Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 6

message: I think the 2008 presidential run should be broken out into it's own seciton.  The Obama page is already quite long, and the information about the 2008 presidential election is just going to continue to grow and grow.  Plus, this would allow his basic "biography" to become pretty stable, while most of the new stuff would be going into the election run article. Anyone agree? Bjewiki 23:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well. Should  be added to the section now? -Fadookie Talk 12:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Page: "2008 Presedential Election Campagn"?  

message: Obama became president of Harvard Law Review in 1990 and graduated HLS in 1991. As I said in edit summary, obviously being presisdent of HLR is a good credential for anyone wanting to get a book publishing contract - Law Review is a writing gig, and editing it and being elected president indicates writing skills, and his election brought hi some notice as was stated in the section about his HLR presidency.  Dreams was published in 1995 - I just don't see a clear connection to HLR presidency, nor any relevance to it - so is there a citation that can illuminate why his HLR presidency should be juxtaposed with the book deal?  It sounded to me like something was being implied by the juxtaposition and I don't know what that is, or if it should be there. So I removed it, but am interested to know why it was put in and then reinstated. The edit summary said "Harvard Law Review part is relevant, it's how he got his book deal to write Dreams from My Father" but that's not self-explanatory.  Thanks Tvoz | talk 23:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the preface to Dreams he says that he got the deal as a direct result of his presidency.  I'll quote the relevant section later tonight.  —bbatsell ¿? 23:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's actually the introduction, not the preface, and I'm not sure how much I can quote (if any at all) in talkspace, so I'll summarize that page xiii states that he received offers from "a few publishers" during his third year at Harvard Law, and agreed to not seek employment for a year after law school during which he would write a book.  I haven't re-read the whole introduction, but to my recollection there is no explanation for the large disparity in time between graduation and publication.  —bbatsell ¿? 23:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks - but I'm still not clear on why it's notable for inclusion here. I hope User:Political Junkie or anyone else will weigh in too. I do think the section reads well now, with just the straightforward facts about the books. 23:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it reads fine now but I don't have a problem at all saying that he was offered the book deal because of his presidency of HLR.  Otherwise a reader could be left wondering why a Chicago lawyer got a book deal about his childhood and adolescence seemingly out of the blue.  (That is to say, I think that needs to be explicitly stated with the book cited as the source rather than the other text, as it is equally as unclear.)  —bbatsell ¿? 23:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: At this link, it says "the opportunity to write the book came while I was in law school, the result of my election as the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review . In the wake of some modest publicity, I received an advance from a publisher...".  However, I can't explain the time discrepancies.  Still, I think it is an important fact to put it in for the reason Bbatsell put forth. - PoliticalJunkie 20:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  book deal-Harvard Law Review connection? 

message: I don't know if any of the info is usable in this article, but the LA Times had nice story about Obama's two years at Occidental College. See Occidental remembers ‘Barry’ Obama. BlankVerse 06:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added in this footnote. --HailFire 14:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occidental College 

message: Did he ever run as anything else prior to or afterwards.  I took the liberty of making a minor change (Obama was elected to the Illinois state senate in 1996.) but, it was reverted by someone.  So I just thought I'd ask to clarify.  Shakam 06:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you wanting to remove it?  —bbatsell ¿? 20:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was his first race, and it's helpful to note what party he ran under.  Remember, we're writing for a theoretical reader who knows nothing about Obama, not somebody who knows everything about him.  —bbatsell ¿? 20:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In 1996 Obama was elected to the Illinois state senate as a Democrat.  

message: Lots more to add. Any of you who know how to format the refs could help. I promise to learn how to  so properly soon. Obama_madrassa_media_scandal Are we allowed to use a vid cap from the CNN report showing the school? - Fairness & Accuracy For All 08:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably.  Perhaps the fair use police would cause a stir, but I doubt any free use pictures of the school can be created or found anytime soon. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, a link to the media scandal article really needs to be worked into this article.  After a brief glance, I'm really not sure where it would fit best. · j e r s y k o talk · 16:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Started new article: 'Obama madrassa media scandal' 

