic group is when he is first introduced. If the word Luo is left out altogether I would not object, although it is somewhat interesting. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fine. It denotes that the "absences" refers to his birth father, not to the Indonesian man who married his mother. Paisan30 (talk) 04:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To me it sounds like "absent" is an insult and putting "Luo" next to it makes that sound like an insult too. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His father was absent. He was Luo. The text and footnote explain it clearly. You're reading in things that aren't there. This is a non-issue. Tvoz |talk 05:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't imagine reading either or both of those words as an insult. Paisan30 (talk) 05:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would consider being an absent father a bad thing. I have no opinion about a Luo father however. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But he was absent! Tvoz |talk 06:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But his being absent had nothing to do with his being Luo, unless you want the article to imply that it did. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, one could argue that his being absent had nothing to do with his being a father. How silly. Paisan30 (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's silly. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, that is much better. Thanks.Steve Dufour (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Absent Luo father"? 

message: The United States has only elected three black Senators.  More than a hundred years ago, two others were appointed (not elected) for less than one term each, both Reconstruction, northern occupation of southern states.  Neither state would have done so voluntarilly.  How it reads, we might assume we've actually elected five, or even appointed/elected five voluntarilly, but we have not.  This is so different from the relevance (the degree to which America has or has not embraced black Senators and Obama's role in that) as to be unnecesarilly confusing.  A better sentence would read:
"He is the third African American to be elected Senator in U.S. history, and the only African American currently serving in the U.S. Senate."
Can someone edit?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forwarder (talk • contribs) 22:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added that he was the third popularly elected senator, but left that he was the fifth to serve. Regardless of how the first two African Americans made it into the Senate, they still count. Just like the first woman to serve in the Senate, Rebecca Latimer Felton, counts despite having been appointed and only serving two days. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *Should we change the wording on all senators who served prior to 1913? Before that time, the senate was not popularly elected at all. It was selected by the state legislatures. Obama is the fifth African-American senator, nothing more and nothing less. Bellwether BC 01:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Once again, I question this being the second sentence in the article. It's not really about Obama, but rather about the lack of other black Senators. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  As much the "Third" as the "Fifth", and Fifth is misleading 

message: If Hillary Rodham Clinton is the title of hillary's page why isn't Hussein in the title page of Barack's.RYNORT 04:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because she uses  "Hillary Rodham Clinton" as her name. That's why the page is "George W. Bush" not "George Walker Bush".  And that's why this page is "Barack Obama".  Tvoz |talk 05:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tvoz got the answer right, but just something to point out: You do realize that Hillary's middle name isn't 'Rodham', right? That it's 'Diane'? And so the reason that Obama's middle name isn't in the article title is precisely the same as the reason that Hillary's isn't in her own article's title. (hence Hillary Rodham Clinton, not Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton) 209.90.135.57 (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No Tvoz is correct to assert that HRC's middle name is Rodham. Its common practice to for women to replace their middle names with their  maiden names, when they take their husbands last name, which is what HRC did in 1982. thanks  Astuishin (talk) 07:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd also like to point out that John Edwards' article isn't titled "John Reid Edwards", and John McCain's article isn't "John Sidney McCain". -75.73.200.200 (talk) 06:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One more time.  Hillary Rodham Clinton is the name she uses. Look at her official signature and read up on it. We're not arbitrarily including "Rodham" there.  On the other hand, Barack Obama's middle name is included in the text for accuracy, but it is not the way he is known, is not his official signature, and is not the name of this article, per WP:NAME.  Same is true for Edwards and McCain. Since I'm sure there's no reason other than accuracy that people raise this repeatedly,  I hope this clarifies the matter, once again.  Tvoz |talk 18:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  middle name 

