Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 9

message: Is there an article on Obama's US Senate history? He's only been a senator for 2.5 years and the section is already rather lengthy. For some reason I thought there was one.. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Senate article 

message: The opening says (or seems to imply that) a "boost" from the 2004 convention speech allowed him to win the Senate election that fall. This gives a bit of a misleading impression because Obama was a lock to win after Ryan dropped out and Keyes came in.  While the speech only could have helped, it was not the reason he won.  I propose that the phrase "boosted by increased national standing" be reworded and maybe put in the next sentence.--Gloriamarie 23:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro, 2004 Illinois Senate race 

message: "United Church of Christ" is not Obama's religion. He is Christian. United Church of Christ is his denomination. How do we fix this? — goethean ॐ 14:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent point, I just changed it to Christian (United Church of Christ). Does that work for you? --Bobblehead (rants) 14:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, thanks. — goethean ॐ 22:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox/religion 

message: I have removed the image of The Audacity of Hope book cover from this article; the only mention is "The first, The Audacity of Hope, was published in October 2006. An Italian translation was published in April 2007, and a Spanish translation will be published in June 2007. It has remained on the New York Times Best Seller list for the 30 weeks since publication."  While it identifies the book, it adds no significant content to the article that words could not alone.  Note that my statements are not impugning the article's editors, but I strongly feel that the use of the image is not a fair use but is instead simple copyright infringement.  --Iamunknown 07:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also clear to me that this book cover, while perhaps nice to have here, does not meet agreed standards for use of non-free images on Wikipedia. Policing fair use is a thankless, but necessary job, and I think Iamunknown's contribution deserves (at minimum) some kind of counterpoint. I've also requested comment at Wikipedia:Fair use review. --HailFire 19:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My counter-point was very simple, stated in the edit summary:  I agree with User:Tvoz's rationale as provided on the image's page.  Where is the line drawn with regard to authors? Italiavivi 21:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the real world this would certainly be accepted as fair use.  I think the Wikipedia policy is out of control and excessively restrictive, which is a frequent problem here (e.g., the you tube hysteria of some months ago). This is a good example of an the appropriate use of an image to illustrate a section - it is not gratuitous. Common sense and the real world ought to hold some sway in the formulation of Wikipedia policy.  Tvoz |talk 00:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take this up on the policy talkpage, then. Until the policy is changed, the image cannot be used in this way. nadav (talk) 12:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Trying this edit, quoting critical commentaries by notable reviewers. I think the text now has the right weight and puts both works in an informative biographical context. Perhaps even the non-free image can now be justified. Thanks Iamunknown for flagging the issue, to the editors at Wikipedia:Fair use review for your comments, and to all who pitched in with rewrite ideas. --HailFire 21:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thats a great copyedit and content addition, HailFire.  Thanks for your work.  :)  --Iamunknown 02:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, nice work. Italiavivi 02:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I removed the book cover 

message: A sentence has been changed mentioning Senator Clinton.  This article is about Senator Obama, not Senator Clinton.  So a sentence has been changed like this (see article for exact text)..Obama placed second in the polls after Clinton..  Feddhicks 17:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The mention of Clinton was totally appropriate here. Tvoz |talk 18:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  #2 after Clinton 

message: I read in the German article that Obama has signed a contract to write three books after the success of "Dreams from My father" of which "audacity of hope" is the first one. The second one is going to be a children's book which he's going to write together with his wife and the third one is still unknown. Can you guys confirm that? Why is it not mentioned in the article? I'm guessing everything is put on hold as long as he's running for president... Anyways, can anyone confirm the information? And is there some kind of update to it? thx, --217.235.39.246 20:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  more books? 

message: Who did the last archive? What is the point in archiving just one line of text? JayKeaton 06:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was the auto-archiver.  Archive 8 was full, so when Miszabot archived that section it moved it to archive 9.  Never fear, though, the archive will start to fill up shortly. --Bobblehead (rants) 06:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see. I don't usually bother checking the edits on high traffic/controversial pages, so I wasn't familiar with auto archivers. Thanks for taking the time to tell me ^_^ JayKeaton 17:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 9 