message: [this was inadvertently placed in my talk page archive, but I think it belongs here] 
Hey
You're absolutely right. I'm sorta new to the editing game. As you can probably tell all I want to do is add portions of Senator Obama's Oct. 2002 iraq speech to this page. I believe it belongs and I think I did a good job with the content just not with the formatting, as you point out.
User:208.46.38.66 19:09, 31 January 2007
:User:Gdo01 and I have each removed the posts - it was not properly posted (see )  as it stepped on text and notes.  But do we include it due to length considerations?  We do include his early opposition to the war, appropriately - I'm not sure that we need the speech excerpts.  ANyone else? Tvoz | talk 05:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the length concerns.  I wouldn't be opposed to linking to the speech, however, and agree that the article should discuss his early war opposition. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  obama iraq speech 

message: Any ideas about how to write up Joe Biden's effusiveness the other day, when he said Obama was "well spoken ... and ... clean?"  Biden has really been taking a beating over the gaffe. As he should. ObamaNation 01:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ehh.  Seems like a case of recentism to me.  If it's going to be somewhere, Biden's article would be more appropriate, though maybe not even there.  Certainly not here. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If anywhere, it would go in an article about the 2008 presidential election (assuming it covered primaries).  Don't think it belongs either here or at Joe Biden (except maybe to note that his announcement got off to a rocky start, citing the NYT and other places that covered that aspect of it).  —bbatsell ¿? 02:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Belongs at Biden's article, given the notable controversy it created during his announcement, for sure. Italiavivi 17:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Joe Biden's "support"

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

message: I took out:
: In 2004 , the NBC sitcom Will & Grace played on then-Senator-Elect Obama's charisma and appeal when Grace mentioned having a dream about being in the shower with Obama in which he was "Ba-racking my world!"http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6732724/site/newsweek/
I don't think it added much to the article. Steve Dufour 20:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  I think it used to add something to the article when Obama was a relative unknown - the fact that his name was mentioned on Will & Grace was notable.  Now that his face regularly appears in Time, I think one sitcom joke no longer seems very important to the article. --TheOtherBob 20:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I also find the joke offensive since Senator Obama is a married man.  However I didn't think that would fly as a reason to take it out. :-)  Steve Dufour 17:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Took out joke

message: So I cut out:
:In  2006, Obama was featured in a television commercial for ESPN's Monday Night Football game between his hometown Chicago Bears and the St. Louis Rams. The faux political announcement played on the frenzy surrounding him and his possible presidential candidacy. "So tonight I'd like to put all the doubts to rest," he said. "I would like to announce to my hometown of Chicago and all of America that I am ready... for the Bears to go all the way, baby." Video at Obama 2010 Re-Election Campaign. Retrieved on 2007-01-23.
Nothing wrong with it, but when Obama makes a formal announcement of his candidacy it will seem kind of trivial.  The same if he decides not to.  Besides the Bears didn't win the Super Bowl after all, although I was rooting for them too. Steve Dufour 20:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Football season is over

message: Excellently put together. One suggestion: I think Barack_obama#Controversy is a bit thin air, and even admits as much: "The Tribune's report does not accuse Obama of any wrongdoing or unethical conduct and no evidence to the contrary has been uncovered." I think we need to either slim this down or remove it entirely (I'm sure we'll have enough mud in the air to satisfy those who require a "butontheotherhand" section when the race gets going!) I don't want to remove this because I'm sure a heavily-watched article will require plenty of horse-trading which I don't have time for (right now.) Sdedeo (tips) 08:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this comment - it's a non-controversy. Tvoz | talk 08:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also support the removal of this non-notable non-controversy, should debate come up over it in the future. Italiavivi 17:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Does he still retain the language? Or has it sort of faded away? Does anybody know? Wareq 11:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Next time he speaks to an audience of Indonesian Americans we will find out. :-)  Steve Dufour 17:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speaking the bahasa 