message: I have  a problem with the qualification of Obama as 'African-American' as put in the header of this article, with a white mother and a father from Africa he's just as much African-American as he is not. He should be qualified either as half-caucasian/half-African-American (both equal parts represented equally) or just as black (since that is the colour of his skin - which is what people are hinting at by saying 'African-American'). --194.81.255.25 (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever your personal views, Obama is African-American. What we may believe about him doesn't matter that much. All that really matters is what we can verify with reliable sources. Thus, the wording should stay. Bellwether BC 21:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What we do know is that he was born in the United States as an American citizen, that his father was a black African, that he calls himself an African American, that the U.S. Senate calls him an African American; that sounds like an African American to me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Dufour (talk • contribs) 00:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *Again, it's not about what's true, but what's verifiable. He is referred to as an "African-American" in countless reliable sources, so that's how he is referred to in the article. The synthesizing of "we know X and thus Y" and all of that is original research, and does not belong in articles space. Bellwether BC 01:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It's not about "conforming" to anything other than WP standards. What is verifiable is that he is referred to as an African-American. Therefore, that's what he is referred to as in the article. Bellwether BC 02:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Obama is african american because he has african ethnicity, though it would be more precise to say kenyan american, but he's not black since he has the same amount of "black" blood as "white", i believe he would be "two or more races". So people can say that he would be the first african american president because he is infact african just as i am greek even though im only half. They just cant refer to him as the first black president.71.174.200.210 (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of us are two or more "races". I think it all has to do with self-identification. Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  So Alex Rodriguez is an African American and we should change his article which lists Dominician.. because his pareantage is from the DR. n'est-ce pas? Radio Guy (talk) 07:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Who are you talking to? Turtlescrubber (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kenyan- or African-American? 

message: A good article on Obama's siblings from the Chicago Sun Times. Can this info be added? 
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/familytree/545462,BSX-News-wotrees09.stng  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.144.65.152 (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siblings 

message: The media has played a big role in shaping the campaigns of the 2008 presidential candidates.  I'd like to propose that a "Press" heading be added to the External Links section.  Here,   readers will find links to articles written by and about Obama, such as the following in Reader's Digest: http://www.rd.com/content/is-barack-obama-ready-for-the-white-house/
Adding this section will keep readers updated on the latest developments in Obama's campaign as well as provide them with insight that this Wikipedia page doesn't necessarily cover.  Thoughts on this proposal?  
Thanks, 
TraceyLynn (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good idea of course, but I'm not sure if it's appropriate for Wikipedia (especially within the realm of Wikipolitics).  In general, it's best to avoid external links that do not specifically relate to the article but rather are simply related to its subject.  Creating entire lists of such links is actively discouraged. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links - Press 

message: In the third paragraph of the political advocacy section, it states that he supports "repeal tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans..."  
I don't think there was any tax bill that explicitly cut taxes based on net worth as compared to the other 99% of Americans.  Similarly, his bill won't say, "If you are among the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans,  your tax cuts are hereby repealed."  
In fact, the federal tax system doesn't tax wealth at all, they tax income.
A better way to phrase this would be "repeal Bush's tax cuts on long term capital gains and dividend income" or "repeal Bush's 2003 income tax cuts"  or even "repeal the Bush tax cuts"
Dougiec29 (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. There is no such thing as "tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans". 24.158.137.226 (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree too, and I work part-time for H&R Block :-)  I changed it to "tax cuts said to help favor the wealthy." I think that is fair. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  biased statement on tax cuts 

message: First of all, I believe Barack Obama, Sr. deserves an article of his own as his son has a very good chance of becoming the leader of the free world. Since currently there is no article about this man, the Barack Obama, Jr. article doesn't explain what happened to his father... that he died in a car accident. I believe his dad dying in a car accident is noteworthy and belongs in the article. I don't know where in the article it fits in best though.
Also shouldn't his full name be Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. instead of just Barack Hussein Obama. In its present form the article leaves out the Jr. --Tocino 21:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On their own, neither Barack Obama, Sr., nor Ann Dunham are notable enough to have their own articles.  If all one did was be the parent of a potential (or current) president, that's not notable enough to get an article. This article already covers the notable aspects of both of Obama's parents, including that his father died in a car accident, see footnote 12, the death of his step-father, see footnote 13, and the death of his mother, included in the main text. As far as including Jr. is concerned. Barack seems to be following the model of if the Senior dies, then you drop the Jr. from your name (or if you named a son the same, you become Senior and your son becomes Junior). There aren't any official references of his name with Jr. at the end. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well George W. Bush's great-great grandfather and also his great-great-great grandfather have articles. One was a priest and the other was a merchant. If those two are notable enough to have articles then, IMO, Barack Obama's father is notable enough too. --Tocino 05:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *I think that this article probably indicates that if Obama is elected, his mother and father will probably merit articles. Until then, though, probably not so much. Bellwether BC 17:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a good reason to create an article about a non-notable person. The notability of the Bush family ends at Samuel P. Bush snd the Clinton family at Bill Clinton. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And in keeping with Othercrapexists, I've submitted Obadiah Newcomb Bush, James Smith Bush, and William Jefferson Blythe, Jr. for WP:AFD. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obadiah Newcomb Bush. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And those nominations are going down in flames particularly Clinton's dad who was also killed in a car accident.  If you write the article (which I encourage) be sure you have multiple sources.  Also be sure to read the nuthsell requirement in WP:BIO as you will need to invoke that argument when the deletionists go after you with an afd. Americasroof (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a ton of stuff out there including Obama's Grammy winning book about the relationship.  Here's an extensive article which discusses his polygamy and the claim that Obama's charm came from his biological father (again much like Clinton).  Notability is determined by third party references.  It now doubt would be flagged for afd but I think it would survive and that's wikipedia should excel at. Americasroof (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *You do realize that OCE is just an essay, by a user, right? It's not policy, nor even a guideline. Thus, it has no bearing on whether or not Obama's father is notable. I pointed to the Blythe article to show simply that other fathers of presidents (in this case, a potential president) have been deemed notable enough for an article. People point to OCE far too often as if it were come kind of policy regarding notability. It's most definitely not. Bellwether BC 16:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  His father 