message: Senator Obama is THE leading candidate, not among the leading candidates.  At least in fundraising.  Give the man credit where credit is due. This is only fair, whether or not you like the man or not. Feddhicks 17:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we have the return of the sock here.Tvoz |talk 17:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There are certain aspects about your recent editing on this article that are similar to those of .  And then there is the whole trying to defend an obvious sock thing... But all in all, most of the edits, particularly the one about Rezko has been covered over and over again on this article and general consensus is that it is adequately covered. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: An obvious sock.  Even if the ban is in limbo at the moment, it's not appropriate to create multiple socks to avoid the scrutiny of other editors per WP:SOCK, and other currently active socks are known.  Second, the user cannot legitimately claim to be keeping heated issues in one area as the policy allows, as the user has used multiple socks on this article.  Because of my prior experience with this user, however, I have essentially exhausted any persuasiveness I had on point, so I will not block the sock myself. · jersyko talk 20:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Understandable.  I hope that another admin will pick it up, however.  See the Rfc respondent above as well.  As far as I can see, the ban itself has not been contested - only one of the proven socks, for unclear reasons. Tvoz |talk 06:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction made in the beginning part 

message: This is an article about Senator Obama.  Why is there a huge infobox at the end listing all of the US Senators?????
It just waste room.  If one is really, really cynical, they might say that it is there to show that Senator Obama is just one of many, many Senators and try to imply that being a Senator is nothing.  I think it just wastes room. Feddhicks 17:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Project policy. Tvoz |talk 18:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Navigational boxes like this are used in many articles, and I believe they are useful. Best regards. Jogurney 20:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congressional box 

message: A few months ago I read this same article and I remember reading that Barack Obama swore into office on a Quaran. And he also attended muslim schools overseas. Now that information is gone? Was it true and removed because it made him look like a Muslim? Or was that information false? Please who ever answers: be honest. 138.163.0.46 17:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely false. Wizardman 17:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You are thinking of Rep. Keith Ellison who was sworn in on a Qu'ran, not Sen. Obama. Italiavivi 21:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslim? 

message: Tag placed because RFC in progress.  POV tag should be removed at the end of the RFC, not later or earlier.Feddhicks 23:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note:  User:Feddhicks is yet another sockpuppet of banned user User:Dereks1x, and has been blocked. Italiavivi 21:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: As you well know, this has already been debated, discussed and consensus reached. Tvoz |talk 18:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's some links to previous discussions on this topic.--Bobblehead (rants) 19:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Please note that User:Plumbing's account was created on 22:38, 4 July 2007, shortly after the RfC  that the user replied to was started, which seems curious especially since the argument given centers on the size of the type, as per this comment which was removed hours before this user posted the above.  I suspect yet another sock. Tvoz |talk 06:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually it was removed before "Plumbing" could have read it, unless he wrote the RfC or carefully researched the RfC's edit history which really doesn't make a lot of sense.  Thanks for giving us the names of more Derek socks, including, perhaps, your own. See this. Where have I seen this before? Tvoz |talk 17:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And this is likely another one - smae argument, same language, same person.  Tvoz |talk 00:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Ron Paul's article doesn't use tricky tactics as this article.  That footnote further expands on a sentence in the article.  The Paul article says there is controversy and explains the controversy in the footnoot.  The Obama article makes no mention of the house controversy and then hides a one sentence in the footnotes that mentions the controversy.  The Ron Paul footnote is in normal print.  The Obama footnote is in such small print that some people can't even see it.  Therefore, Jogurney's logic proves there is a problem.
SteveDufour removed the POV tag because he said "no topic was added to talk page to discuss possible problems"  This shows how bad the small print in the footnote is.  Steve read the personal life section and then looked at the talk page and didn't see any personal life discussion.  However, the footnote is part of the personal life discussion.  It is so hidden that a veteral editor, one who has edited Barack Obama more than hundreds and is in the top few editors as far as number of Barack Obama edits, did not even see it.  This proves that the small print is a problem.  Feddhicks 16:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't presume to speak for user:SteveDufour, but he probably didn't see this discussion on the Talk page. I believe if you use the POV tag correctly, it is easier to see where on the Talk page the relevant discussion is located. I think you place this POV|Rezko house inside the brackets. Then, when someone clicks on the POV link, they are directed to this section. Best regards. Jogurney 17:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rezko house 