message: :"Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Illinois State Comptroller Daniel Hynes were early advocates for a 2008 Obama presidential run.Babington, Charles. "Obama's Profile Has Democrats Taking Notice: Popular Senator Is Mentioned as 2008 Contender," Washington Post, June 18, 2006, Page A01McQueary, Kristen. Obama, Hynes now war buddies, Daily Southtown, December 10, 2006. Retrieved on January 13, 2007 Commentators have suggested that Obama's chances to be elected president would be better in 2008 than in 2012 or later. In an October 2006 editorial published in the Chicago Tribune, Newton Minow compared prospects for a 2008 Obama presidential bid to John F. Kennedy's successful 1960 presidential campaign.Minow, Newton N. "Why Obama should run for president," Chicago Tribune October 26, 2006 A December 2006 op-ed by conservative columnist George Will detailed four reasons why he thinks now is a good time for Obama to run for president.Will, George F. "Run Now, Obama," Washington Post, December 14, 2006 In a December 2006 cover story headlined "The Race is On", Newsweek magazine columnist Jonathan Alter asked: "Is America Ready for Hillary or Obama?"Jonathan Alter, Is America Ready?, Newsweek, December 25, 2006 - January 1, 2007. Retrieved on January 17, 2007."
This seems to be last year's opinions.  I'm not sure it is of much interest anymore.  I will remove it in the next day or two if no one objects. Steve Dufour 01:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I'm not sure about this one - I think we sort of do a dance between having very current up-to-the-minute information and having some longer perspective.  Of course we need to be current, but we can't and shouldn't try to be a news-source - I don't think the article needs to list his day-to-day schedule of appearances as we are veering toward, and perhaps some of the older information gives a needed perspective on his candidacy or potential candidacy.  So I personally wouldn't be so quick to remove last year's news if it gives insight into how he came to be in the position he now is in - maybe shorten it, but I wouldn't want to completely lose all of the nuance of the lead-up to his announcement. An encyclopedia should have that depth, I think.  I know some are concerned about length issues, but let's not let that get in the way of keeping some historical perspective.   I mean this as an over-all comment, actually - I'm not saying this particular graf  is necessarily essential. Also, we do want some stability in the article - especially in light of the FAR discussions we just came out of.  Let's see what others think. Tvoz | talk 02:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the article needs to talk about his whole life and career.  This one paragraph seems to be mainly other people's opinions about his possible presidential run.  When this really starts their opinions will not be so important. Steve Dufour 04:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Steve, you didn't want to wait to see what others thought? Tvoz | talk 21:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

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

message: There are future dates supplied in that paragraph along with citations. The election is months off. The future tag should not be removed until events play out. Ronbo76 00:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future items in this article -  specifically presidential run 

message: Just wondering if there's an Obama supporter template for me to add to my user page?? thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mattbray (talk • contribs) 09:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just made one at User:Wizardman/Obama.--Wizardman 17:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obama "User Supporter" Template?? 

message: Has Obama taken any stance on this? if anyone knows. Chris M. 17:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If he is smart he will not take a stance. :-)  Steve Dufour 18:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, true. Chris M. 06:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: The word "drugs" does not appear on the Obama page.  Can I at least find out how he stands on marijuana?  I am very upset by this censorship of a supposed open encyclopedia.
Why isn't there a section in "personal life" which speaks about his struggles with drugs and tobacco like in the Bush wiki page? --69.244.153.46 22:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because Bush was still having "problems" when he was 40. Gdo01 23:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or because Obama doesn't appear to have "struggled" with substances, just played with them as a teen. 71.198.52.89 23:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another reason is that Bush was actually arrested and recorded while under the influence of substances. Most people didn't even have any concrete proof of Obama's drug use until he admitted it in his books. Gdo01 23:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Personal life" section does make mention of his past marijuana use.  While I wish editors here would make his (very notable) "I inhaled frequently that was the point" quote more easily located, it's covered.  So far's his tobacco use goes, see the discussion at WP:SMOKERS.  Suffice to say, consensus appears to be against including tobacco use in most articles by default. Italiavivi 23:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: drug history