message: Categorizing Obama as both an African-American Senator, and an African-American member of congress is not "duplication." They are two separate categories, with some overlap. Please stop removing his article from this appropriate category. There's no pressing need to do so, and if someone happened upon the category "African-Americans in congress" they would certainly wonder why Obama's name was not there. The article belongs in both categories. Bellwether BC 03:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added :Category:African American Senators to :Category:African Americans in the United States Congress to fix that confusion. All the people in the Senators cat are also in the other one. Please explain why the first is NOT a subcat of the other. He is a member of congress because he is a senator, no other reason, therefore since he is in one cat he (and the other 4 in both cats) should be removed from the other since it is duplication. - SimonLyall (talk) 08:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *My apologies. I was mistaken. Bellwether BC 13:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, I'll update this an the other articles. - SimonLyall (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of appropriate categories 

message: I removed the Rezko content that somebody had re-added.  This already has proper weight because it isn't a story anymore.  The news investigated it and found no wrong-doing.  That's why it isn't getting anymore coverage and that's why they subsequently published articles acknowledging that it wasn't a big deal. See here or here. johnpseudo 22:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur with removal. Tvoz |talk 23:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Agree. We discussed this extensively six months ago when it was just a minor story and it has faded significantly since then. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Don't agree. The whole matter will attract a lot more scrutiny if he becomes Democratic nominee. That much is certain. There's no suggestion of wrongdoing in what I added btw. Please don't remove unilaterally. Johnreginaldsmith (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Worth comparing this article with the one on Hillary Clinton. Her financial dealings - when controversial - are explained at some length, as is appropriate. Obama's need to be also. The sentence currently in the article describing his dealings is vague, awkwardly expressed, incomplete and appears more circumspect about the embarrassment of the Senator's business involvement with the accused fraudster than the Senator himself has been. I don't see the issue with including it. Everyone makes mistakes. Johnreginaldsmith (talk) 07:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Agree with removal. No wrong-doing = not a story. Bellwether BC 07:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I am not taking any sides here (I am too far from the US to be knowledgeable here), but your last contrib really looked poorly worded, for a BLP (moreover someone involved in an election). -- lucasbfr talk 09:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *I had been assuming good faith of JRS up to this point. It's hard to do so after the last contrib you noted. What could be the possible point of changing a neutrally-worded statement to such an inflammatory version? Bellwether BC 13:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rezko resurrection 

message: Near the foot of the page, below where it lists Illinois senators, there is the following:
#if:Doug Stanhope#if:Wes Clark ·Howard Dean ·Al Gore ·John Kerry ·Ralph Nader ·Al Sharpton#if:Other 2008 elections: House ·Senate ·Gubernatorial
The formatting looks odd, so I wonder if something has gone wrong somewhere.--217.43.162.213 (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's indeed a glitch somewhere... I'll have a look, thanks. -- lucasbfr talk 09:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently there are too many templates in the page, see Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#Template_bug_on_Barack_Obama. I let you guys handle it from here! -- lucasbfr talk 10:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I had noticed there's just an awful lot of stuff in the article.--217.43.162.213 (talk) 11:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The problem seems to have occurred after this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=182980070&oldid=182967116 Before that edit, the templates were working just fine. --Tocino 22:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the Further reading section since it seems to just be a collection of news stories. Although, if someone wants to take the time to go through and convert all of the cite templates into manual citations that's the only way to avoid this from happening in the future. My removal of the section didn't really buy that much in additional templates. See Wikipedia:Template limits for additional info about the limits in place for templates. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something gone wrong with a template? 