message: :As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama is being scrubbed as he never has before. His prior campaigns were for lower offices. And in his 2004 U.S. Senate race, attention focused less on him than on primary and general election opponents who had their own serious problems. But this campaign cycle's scrubbing of Obama leads to another water analogy: News stories that raise ethics questions about his relationship with indicted dealmaker Antoin "Tony" Rezko have become a steady drip, drip, drip.
Before anyone accuses me of not WP:AGF, let me explain it seems curious as to why there is no mention of any of this, or any other controversy that Obama has been involved in, in the article, or conversely a fork. I have seen attempts to include this information here, and the continual removal of it could be interpreted as gatekeeping and article ownership. As the election begins to unfold, criticism sections on nearly every single major candidate have appeared; I don’t understand why this one has become unique. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm actually an Obama supporter (full disclosure), but as a Wikipedia editor I have to somewhat agree with User:TDC.  I think the Rezko thing warrants a *small* mention (more that just a note like it is now).  Whether or not Obama did anything wrong is not really the point, the point is that there was a controversy around the issue.  Again, i don't think there should be a whole long section on the Rezko thing like some people want, but I think it atleast deserves a mention of a sentence or two somewhere. Bjewiki 19:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't take a very minor matter and blow it up into something major just so you can show that you have a controversy. That is POV. The note covers the matter adequately, as does the Rezko separate article.  There is no there there. Tvoz |talk 20:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The questions are, at what point does a "minor" controversy become one of a magnitude significant enough to be mentioned in the main body of the article? and when presented with a recurring "minor" controversy, how to present it in an NPOV manner without giving it undue weight? Answering those questions is the hardest part about the Rezko relationship issue.  The Chicago Tribune and Times have spent a lot of ink rehashing this story to pretty much say "It doesn't appear that Obama did anything wrong, but here's what happened anyways..." and it has been picked up in other national papers to some extent, either mentioned in passing or full articles. The big thing one must remember is that just because something is "notable" it doesn't mean it's notable enough to make it in the article.--Bobblehead (rants) 22:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If something is “notable” then that absolutely positively means that it is notable enough for the article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course the footnote gives a link to the  complete article at Antoin Rezko  which is easily reached by a search on "Rezko" if someone was so inclined. Tvoz |talk 05:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "footnote" looks like more of an attempt to bury it rather than address it.Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is actually the same thing I thought when I saw the footnote. Bjewiki 16:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would say that condensing the information from the Tony Rezko article on his relationship with Obama into 4 or 5 concise sentences would be appropriate. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I first heard that there had been some sort of incident, it didn't occur to me that Rezko would have his own article, just that Obama's article would cover it.  I'm not used to looking at Wikipedia footnotes to see if there are other articles linked from there.--Gloriamarie 20:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The last quote there is actually a WSJ editorial about a "mysterious", "Tokyo Rose"-style propaganda website, "HillaryIs44.com".  The first two merely remark about how discussion on the issue doesn't seem to be dissipating.  This is a non-issue for anyone but the most determined political partisans. johnpseudo 20:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The first two are only a "discussion on the issue doesn't seem to be dissipating"?!? That’s a excellent reason for inclusion. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Placing it in the main body looks like we're trying to give an incident in which no wrongdoing is alleged on Obama's part undue weight.  I support leaving the footnote (it is called a "footnote" by the way, not "burried [sic] in small print") as is. Italiavivi 21:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am comfortable with leaving the information in a footnote, but would prefer the text in the footnote to be of normal font size (rather than the smaller font size used currently - which I haven't seen used in other articles). Jogurney 21:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I've seen the smaller font used in notes within footnotes in other articles, and we use it here a few times, but in principle I don't feel strongly about keeping it in that font. Tvoz |talk 21:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't realize the smaller size was used elsewhere. Assuming it wouldn't lengthen the page too much, I think it would be best to use the larger font size for all the footnotes on this article. Jogurney 21:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that the font size should be larger also. — goethean ॐ 21:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do the footnotes look to you now? It lengthens it a bit, but I think we can live with that. Tvoz |talk 21:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: To clarify: the footnotes and notes within footnotes are now all of equal size - but they are in reference style, smaller than the main text, like just about all articles with long footnote sections are. What I changed were the smaller notes within the footnotes which I have also seen elsewhere, but as I said, think we can try it this way. Tvoz |talk 22:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drip Drip Drip 