message: (Cross-posted to Talk:John Howard.)
Today, Australian Prime Minister John Howard unleashed a pretty scathing criticism of Senator Obama, including saying that "If I was running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats" and "I think that would just encourage those who wanted to completely destabilise and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and victory for those terrorists, to hang on and hope for an Obama victory."  Australian Labor Party opposition leader Kevin Rudd's response can be found here.
This is an unusually partisan criticism from a foreign head of state, is it notable for inclusion? Italiavivi 17:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I imagine it probably should be included somewhere.  Perhaps in Howard's article as well as Obama's.  As a side note, wow, that's an absolutely . . . idiotic statement by Howard.  I wonder which Bush staffer wrote it for him? · j e r s y k o talk · 18:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this is in direct response to Obama's Iraq War bill, it should be noted directly after that in the article. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And Obama's response can be found here --203.214.52.179 12:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: i think howards comments should be included. its been a major point on both sides. also to Jersyko. keep personal comments out of it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eevo (talk • contribs) 15:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, though it's hardly a "personal comment" if I'm talking about a public figure.  Regardless, Wiki is not a soapbox, so I struck the relevant portion of my comment. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Mr. Howard is not a Head of State; he is Australia's Head of Government.  (Most countries' political systems differentiate between those two roles.)  I do find Mr. Howard's comment noteworthy and suprising, and unless Mr. Obama had directly criticized Australia or Mr. Howard, I think his comment is totally inappropriate.  Now, if Australia's actual Head of State had made a comment like this, it would be jaw-droppingly shocking. --thirty-seven 05:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except The Queen's role as head of state in Australia is equivalent to her role in that of the UK. She does appoint the Governor-General, but since the '30's the selection is made by the PM and the Queen gives her blessing.  So essentially, Howard is the most powerful person in Australia and his criticizing Obama is equivalent to Blair doing likewise, correct? --Bobblehead 22:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is correct: the position and power of the prime minister in Australian government and society is almost exactly equivalent to the prime minister in British government and society. --thirty-seven 22:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Obama criticized by Australia's Prime Minister

message: Just a quick follow-up on some of the controversy points.  I don't think the madrassa story has any real purpose appearing here.  The real estate deal seems significant enough, however.  The story about the Rezkos, whether or not Obama did anything improper, did consume significant media attention for a lengthy period of time, and Obama apologized for it.  As one article has summarized,
 The first crisis of Obama’s Senate tenure unfolded right before last November’s election. A Chicago newspaper reported Obama closed on his $1.65 million Hyde Park home the same day in June 2005 that campaign fundraiser Antoin “Tony” Rezko closed on an adjoining vacant parcel from the same owner. Obama got a discount of about $300,000 from the list price, while Rezko, a developer, paid the full price of $625,000. Obama acknowledged he tipped off his acquaintance Rezko to the land’s availability.
Rezko, who was under federal investigation at the time the two closed on their purchases, was indicted last October on charges he tried to use his influence with Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich to shake down companies who wanted state business for campaign contributions and kickbacks.
In between the home closing and Rezko’s indictment, Obama bought a strip of land from Rezko to augment his side yard. When the deal became public, Obama apologized and called it a boneheaded move.
I don't see anything on the Talk page that fits what's been claimed earlier: "As for the non-story concerning his house, it was determined to be non-notable."  By whom?  In November 2006, consensus was reached on an archived section of the Talk page, and the rewrite to neutralize the POV looked like this:
On November 1, 2006 the Chicago Tribune reported that Obama's home in the South Side neighborhood of Chicago was purchased the same day as an adjoining vacant lot owned by the wife of Antoin Rezko, an Illinois businessman charged with political influence peddling, and a past contributor to Obama's election campaigns.Ray Gibson and David Jackson, Rezko owns vacant lot next to Obama's home, Chicago Tribune, November 1, 2006 Two days after the report, the same newspaper ran an editorial calling on Obama to explain why he would "allow himself any connection" to a developer who "notoriously attaches himself to political figures, often parlaying friendships into business dealings that have attracted official suspicions for several years."Editorial Staff, Obama, Rezko ..., Chicago Tribune, November 3, 2006 The following day the Chicago Tribune reported Obama's statement that it was a mistake to have engaged "in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow [Rezko], or anyone else, to believe that he had done me a favor. For that reason, I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it."Ray Gibson and David Jackson, Obama: I regret deals with Rezko, Chicago Tribune, November 5, 2006
I recommend that's placed back in the main section, as agreed upon on the Talk page in November 2006 as cited above, and with neutral POV language. --Zz414 19:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See discussion titled "comments from visiting editor."  In that discussion, even User:Tvoz and myself agree on the suggestion to remove. Italiavivi 22:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rezko real estate deal