message: I am new to this talk section, so please forgive if I am in the wrong section. But this comes right after the name and middle name section.
Immediately after the name and middle name section and birth date a descriptor of Sen. Obama includes the words that he is the: “ the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination in the 2008 presidential election.[2][3]”
That seems biased, unsubstantiated, reflective of a personal POV during an open election and is not supported by the citations provided.
Sen. Obama may indeed be fairly called one of the leading candidates, or one of the top two candidates, but it is not certain that he is or will be “the” leading candidate.
Further, the citations provided do not support the point of view that Sen. Obama is the leading candidate.
The BBC citation [2] states that he and Sen. Hilary Clinton are leading the race for their parties’ nomination.
The second citation [3], from a pre-Iowa caucus piece, mentions the close Iowa race, which we know Sen. Obama won, but also mentions that Sen. Clinton is ahead by a wide lead nationally.
Also bundled in the third citation are a compilation of national polls the confirm that as of the date of that piece, Sen. Clinton was ahead nationally.
The Wiki piece should be non-biased and should state that Sen. Obama is one of the leading candidates, or even state, that he is one of the two leading candidates, however, the latter may not be fair to Sen. Edwards.
	
Citations:
[2]^ a b "Obama Launches Presidential Bid", BBC News, February 10, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-12-26.  Video at Brightcove.com. 
[3] ^ Saine, Cindy. "Economy, Health Care Are Top Domestic Issues for US Voters", Voice of America News, December 21, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-12-26.  For national polling data, see: "White House 2008: Democratic Nomination", Polling Report. Retrieved on 2007-12-26.  "2008 National Democratic Presidential Primary", Pollster.com. Retrieved on 2007-12-26.  Buddydog21 (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed "the" to "a". Since I have been criticized here for making too extreme and dramatic statements I feel fairly safe in following your advice and making this one more moderate, and fitting for an encyclopedia article. Even "a leading" candidate is clearly above the level of the average candidate, and doesn't exclude him from being "the" leading one. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After one state, I don't think we should call any candidate "leading". It is a subjective value judgment. There are many candidates. Paisan30 (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't object to calling him, Clinton, and Edwards "leading" to distinguish them from the other Democrats running. On the other hand, maybe it is better to let the readers make up their own minds. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''The'' leading candidate or ''a'' leading candidate 

message: And sure aren't we all when running for President! http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0315/obamab.html ; http://youtube.com/watch?v=h9GPU3g7VSM; http://paddyanglican.blogspot.com/2007/05/all-politics-is-localbarack-obama-for.html ; http://www.thechancer.ie/; http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0619/obamab.html (last June)
::So what? Paisan30 (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  He's Irish! 

message: After his victory in the Iowa caucus,wouldn't be more accurate to change from calling him a mere leading candidate to "THE" leading candidate for the Democratic nomination in the 2008 presidential election.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kigabo (talk • contribs) 15:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  and "THE" leading candidate for the Democratic nomination in the 2008 presidential election. 

message: Good faith edits should not be reverted without an appropriate edit summary. Such reversions should be used only when the edit is simply vandalism. Bellwether BC 18:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversions without edit summaries 

message: He's doing the same thing at Clinton's article. Could someone help me keep an eye on him? Bellwether BC 13:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  There's a user trying to remove "leading" from the lede of both major candidates 

message: Fortunately, it would appear a status quo has been reached on format, and explicit bias has been refrained from. Lets try and establish some authority in wikipedia. Ricxster (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, 'leading' should be removed from the Clinton & Obama articles, the Democrats have been through only 'two' contests. Perhaps we're jumping the gun folks, let's wait until after February 5th, before declaring anybody 'leading'. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think it would be useful to say "leading" for the candidates that RS's think might have a real chance of winning the nomination. That would distinguish them from the many others who are just running for fun or to make a point (I guess that's what they are doing). Steve Dufour (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But in declaring Clinton & Obama as leading candidates? it suggestes one or the other will get the nomination. That's crystal balling. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *No, it's not. It's declaring the current state of affairs, which shows those two as clearly "leading." Every poll, and both contests thus far show the same thing. Bellwether BC 17:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I disagree, as there's 48 Democratic primaries/caucuses yet to be held. But I've no intentions of editing out leading, only wanted to get my say on the matter. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *Just to be clear, are you disagreeing with the completely uncontroversial observation that Clinton and Obama are "leading" as it now stands? That seems a bit odd to me, as that's just a fact. Bellwether BC 18:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Seeing as they've more delegates then Edwards, Biden etc, I concede the argument (PS- what's their current delegate count). GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  There was a user apparently using wikipedia as a propoganda tool 