message: Its doctorine is as racist and as afrocentric as just about any church I've ever seen. No one forced him to attend this church. If I look on David Dukes wiki will it talk about his stint in the KKK? Ok, I just looked. Heh. It does have KKK stuff. So, uhh, again, what's the deal with the double standard. He chose the church, it did not choose him.68.187.117.71 08:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  link to the racist church doctorine KillerPlasmodium 10:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry, but why are black churches "racist," and would you refer to historically black universities as "racist" as well? Italiavivi 21:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  there may or may not be something racist about black churches. this church in particular has a racist doctorine. You can easily read it because i supplied the PDF. it's cleaelry racist and not mentioning his church has such views is alarmingly biased wiki editing. KillerPlasmodium 01:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There "may or may not be something racist about black curches," what does that mean?  Is it your contention that black congregations are racist, yes or no?  Also, what is racist about the .pdf you linked?  Is it the part about African-Americans desiring black freedom? Italiavivi 01:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  LOL. Oh, I dunno. I think having to pledge allegiance to BLACK leaders if a pretty racist dictate. I don't think I'll be talking much more with you as you obviously have something wrong with your logical faculties if you cannot see the half a dozen or more racist statements found in that doctorine.KillerPlasmodium 01:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You guys are hilarious. Fifty7 15:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think there is anything funny about racism, nor do i find anything funny about wikipedia being a biased joke of a source 
that claims to be anything but.KillerPlasmodium 01:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, a would-be president of the united states does not get a "pass" on the fact he attended and continues to attend a racist church and has not stated he disagrees with their doctorine. No way in hell. Is this wiki only memebers of the Obama campain or something? Completely absurd.KillerPlasmodium 07:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can provide productive edits that assert that the church is racist, from reliable sources, you are free to add that to the church's Wikipedia page.  Until then, I don't see what the issue is.--Gloriamarie 17:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not add it to both? As I said, he has chosen of his own volition to attend this church. He isn't repsonsible for the doctorine, but the fact he attends and continues to attend this church he is responsible for, not the church. Both wiki's should have it mentioned.KillerPlasmodium 01:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Uhh, how is pledging your allegiance to BLACK leaders "afrocentrist" and not purely racist? Strawman, just like your other comments about Catholocism. Many Rabbis have done and said a lot of mean things about christians/catholics, too. But do they have a doctorine that is not from some cryptic section of a book whose meaning can be debated that says such things in plain, modern English. Your argument is a complete strawman, and the editing of this wiki seems to be a complete sham. I'm free to add it to the churches wiki AND here, which where it should be added, to both.KillerPlasmodium 01:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Malik raises good points, particularly when you think about American Catholics vs. church doctrine.  And I read the pdf and fail to find it racist.  Afrocentric yes, but that's not the same thing. Tvoz |talk 22:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uhh, no. He spat out a couple baseless strawmen with nothing behind them. The meanings and teachings of a given religion when looking at a historical text whos meaning is constantly debated is not at all comparable to a church that has a RECENTLY CREATED IN PLAIN ENGLISH doctorine that is undeniable racist.KillerPlasmodium 01:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you misunderstood me. I'm talking specifically about Malik's item "c" above (although I happen to agree with his a and b too), and I'm commenting about members of the Catholic Church  who strongly disagree with doctrines that the Catholic Church explicitly espouses.  If they are identified on Wikipedia as Catholics, there is no expectation that their individual disagreements with Church doctrine would be aired on their pages unless it happened to be something they publicly took a stand on.  The page on the Catholic Church is where those comments should be made.  As much as I might vehemently oppose the Catholic Church for its pedophiliac history, its anti-semitism, its insanity about birth control even in AIDS-ridden Africa, and many other matters, I don't expect that individual pages of Catholics here will include some kind of diatribe against the Church, which seems to be what you're looking for. It's inappropriate, it's POV, and it's other adjectives that I'll withhold for now. Tvoz |talk 16:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You still haven't explained why the document is racist — hint: it doesn't promote allegiance solely to Black leaders — nor have you provided a scintilla of evidence that Obama is aware of, much less in agreement with, the document. Unless you can provide reliable sources that say as much, it doesn't belong in this article. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 16:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I read the linked document and don't find it racist. Perhaps you can provide an example? Best regards. Jogurney 02:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ahh, the old "I don't think it's racist when black people are racist, only when white people are racist". Gambit. There is no way to get around it. The statements that you must pledge your allegiance to BLACK leaders is innarguably racist. No matter how much one twists and turns and tries every manner of trickery and obfuscation  to discount it as anything but racist, it is purely racist. KillerPlasmodium 02:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter if we editors believe if Obama's church subscribes to a racist doctrine or not, the only thing that matters is if a reliable source can be found that states his church is racist and that Obama has accepted this doctrine. Linking to the document that you have provided to us and then concluding from that document that the church is racist and that Obama accepts this doctrine is original research and violates WP:BLP, therefore it can not be included in the article.  Please provide a reliable source that supports this conclusion. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Umm, why is there no mention of his controversial church 