message: Appears to be some vandalism on the first line. Could someone please fix this?
Thank You —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.108.253.233 (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandal 

message: I don't think it is wise to put the Signature of him (or anyone else for that matter) on Wikipedia.  It's too much of a risk.  Someone can use that in forgery/identity theft attempts.  It's a liability, unless given permission by the person (who acknowledges the risks involved in such an action) I think the signatures should be taken down.
-theropisssed@yahoo.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.78.228.43 (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's common practice for politicians, and because they sign so many autographs anyway, there's little to no reason to believe that a picture of a signature in a Wikipedia article will increase the risk of identity theft.  But mainly, it's hosted on his own senate website here, so clearly there's no reason to believe Obama is worried about ID theft. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

message: ;NO
Worth a mention? For those of us that live outside the US, that was the 1st time he graced our TV sets. And what exactly was the occasion. (Looked for it on google and youtube, can't find it now).--nocturnal  omnivorous canine 13:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was a mini-controversy about someone else.  Nothing to do with Obama at all. Steve Dufour 13:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A very long article about it here. Rather shocking it was such a big issue IMHO Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress. I would think in most other modern demoracies, people would say the commentators who complained were idiots, ignore them from now on and move on right from the beginning. Nil Einne 17:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but it WASN'T OBAMA. Tvoz | talk 18:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sworn in on a Quran? 

message: I cut out: "If elected, he would become the first biracial president of the United States of America."  I don't think he is especially noted for this.  Besides the word "biracial" is so vague.  I'm sure that some past presidents have ancestors of more than one race. Steve Dufour 14:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Biracial" is a very vague, agreed. Chris M. 14:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have less objection if it said the first "black" or "non-white" president, or even "the first president of color". :-)  Steve Dufour 14:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think sayign non-white would work best, since at least we can all agree that that's true.--Wizardman 18:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think having the sentence removed completely as it is now (last I looked) is the best solution. I'm sorry I didn't do that last night, but there were so many edits and reversions that I couldn't quickly see  when that line had even gotten into the graf (one of my prime reasons for supporting sprot as everyone here has read me say too often) - so I removed the ridiculous redundancy of "biracial" and "non-white", and intended to come back today and see how it got there.  So again, I think taking the line out completely, leaving the text as we have had it,  is the correct way to go right now. Tvoz | talk 18:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Should we include in this article that Obama is the first mainstream Presidential candidate who has admitted drug use, marijuana and cocaine?  I think this is an important piece of information, considering the federal regulations refusing special security clearances, such as those needed by a President, to specific types of drug use.  This may be a major issue during the race.  This is the very reason that Clinton "did not inhale" and Bush "did not use cocaine".
Any Thoughts?  - Eisenmond 18:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the idea that a serving President of the United States (the man with his finger on the red button, let's remember) would be denied security clearances is bizarre and totally a non-issue.  The denials of previous presidents (presuming they actually were users) would have been for purely political reasons, and nothing to do with security clearances.--Pharos 19:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The article already discusses Obama's admission of marijuana and cocaine use as a teen. I don't see a need to give that fact any more weight by labeling him the first presidential candidate to admit as much (and wasn't Clinton's statement essentially an admission? What about Bush's declining to discuss whether he used any illegal drugs before 1974? my point is that the lines are probably a bit fuzzy here to label one of them a "first"). Are reliable sources discussing Obama's alleged "first" in respect to it being a "first"? I haven't seen any.  And I completely agree with Pharos in re the security clearances non-issue. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Folks, Al Gore acknowledged marijuana use.  So did John Kerry, Howard Dean, and John Edwards - I think those three did so in a "Rock the Vote" debate.  They all are as mainstream as you can get, so can we please give up on this and move on?  Tvoz | talk 19:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I have heard that Washington and Jefferson also used marijuana. :-) Steve Dufour 01:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cocaine use is pretty heavy stuff still and propably should be included no? Ecostaz 16:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He never used cocaine. His book states that he almost did but he never touched the stuff. So much distortion is concentrated on this one man, we really need to double check everything before we start making accusations. Gdo01 16:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the clarification, i wasn't aware of that. Ecostaz 16:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I'm wrong he did do cocaine but he rejected heroin. Anyway read through the article, the marijuana and cocaine use is already in there. Gdo01 16:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drug Use 