message: The lack of a "Controversires" section on this page has really helped Obama coast through the primaries with no criticism. He is now the favorite to win the nomination. Hilary's page mentions her numerous scandals. Does this strike anyone else as unfair? Ogeez (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, interesting analysis, Ogeez.  So, can we assume that Republican voters in Iowa don't read Wikipedia, leading them to vote for Mike Huckabee whose page contains a bunch of negative stuff?  Tvoz |talk 05:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't imagine a Wikipedia editor allowing his or her preferences for the outcome of a political campaign to influence his or her editing of a Wikipedia article. ;-)  Steve Dufour (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This biased page is changing election results 

message: Can we integrate this interesting story stemming from this morning's BBC interview with Raila Odinga? I would just do it, but in article this sensitive I wanted to pre-emptively discuss. Needless to say, such a claim would have a direct effect on the perception of him in East Africa. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm wondering - has Odinga's claim been verified anywhere? I haven't had a chance to research it. Tvoz |talk 17:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It has not. BBC is reporting it as a claim. So should we, see my edit to Odinga. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm- well, then to me it makes sense to have it on Odinga's page - as the person making the claim - but maybe hold off on adding it here until it's confirmed. I saw reports that Obama spoke with Odinga a few days ago about the situation in Kenya, but they didn't say anything about the claim of a familial tie.  Tvoz |talk 09:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Raila Odinga]] 

message: Is there an obligation to report a candidates failings and negatives? The Polarizing, devisive, cold automaton pretty much sums up the clinton page attacks on her character - should the quote from Obamas book ("maybe a little blow" i.e. coke) be included on his bio? He is one of the leaders, and no doubt the GOP will attack him from this angle, is it our duty to report the pros and cons of someone for the benefit and information of all. Discussion? Ricxster (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I kind of think it might be useful for each candidate to have a section on the criticisms that have been made about them. I'm not sure what WP policy would say about this. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't a hard and fast policy/guideline on the use of criticism sections, but is is discouraged and could be considered an article structure that can imply a point of view, which should be avoided. This has been fairly well beat into the ground on this talk page and the talk pages of many of the other politician articles I have on my watchlist, but general consensus/majority view seems to be that criticism/controversy sections are "A Bad Thing"TM and that it is better to integrate criticism/controversies into the existing prose of the article and/or a sub-article. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dreams From My Father 

message: The article incorrectly says "October 18th", but the note (129) correctly says it is October 3rd.  Family6Pac (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does the article say any specific date?  I see our article saying they were married in  "October 1992" without specifying the date and the note doesn't say anything about a date.  The newspaper piece it points to does indicate that the date was October 3. Tvoz |talk 09:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do see that Michelle's article had October 18 but with a citation to back it up - I've changed that article to match this one and not state a specific day. Tvoz |talk 09:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wedding date incorrect 

message: is it too early to speculate? But i think the occasion warrants reporting - he is the first black person in US with a chance at the nomination and therefore the presidency. People is the US used to kill over race lest we forget, and considering Clinton is cited as being the first woman - i think both historic possiblities should be reported. Is there consensus? Ricxster (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: May I point out, Obama isn't fully African American. Also, let's wait & see if he gets the Democratic presidential nomination first. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *You can "point out" whatever you like. If he self-identifies as African-American, and reliable sources call him this, that's what he's called for purposes of the article. Bellwether BC 19:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Identity is one thing, his actual parentage is another.  Both are relevant and both are factual.  Both should be mentioned given the significance of race in America.  It is unencyclopedic to do otherwise.  Whole truths, not half-truths. Tmangray (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are mentioned. Tvoz |talk 21:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at the top in the passage about his parentage. It was, momentarily, before you deleted it. Tmangray (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Can we please wait until somebody wins the Democratic presidential nomination, before we add in the historical details? GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  First black president? 