message: This article needs a section like that of Hillary Clinton and McCain.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#Controversies and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Controversies.  Fixed. Botrag 16:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, in fact Hillary Clinton's controversies are being integrated into the text and footnotes  of her main article and the subarticles about her as appropriate- see Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies. And this has nothing to do with  "preferential treatment" or the edit summary "Federal law says we treat candidates equally and give equal time.".  We've discussed how to handle controversy and prefer to work it into the article rather than a laundry list that can easily devolve into trivia.  Discuss if you like, but I removed the empty entry from the article.Tvoz |talk 17:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Create a separate controversy section 

message: I'm changing the caption under the picture of Obama at a campaign rally. "continues to draw large crowds" is NOT an objective statement. Large is a relative term and the AP story it "cites" as evidence of the "large crowds" is not an objective story but instead a recital of quotes from people like Obama who is obviously not unbiased when referring to his own crowds. The article can not begin to objectively compare crowds between candidates at the same venue, since any number of factors affect crowd size at a rally. This is obviously an opinion and omitting it does not deprive the reader of any facts whatsoever, especially since most users will only read the caption and never bother to read the cited article. *this must be taken into consideration*. the idea that we should expect every user to check every source in such a large article is absurd, and I doubt anyone would try to defend such a statement. that leaves the conclusion that this statement is misleading, since, being in a wikipedia page, it presents itself as documented fact.
The caption should be a subjective statement such as 'this is a picture of senator Obama doing such and such", not an subtle opinion being snuck into people's minds about the success of his campaign. C'mon people, don't paraphrase a news article into a sentence and try to pawn it off as fact. this is supposed to be an encyclopedia without bias, right? lets keep opinionated statements elsewhere! Revolen 21:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I think the new caption is appropriate. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. I tend to ignore captions in images myself.--Bobblehead (rants) 21:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  opinions posing as fact 

message: I don't understand how this section is deemed purposeful. This is an encyclopedia after all, where do we make the cut? 
Most important of all, this random section of the Barack article, with random tidbit from random people at the end is just unfair, if its to stay, then more politicians, aka the candidates, should have such a section with the same random tidbits.
I mean what the point of all those ultra politically oriented comment from the opposition in the end? yea they are quoted in the media... the utterly reliable media 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_obama#Cultural_and_political_image —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tehjord (talk • contribs)  and  70.83.7.57 
:Maybe it's me, or the heat, but I really do not understand what you're talking about - and are you one person or two? Tvoz |talk 04:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he's saying the section is just a collection of quotes rather than a unified topic (other than commentary on Obama).--Daveswagon 06:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural and political image 

message: From edit summary re removal of middle name from article: "Recent media reports have proven that his middle name is NOT "Hussein."" I've not heard him dispute that Hussein is his middle name, and I have not seen, or found, any of the media reports to which you refer. Please provide those sources per WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 15:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  middle name is NOT "Hussein"? 

message: Isn't Senator Obama mixed race? If his mother was a white American and his father a native of Kenya, isn't he as "white" as he is "black"? Since the intro goes on about his being African-American, perhaps someone can clarify this...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.215.225 (talk • contribs) 
:One of the vagaries of how race is determined in the US is that it is self-identified, so even though his mother was Caucasian, he identifies himself as African-American, therefore he is African-American. There is also a propensity to consider Caucasian as a recessive race for identification purposes, meaning that if one parent is Caucasian and the other is a minority, then the child is considered to be of the minority group.--Bobblehead (rants) 21:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know exactly how Obama "self-identifies", but for 400 years of American history a person was either 100% white or she/he was Black (See One-drop rule). The self-identification of Americans as biracial or multiracial is a very recent development* (only picking up steam during the past 10 or so years), and it is still met with many obstacles (e.g., forms that ask the applicant to check a box for only one race). (* excluding slave-era Louisiana, where people of mixed ancestry were differentiated by the number of Black grandparents or great-grandparents they had) — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sentence has been removed. Tvoz |talk 00:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background and race 