message: I've inserted article links to Obama's parents, his step father, and his father's village, even though these articles don't yet exist on Wikipedia.  These subjects are all notable insofar as they influenced Obama, and are frequent subjects of discussion in the media.  Those looking for information, for example, about whether Obama's step-father was a dedicated Wahabbist (as conservative talk radio has claimed) should be able to turn to wikipedia to find information about Lolo Soetero.  Same goes for Obama's mother and father and his father's villiage (which I've seen on the television news here in the US).  Quality articles on these subjects will be of great use in the discussions of Ombama's background which will inevitably be a feature of American political life for the next year or two.  ThaddeusFrye 22:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Our Manual of Style encourages against overlinking, and I don't know that any of Obama's family is notable enough with regard to Wikipedia's policies on notability.  Obviously his family is going to be mentioned peripherally sometimes when Obama is mentioned, but I'm not certain how likely it is that they will ever receive attention as primary subjects (rather than as Obama's family).  Redlinking to articles that don't exist and possibly won't ever exist doesn't help the article, in my humble opinion.  If those articles are created, and their notability established, then I have not one problem with linking to them, but at present, that is not the case.  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I reverted before noticing that you had posted here, sorry. They aren't notable just because they "influenced Obama". In fact, if their notability is entirely tied to being related to Obama, they certainly shouldn't have articles here, in my opinion. I'm just not sure if there are multiple, non-trivial sources that discuss these people in detail. One caveat: I'm not saying that his economist father shouldn't have an article, though, but I know nothing about his work as an economist and whether it is encyclopedic. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that the amount of discussion of these subjects in the media, as well as the number of google hits on them would in most cases be sufficient to establish notability.  Additionally, all are discussed in Obama's published works.  Most importantly however, all of these subjects are difficult to find reliable information about and subject to media rumors.  Wikipedia can perform a valuable role in collecting and making available accurate information about these subject of wide public interest.  While I agree that the article is now somewhat overlinked, I also think that links to non-existent articles are useful pointers towards where more work need to be done, and that including them is therefore quite important.  (Alego, for example seems to be quite a very obscure village; however perhaps after seeing a red link, someone with access to good information on Kenya will be able to supply its location and a description.)  Obama's candidacy has placed particular importance on his family background, and interest in these figures is sure to be significant.  Whether or not we feel that the public *should* take an interest in these figures, Wikipedia will imo
best serve its purpose as a useful reference tool by providing information about them (including the information that articles on these subjects still need to be written). ThaddeusFrye 00:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: His family is probably all non-notable, but I think it would be great to have an article on Alego, his father's hometown.  We have comparable articles on many very small towns in the US.--Pharos 00:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we are overlinked already, and unless someone has enough information to warrant writing separate articles, any stubs that just say Ann Dunham was Obama's mother, for example , will be merged back to here anyway.  If, however, as Jersyko suggests, there is something notable to write an article about, then I hope someone will  write it and we would link to it.  As it stands now, I think adding red links is implying that there is notability without any evidence. Tvoz | talk 00:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree 100% that his family members should not have articles.  However I am almost sure that they will. Al Gore's non-notable son and George Bush's daughters have 'em. Steve Dufour 01:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but what about W's mom and dad?  Oh wait . . . · j e r s y k o talk · 01:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GW's daughters at least make the news every once and a while with their illegal antics, whereas Gore's son and Obama's parents aren't really that notable. Darthgriz98 04:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, actually Gore's son was in the news a fair amount, so if the daughters have articles it kind of makes sense for the son too.  I would guess that Bill Clinton's mother has an article, becsause she was a personality that was known to the country, like Miss Lillian (let's see how many old folks know who I mean)...  Obama's mother, however, is unknown to the world, as far as I know, so I await with bated breath what her article would be. Tvoz | talk 04:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That makes sense to me. Tvoz | talk 19:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm really somewhat mystified that several people have asserted that Obama's partents and step-parents are non-notable, without proving any rationale for their claim.  It would seem that according to the standards of Wikipedia:Notability (people), these persons (like his father's village) quite clearly fall within the usual guidelines for notability.  A notable person is one who, for example: "has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person."  Hundreds or thousands of discussions (already) of these persons in radio and on television seem quite clearly to establish notability based on this criterion.  On a more abstract level, this information seems clearly to pass the "100 years test," given that those interested in the biographies of famous persons always find information such as this of use.  Frankly, I find the refusal to admit notablity in these cases irresponsible, given the enormous amount of speculative public discussion now taking place about these people.  Also, I find it ironic that those Obama himself acknowledges to have had a a crucially formative influence on him seem to have been judged less notable than the creators of obscure CD's, web comics, etc. who are routinely included in Wikipedia.  Surely raising Barack Obama is as notable as putting together a college band, especially since Obama himself emphasizes the importance of his parents in the formation of his character and beliefs.  Finally, I have a disturbing sense that some may be averse to including links to articles that don't yet exist for purely aesthetic reasons, or that they might make the article "look bad" as an encyclopedia article.  I hope I'm wrong about that, as of course the omission of links in order to make a good impression on readers would be a very bad and irresponsible practice.  ThaddeusFrye 03:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not go overboard here.  Do we have an article on Alexander Hamilton's absentee father?  Oh, and talk radio doesn't count as "non-trivial published works", as it's (1) trivial and (2) non-published.  I say we reconsider the family articles if he's elected.  I still support the article on his father's village in Kenya, which would be notable by our standards whether or not any American politician's father came from there.--Pharos 17:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you Pharos, although I sympathize with Thaddeus.  There are way too many non-notable people with articles here.  I have nominated a couple for deletion.  What happens is the fans of the person vote to keep, and make me feel guilty for hurting their feelings. :-)  Steve Dufour 17:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to Obama's Parents, Etc. 