message: What gives with the omission of Obama's racial origins?  Isn't this a highly significant fact in the context of American race relations, especially with respect to interracial marriage and racial identity? Tmangray (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend you actually read the article and notes, and look through the archives for many discussions of this.  For starters from the article: ""I've got relatives who look like Bernie Mac, and I've got relatives who look like Margaret Thatcher. We've got it all." or how about "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.". Not enough? he is referred to as multi-racial as well as saying he is African American and black, his self-identification.  The subject is amply covered.  Tvoz |talk 20:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact is relevant at the top where you deleted the mention of race where his parentage is mentioned.  It is arguably MORE significant to mention the racial aspect than the nationality of his parents in the context of race in America.  Besides, there are white Kenyans and black Americans, so it isn't even implied by the reference to his parents' nationalities.  The fact that you feel it necessary to DELETE mention of race indicates strongly that it is in fact significant, even to you.  You say there's already a consensus on this.  I challenge that, and re-raise the issue, and propose to add the race of his parents. Tmangray (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "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.".  Tvoz |talk 21:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Is that in the intro about his parentage?  What is significant about that statement except in the context of race in America?  Obama acknowledges this, evidently, by making that statement. Tmangray (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Race 

message: So that my revision does not get immediately reverted, I would like to change the following:
"Obama came in second with 36% of the vote to Hillary Rodham Clinton's 39% and John Edwards' 17%."
to
"Obama came in second with 36% of the popular vote to Hillary Rodham Clinton's 39% and John Edwards' 17%. Obama and Clinton ended up each receiving 9 delegates from the state negating Clinton's apparent win." 
I believe this more accurately represents the outcome of the NH primary. If there are no major objections, I will make the adjustment. --Mattarata (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. It's a more accurate description. Note, though, that in the final tally Obama just barely squeaked past 36.5% so it rounds to 37% (seemingly unfair to some, probably, but we have to be consistent).  --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't agree to this change - unless we are also willing to point out that despite Obama's receiving 8 percentage points more than  Edwards in Iowa, he only got 1 more delegate, thus severly reducing Obama's win, or words to that effect. In other words, I think this reads like spin and is not neutral.  there will be plenty of time to tally up the delegates as they start to become significant - right now they hardly are, and it sounds like OR to me, with a touch of POV.  Also, as long as we're talking about the numbers - I think this rounding is an issue (although a minor one):  how is it that the New York Times final numbers show Obama with 36.5% in NH which CNN translates to 37% while the NYT shows Clinton with 29.5% in Iowa which CNN translates to 29?  I don't think you can have it both ways - either we round up or down or not at all, and I'd opt for not at all - let the real numbers and percentages stand for themselves.  I guess this is why there have been discrepancies in the NH Obama percentage points.  Thoughts?  Tvoz |talk 04:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire purpose of the election is to assign delegates to candidates so I don't see how anyone can argue that those delegate totals should be excluded from the article.  It's the result of the election and we have to accurately reflect the outcome. This was a primary, not a general election, so "winner take all" doesn't apply.    As for vote percentages, the final tally put Obama at just over 36.5% (which, when reported as rounded figures is 37%).  See my talk page for a discussion with links.  If Clinton's totals in Iowa are inaccurate, we should change them.  The important thing is that we are consistent.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: There is nothing wrong with listing delegate counts — as long as they come from reliable sources, which obviously shouldn't be a problem considering how much media coverage the Presidential nomination process gets. What we cannot do is to draw conclusions from these sources, like saying that the closeness of the delegate count "negates" someone's win. That would be original research, and is prohibited on Wikipedia. Just state the verifiable facts. "Obama came in second with 36% of the popular vote; Hillary Rodham Clinton led with 39%, and John Edwards took third place with 17%. Both Obama and Clinton received nine delegates each." *** Crotalus *** 03:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I wasn't at all clear above. What Crotalus said is what I meant.  I do not think we should avoid listing actual delegate counts, I think we should avoid spinning them with phrases like "negating Clinton's apparent win.".  And I think we should go with the actual percentages and decimals rather than having 29.5 round to 29 while 36.5 mysteriously rounds to 37  Tvoz |talk 05:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NH Results modification 

message: This section, presenting "Obama as cipher", is pure opinion. It may be based on a collection of different sourced opinions but one could just as easily put together a different set of "sources" that would argue the opposite. This section doesn't belong in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.209.220 (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...Interesting point. At one time his multi-racial/multi-cultural background was the thing most talked about. That will certainly change. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True.  But that said, Obama's heterogeneous background marks a sea change in American politics comparable to Clinton's being the first Baby Boomer president.  In a sense Obama is in his person the first globalized presidential candidate, and how various sectors of the (polled and cited) electorate take that is certainly legitimate material for Wikipedia.  How he is perceived speaks to campaign strategy, etc. kencf0618 (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural and political image 