message: If the TIME cover  that said "Why Barack Obama Could be the Next President" wasn't fair use, I doubt this Newsweek cover is. Italiavivi 21:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I've requested  this WP:FUR. --HailFire 08:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsweek cover 

message: I saw on ABC a story about campaign supporters helping out their candidate on the internet, specifically wikipedia.  I think they mentioned about Obama's travel section as an example of positive spin but the story wasn't anti any one candidate. Fineday 04:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Fineday registered June 5th, was an inactive latent account for a month, and now has about 40 edits .  WP:AGF be damned but it's highly unusual for someone to register, not do anything for a month, then dive straight into AfDs, RfAs, and FARs if they're a genuine newcomer.  "Fishy" is all I will say about "Fineday" here.  He is obviously familiar with how Wikipedia works  and is dropping more innuendo that those editing here are Obama shills. Italiavivi 06:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the FAR comment is reminiscent of  "Federal law says we treat candidates equally and give equal time", and we know where that led. Tvoz |talk 06:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: What happened to assuming good faith and all that? :)  When I first began, it was to save a particular article from deletion, so I involved myself in some AfDs right off the bat, if I recall correctly.--Gloriamarie 18:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ABC 

message: In his book, he says he used drugs.  Hiding this is not neutral.  But just putting that isn't neutral either.  So I put a part from his book that where he said he grandparents were very proud of his school and always told people about it.  I think this is fair balance. Local667forOb 15:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing is hidden- this has been discussed here many times - see archives. And what we say is neutral and doesn't need "balance".  The sentence you added  is about his grandparents, not about him.  Tvoz |talk 18:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Excuse me, no one is portraying him as a crack addict.  Do you think you could tone down your edit summaries and comments here please?  The statement you added talks about how his grandparents felt about his going to that school - it actually has nothing to do with the discussion of his drug use that precedes it in the paragraph and is not particularly notable.   The drug use in his youth is here because consensus was reached  that it was something that should be included with the appropriate weight, which is not very much.  He has talked and written about it, and we handle it fairly. This is not a campaign piece for or against the candidate - it is striving to be a neutrally written biography, in limited space, keeping to the Featured Article status the editors have worked hard to attain.  Much of this is discussed in the Talk page archives.  Also, not every little factoid can or should be included - just because something is sourced doesn't mean it is notable. Tvoz |talk 19:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, that's the problem - please read what I said above and look at the archives.  I think you misunderstand the purpose of this paragraph. The reason for the inclusion in this article is to adequately cover the matter of youthful drug use, not to document his high school life. And again, your reference is about his grandparents' view of his school, not his - but even if it were, it would not be notable, in my view. His autobiography is a full-length book that includes many, many such details that we can't possibly include. This is a biographical sketch of his life and career, and we have to focus on those things that are notable. His admission of youthful drug use is notable, as agreed by consensus of the editors.  What we have here, which has withstood many edits and a couple of FA reviews,  is a neutral factual statement that it is felt needs to be in the article.  His family's feelings about his school just aren't. Tvoz |talk 04:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  added information in his book for balance 

message: I just corrected the fact that the police endorsed Dan Hynes, who lost to Obama, then changed their endorsement.  Let's tell the truth.  Local667forOb 15:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry folks, someone told me that it's possible that the person who wrote this originally did not know the fact. Local667forOb 16:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  let's report the truth, please 

message: people removing pictures from here.  should we have a picture review?
After all, I can think of reason why some pictures shouldn't be here but I don't yank them off. Local667forOb 16:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As my edit summary said when I removed it the first time, your picture gives a not-so-subtle POV message which is not appropriate, and the picture itself adds nothing to the article - it doesn't illustrate the text - it is just provocative. Further, the caption you posted  was incorrect - this was a posed picture, not a picture of him during a meeting.  There have been questions about other pictures that were taken from his Senate page - we're careful about the images on this article, so talking about it here is a good idea when someone removes an image - edit warring isn't the way to go. Please don't re-add the Superman picture. Tvoz |talk 18:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec)If you have a problem with any pictures on this article, you're more than welcome to replace them with a more appropriate picture. As for your Obama w/ Superman statue picture... The natural tendency for readers is to assume the image is related to the section that they are located in and an image of Obama posing with the statue (while cute) isn't exactly NPOV when placed in the section about his state legislature experience. Don't get me wrong, that section could do with picture, but one that is actually related to his state legislature experience is vastly preferable to an image that was taken during his US Senate career. Perhaps you could upload it to the Barack Obama category on Commons?  There is a link to commons down in the external links section. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  picture review? 