message: *Support.  My rationale for inclusion is outlined above. Italiavivi 23:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, I did not mean to use the word "section," and have changed the wording above. Italiavivi 12:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Barack Obama's current effort to quit smoking is notable enough for inclusion within the article.

message: *Support. This information does not need to be included in the article. It is of a trivial nature and while some may find it important or interesting Wikipedia should not seek to be a comprehensive source of information about a living person. Other sources such as the "60 Minutes" interview are available for people to obtain the information from if in their POV it is important. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 02:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment I don't think it is as much a matter of reliable sources as it a question of whether the fact is of a trivial nature and I agree that it does not meet notability. We should give serious consideration to whether this fact would have been part of the article had it not made the news as newsworthiness is not the same thing as notability. Edward Lalone | (Talk)
*Support it really doesn't add much to the article to add it. Darthgriz98 03:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Barack Obama's current effort to quit smoking is NOT notable enough for inclusion within the article.

message: WP:NOTABILITY says the following:  "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other."  It also states that "If there are multiple independent reliable published sources that have a topic as their subject, this is not changed by the frequency of coverage decreasing. Thus, if a topic once satisfied the primary notability criterion, it continues to satisfy it over time."
Question: How much more must Barack and Michelle Obama discuss his decision to quit smoking publicly with the media before it is considered notable enough for inclusion within Wikipedia?  Does the fact that he has campaign supporters on his campaign site running a "quit smoking with Barack" drive not factor into this in any way?  My fellow editors invoke WP:NOTABILITY, but I do not understand their interpretation of the policy. Italiavivi 03:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would appreciate you not disrupting a discussion just to make a point.  If you are more comfortable with that title, and the title will help you get back to the subject at hand, it does not bother me though. Italiavivi 05:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment I am not disrupting the discussion by making a point that I want to discuss. You don't decide what course this discussion will take or what I am allowed to make a point about. Also, I was discussing the subject at hand which is notability. It may not be what you want me to say but it is what I did say and it was a point that goes directly to the issue of notability or non-notability. You did not have to respond to my comment if you considered it something that had no bearing on what you wanted to discuss as you are free to discuss or not discuss whatever you choose. I on the other hand do not consider my comments a disruption to a discussion I am having. If you don't want to discuss what I had just said than don't respond to it. You don't have to be so uncivil to accuse me of disrupting a discussion that I am a part of. In fact, I could just as easily consider you comments to be taking away from my main point and therefore be a disruption but I don't. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 05:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *Answer I know that I personally do not understand your interpretation of policy and I am sure other editors feel the same way. What campaigns are being conducted on the Obama website of which I am a member has no bearing on whether this fact is notable. This isn't Obama's campaign website. We aren't here to promote Obama or to draw attention to his personal goals, or his personal decision to quit smoking even if he and his supporters choose to draw attention to it. So to your question about his supporters conducting a quit smoking campaign factoring into this I have to say that it does not as this isn't Obama's campaign website. Also, the amount of media coverage of a fact does not equate to it being a topic (i.e, Obama is a topic as opposed to his quitting smoking not being a topic). Being an active member of Obama's website I ask you where exactly is this so-called "campaign." I am not saying that it isn't on the website but that I who have been actively involved on his website have not yet come across it. As far as I can see it is not a part of his static content. If it is something that we are doing on the blogs and in the groups than it has no right to be included based on that. Obama doesn't even mention smoking on his health care page. Doing a search of BarackObama.com gets no search return for the word smoking and when you use the word "smoke" returns three mentions of it on his website which have no bearing on his quitting smoking. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 05:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguments against non-notability