message: I've added a temporary tag to check for POV in the article. Not including "Childhood Religion: Islam" does not count as POV. If no violations of NPOV are detected by uninvolved editors after 10 hours, I will remove the tag. Bellwether BC 16:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are misreading my 'shocking' comment.  I was shocked by how quickly a well-intended comment could be Reverted and labeled as vandalism by a high school kid in Indiana.  It gave me a sense for how politically charged this article seemed to be.  It made me wonder how Wikipedia could ever establish a proper editing forum during a hotly contested political campaign.  If this is a semi-protected article, with the Feature Article balance that you suggest, how can an editor (HoosierState) listed as a "High School Student, Liberal Democrat and Obama Supporter" have such authority.  I know the answer, but it's a little disappointing for those of us that would like to see Wikipedia evolve.Jtextor (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I have been around long enough to know what you can and cannot do on Wiki, trust me I learned the hard way around here. What does where I live, who I am, and what I support have to do with anything on Wiki because I do not see the connection. Everyone has an equal chance on here to make edits so just because I am a Democrat (Obama Supporter) or a High School student does not make me "ineligible" to make contributions to Barack Obama. Also sorry to say you also avoided my question and if you know the answer why don't you share it with the rest of us. HoosierState 16:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The article is not neutral because it deliberately omits information about Obama's childhood Muslim history which is controversial due to his run for the US presidency. Evidently some editors are determnined to remove any references to that part of Obama's life.--CltFn (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That small part does not count as POV. Also Jtextor already said he dropped that. HoosierState 17:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *Thanks for removing it. I got busy with some RL issues, and was just coming online to check about it when I noticed it had been removed. Bellwether BC 06:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  pov-check tag added 

message: I came to this article to get some basic information on this candidate in my preparation to vote in the primaries. I found this very hard to do.
*The opening section is full of selective highlighting of positive traits.
*The article talks very little about what he did between graduating from Harvard Law School and entering the Illinois State Senate. During those several years when he wasn't a civil rights lawyer, was his primary occupation that of a lecturer at UC Law?
*His place of residence is not elaborated on in the body of the text. What part of Chicago does he live in? Does he reside there often? How accessible was he to his constitutency when he was representing that South Side district in the State Senate?
*A vague reference is made to his parents being "middle class". However, this reference comes straight from his book, and the parent's occupations are never given. Information on the grandparents and their economic status is also lacking, as are the dad's post-U.S. activities.
*The section on Obama's political views is disorganized (unrelated issues in the same paragraph), flows poorly, and again seems to highlight information that his campaign wants to play up on. Things that have historically not been a problem or issue in the United States, such as "net neutrality", are highlighted and emphasized to appeal to that demographic of voters.
*A concise summary of his main issues seems to be lacking. I see one paragraph listing a couple key issues at the end of the introduction, and I see a whole lot of detail in the "political advocacy" section, but a medium-depth, concise overview of his main political agenda seems to be absent.
As a tertiary source, Wikipedia should be an excellent place to get a CONCISE and OBJECTIVE overview of a politician and their political positions. I don't feel that this article does a good job of this. As a former editor, I know a lot of work goes into featured articles, so my apologies in advance for my hopefully constructive criticism. 72.130.68.127 (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disappointing Article 

message: Someone needs to wikify the notes. I can't find out where the mistake is.  --Sevvvy (talk) 12:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. --HailFire (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Notes Section looks bad bad bad 