message: Some articles have election results near the bottom.  This is a good idea.  Obama's article doesn't have this.  Since he won 70% or so in one election, showing this is really impressive!Local667forOb 19:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia has size restrictions that the readable text should meet and there are certain things that are intentionally left off as they are covered in other articles with a summary to the main article. This article is already at that size limit and there is an article for his US Senate election.  As a result, a summary of the election was left here (including his 70% to 27% win) with a link to the election's article.  The table with the election results are stored in the election's article.--Bobblehead (rants) 19:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:SIZE, it says "article size is no longer a binding rule".  So, while I agree that Obama's shoe size is not needed, content is more important than size.  Also, Obama is a person very much in the news so naturally the article is longer.  If we are in a "whack it out" mood, I have plenty of ideas.  It's not needed.  In fact, there is consensus in the archives not to whack things out.  No need to point out names of who said it. Local667forOb 19:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *laugh* I did say "should be followed" not "have to be followed". The 32k of readable text is still a good guidline to follow for a quality article. But as I noted, the vote spread for his US Senate election is included in the section already and the results table is included on that article as well. Adding the results table here would be redundant to what is already in the article. As far as the "whacking out" comment, guilty as charged. There is content in this article that I don't think should be in the article, but others think it should stay, so stay it does. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The election information is in the text of the article, and does not need to be highlighted when there is so much else to talk about here.  This has been discussed before. I think adding net worth to any of these articles is problematic as it changes, may reflect a spouse's finances, etc. Whatever is revealed in the required disclosures for candidates  could be included in the individual articles about the presidential campaigns (it may already be there in fact). Tvoz |talk 19:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I lived in Chicago for 10 years and that kind of loopsided election results are not uncommon there. Steve Dufour 20:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggestion for missing content 

message: Goeth...something changed invasion to military action. The actual reference said "If not, Pakistan would risk a troop invasion" by President Obama. So some people may say the change to "military action" in the wikipedia article is trying to make it sound better. I think invasion is a better word. After all, if you make things sound too easy, you get into trouble like Bush did in Iraq. Saying it like it is, for example, we will invade you is sometimes better. However, I'm not so fussy that I have to change this article back to the word invasion. Local667forOb 21:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Obama's comment was along the lines of "if we have actionable intelligence and President Musharraf won't act on it, we will." That is not quite the same as saying the US would launch an invasion, although it sounds like a threat of unilateral military action by the US. Perhaps "unilateral" should be inserted before the "military action" bit. Best regards. Jogurney 21:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  it is invasion 

message: Please discussion deletions of referenced material.  Plain vandalism, like saying his religion is Islam, doesn't need discussion.  There was a lot of wholesale deletion by someone with no discussion here.  That's not good. Local667forOb 23:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There wasn't wholesale deletion, there was a major reworking of the page by an experienced editor who incorporated additions that you and others made as well as adding new references and updates.  Please read the page with that in mind, and don't just change things back to the way you had them.  Some things work better in footnotes than in the main text, as we try to keep the size down to a reasonable length and maintain our Featured Article status. As has been said already, just because an item is true and has a reference does not make it notable for inclusion. We have to make choices all the time about what goes in and what does not, what goes to sub articles, and what goes to footnote. For example, your "Barack H. Obama, Jr." addition is unnecessary and not really even supported - the Britannica entry that you linked to doesn't make the point that he was known that way - it just lists his name as such, perhaps based on their style format.  And in any case, what is notable about it?  If you have citations where he is repeatedly called that, and there is some point that is being made by including it, ok, but just adding it does not have any apparent meaning. If you have something in mind, why don';t you explain it here on talk.  Another example of an edit you made that is not needed is your adding of his first name into the picture caption as a  "fairness edit" - Wikipedia biography style is generally to not repeat the first name of the subject unless it is needed to clarify (like if a section is referring to both Bill and Hillary Clinton) - your notion of fairness in your edit summary is not appropriate - this is not a matter of fairness. I think it's a good idea that you get more familiar with policy and style guides.  Tvoz |talk 00:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please discuss 