message: Is it just me, or is he in a bad situation to become POTUS? His name is possibly the worst it can get in a time like this (Barack=Iraq; Hussein=Sadam Hussein; Obama=Osama, O-"Bomb"-a), although that's just a cursory glance. He smokes, he's done drugs, he's only been in the senate for less than a full term, the only media coverage he's gotten is when he announced he may run for Pres, he's African-American (which in itself, Americans would question the nation's readiness to elect a black president, but one who is born to interracial parents may spark another question among the black population). 
I do not mean to bring any offense to those who think highly of Obama, but it seems that America is taking him into consideration too easily and quickly. It doesn't make sense to me that such a man could decide to run for president out of the blue and get all the support he's getting. His polls may be high, but when it comes election day, I question the feasibility of his becoming president. 
Neither this article nor the campaign article takes any of this into account. It is very viable information (maybe minus the name thing) and should be included into the text of the article. While some people may think it's "touchy," it certainly doesn't look too good beating around the bush. └Jared┘┌talk┐  01:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remember no original research.  If you have citations of why his name is a liability then it might be worthy of inclusion.  Otherwise it is just your musing. --StuffOfInterest 01:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that was my own personal view, and I have no sources to back anything up and don't plan on looking for any. But, again, it appears that you have ignored my other comments. It just seems like if people are going to ignore the obvious truth, then they're just cheating themselves. (And I am not referring to the naming thing, which is a fabrication of my own but I'm sure shared by many others.) └Jared┘┌talk┐  01:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the place for your personal views in any capacity.  The "obvious truth" to you is indeed not obvious to everyone, no more than someone else's "obvious truth" would be straightforward to you.  Such a discussion can serve no purpose.--Pharos 01:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should read his campaign website and find out why he thinks he can win. :) If the information you request is notable enough and covered in a WP:RS, then it can be added to the campaign article.  Obama seems to be rather popular despite his biracial ethnicity and the rather nonsensical gyrations some make with his name, but he could be a Howard Dean for all anyone knows at this point in the campaign. --Bobblehead 02:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If you're not posting here in order to write something in the article, then you should read WP:TALK. Talk pages are not for general discussion, they are strictly for discussing how to improve the article. If you want to talk about how badly Obama will lose then find a forum, Wikipedia is not the place for that. Gdo01 02:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The advice I like to give is to write a short essay and send it to your local newspaper to publish as an op-ed piece.  Then someone can cite it here. Steve Dufour 06:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't advise people to go out of their way to get their own personal opinions published in Wikipedia. Of course, that's just my personal opinion.  :-) 71.198.52.89 07:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How does he expect to win? 

message: A new biography on Barack Obama is being put out by Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers. It's called Hopes and Dreams The Story of Barack Obama by journalist Steve Dougherty.
I think this might be good information to add to the Pop Culture section of the main Obama page.
AlicenSophia (16:02, 16 February 2007)
:Removed  request—this tag is for making a specific request for a change, not a general request for content. —Doug Bell talk 03:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barack Obama Biography