message: At what point does Wiki intervene when content disputes seem hopeless?  Does anyone ever really believe it's possible for a politician's biography to be accurately represented in an open/anonymous editing environment during an open election?  Is this not the first presidential election since Wiki became a really big deal (and apparently now a political tool)?  Face it, opposing sides of this campaign will never agree on the truth...whatever that may be. Just an independent perspective...one of the few on this board.76.108.82.49 (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikimedia rarely steps in on it's own accord to initiate dispute resolution, it is generally up to the participants of a dispute to request outside opinions via the dispute resolution process. The first step of this process is to try and talk it out on the talk page, if that fails, then third opinions can be sought, or a request for comment can be requested if a larger pool of opinions is wanted. In the case of this content dispute, an RFC is probably the best route as adding one more editor's opinion is not likely to resolve the issue. --Bobblehead (rants) 01:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How many times do we have say that this has nothing do with any campaign?  76.108..., you actually have no idea who the individual editors are supporting in this election, if anyone.  You may think you do, but I assure you, you don't.  This article is edited by people who also edit other politicians' articles, and some of us have been accused of working on their campaigns as often and as vehemently as we're accused of working on this one. Sometimes in the same day.  You say you are one of the few independents here - but in fact you have no way of knowing that, and I for one would appreciate it if people wouldn't make unwarranted assumptions.  Tvoz |talk 04:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal favorite was when I was informed that the only reason I wanted something included in an article was because I was a Democrat one day and then several days later I was informed the only reason I wanted something removed from the same article was because I was a Republican. --Bobblehead (rants) 04:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was seperately accused of working for the Obama campaign and the Huckabee campaign on the same day! Quick accusations of "working for" a candidate are nothing more than assumptions of bad faith. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *I don't mind putting my political affiliations out there. I'm an independent-minded Democrat. I've had the right to vote since 1992, and have been a registered Democrat since. I voted for, in this order: Clinton; Dole (I'm from Kansas); Bush (hated Gore); Bush (hated Kerry); and now I'll support Obama or McCain if they're put forward. If both are put forward, I'll have a tough call. If neither are put forward, I'll have just as tough a call. The only candidate I will not vote for, no matter what, is Romney. Too much like Kerry and Gore for my tastes. Bellwether BC 15:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully, whichever candidate gets the Democratic nomination, his/her article won't get too bloated. That's what happen to the John Kerry article, during the 2004 election. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki Content Mediation 

message: Editors may wish to be aware that Barack Obama media controversy has been nominated for deletion - please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama media controversy. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion debate for [[Barack Obama media controversy]] 

message: Just throwing it out there, Most major politicions here have a critisism section. What makes Obama differant? KingsOfHearts (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, none of the presidential candidates have a criticism section and with good reason.  Use of a criticism sections is very poor encyclopedic style and usually just become a POV-fork or a troll magnet.  It is much better (albeit harder) to weave the criticism into the relevant sections of the article than to simply provide a "list" of negative comments that other people have made. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: In most cases those sections in politician's bios were just renamed but are really still criticism sections. Check out the extensive criticism section of John McCain (now labeled "Cultural and political image") or the "Criticism and public perception" section on George W. Bush. The standard on this in Wikipedia is all over the map. For example, the criticism section on Al Gore was moved to a separate article and then at some point deleted; the argument being that the criticisms would be integrated into the article (which never happened). I understand the argument against criticism sections as they seem to ignite flame wars and NPOV arguments, but I'd also note that a lot of articles on political candidates on Wikipedia read more like upbeat press releases than neutral overviews of the subject's life.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.231.129 (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critisism of Obama 

message: I restored the Save Darfur image that was recently removed from the political advocacy section without an edit summary.  This biography article already has three images from Obama's 2008 presidential campaign. The Save Darfur rally photo dating from April 2006 and uploaded to Wikimedia by the photographer illustrates the adjoining text and adds useful content. Open to hearing other views. --HailFire (talk) 07:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I noticed that last week but was too busy to bring it up.  The Save Darfur photo is unique and relates to the section while ordinary campaign photos are a dime a dozen.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Save Darfur rally image 

message: Baraka Obama does not intend to provide an universal healthcare plan anymore but just an extended one
(Reference: his own ads on CNN and his own statement on a public debate: CNN, 01/21/08)Japbnc (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  healthcare 

message: Although ostensibly about Tony Rezko, that article is quickly becoming a POV dumping ground for all things Obama.  When I looked at it this morning, the section on Obama was twice as long as the section on Rezko (whom the article is actually supposed to be about).  There seems to be an attempt to add any attack of Obama, as long as it mentions Rezko's name, regardless of whether it is based on new information, or that which has already been covered.  Additionally, an anonymous editor is actually trying to claim that Obama is "under investigation by the Feds."  The article is exhibiting all of the problems which led to the consensus for dismantling all the "Criticism of..." articles. Rezko is notable of course, but the article needs serious work and the attention of good editors. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rezko article becoming a POV fork of this article. 

message: The section on Obama in the Illinois State Senate currently states that he voted "Present" on abortion-related legislation, and that this is seen as controversial, but does not provide the context of the votes.  Obama voted "Present" along with a number of other pro-choice Democrats as a tactical move at the request of pro-choice groups like Planned Parenthood.  A good write-up of the issue (written during the 2004 Illinois Senate Primary, but recently reprinted), can be found here:  http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2007/12/disparagement-o.html.  It would be great if someone could include this information, as I have been seeing this argument a lot lately.  8.11.254.188 (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that source, added here. --HailFire (talk) 07:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Present" Votes