message: http://www.worldbiography.net/obama_barack.html
http://www.miamiherald.com/285/story/166681.html
http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
http://br.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
http://war.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
http://mediamatters.org/items/200612200005
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2007/01/18/barack_obama_american_idol
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/03/04/selma_voting_rights_march_comm.php
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=149&Itemid=34
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9399848/Barack-Obama
Pick on some of these but the fact remains, he is a junior.  Once I knew a boy that was John Arthur, II, not junior.  So that guy's name was not John Arthur, Jr.  We called him John.
Local667forOb 00:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of those sources refer to Bill Clinton as William Jefferson Clinton. It's obviously their style to use full names, so their use of Obama's full name isn't meaningful. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Malik is correct.  And can you explain why you think it is notable and important that the "Junior" be included?  As was mentioned upstream, his father died many years ago and there's no indication that the Senator called himself "Jr.".  Why is it significant either way?  Tvoz |talk 00:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Read the article. His full name, Barack Hussein Obama, is exactly where it should be.  Stop raising irrelevant things, please. Tvoz |talk 18:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barack Obama Jr. 

message: I can admit a mistake.  A few days ago, I cut out a picture that had been there for a while.  I put it back! Local667forOb 15:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  picture is ok 

message: This tag could tell people that we are honest and state this.
Also, if there is vandalism, like calling him Islamic, then this tag gives a subtle warning that this article is subject to vandalism without overtly starting the word vandalism.Local667forOb 20:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those tags are silly. Why does placing an election tag on an article make it a "very honest confession". That is equally silly. And it would be Muslim not Islamic, he is not a republic. Turtlescrubber 20:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure I would call the tag "silly", but use of it does appear spotty, even among 1st tier candidates.  This is probably a better question for WP:POLITICS as to if this is a preferred tag and when it should be applied to all of the declared or at leats top tier candidates. --StuffOfInterest 20:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Senator Dodd article has a very honest confession 

message: :Image:Obama at Darful Rally 3.JPG image was removed by User:Bbsrock. I've put it back and ask that it remain in the article until a rationale is provided for its removal or replacement.  My own reasons for including this image are that it (1) depicts Obama at a rally performing political advocacy, the subject of the section; (2) adds to the adjacent text that describes his participation at that specific event; (3) is an image uploaded to the  Wikipedia Commons by the photographer and released to the public domain. --HailFire 09:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This image is of poor quality and Obama is not even visible. I do not understand why the image that I added :Image:Obamatalk.JPG is being repeatedly removed, since it depicts him "advocating" at a campaign event in Iowa and is of much better quality. It has also been released into the GDFL. Bbsrock 01:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obama does not need to be visible in all pictures in his articles. Political advocacy is not about a single person talking to themselves, but rather a person trying to convince a crowd and the image Hailfire prefers does a better job of depicting that than your closeup. --Bobblehead (rants) 01:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: A middle-ground photo is needed, but I think for now my photo is far better, simply due to the fact that Obama can actually be seen in the photo. For such a high-profile article there is no need to have a grainy, amateur looking photo without Obama even visible. I have been looking around Flickr for a better photo, but haven't been able to find one yet. Bbsrock 03:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, and it is not correct that Obama is not visible.  Take another look at the photo HailFire provided and click on it - there is a large screen on the right which clearly shows Obama speaking.  This picture illustrates the section specifically, and is in Commons, and is a better image of this advocacy than bbsrock's.   Doesn't hurt to keep looking for better images, but this one is preferred because of its specificity, etc. Tvoz |talk 19:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image for [[Barack Obama#Political advocacy]] section 

message: I just added the words "black" and "white" to this sentence which starts the second paragraph: "Born to a black Kenyan father and a white American mother..."    I think it makes the information more clear and easy to follow and I don't see how it could be offensive to anyone. Does anyone have a problem with this?  Thanks. Steve Dufour 05:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But is it necessary for the intro?  We have that clearly stated in the "Early life" section where we talk about his "Luo father" and say:  ""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 18:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the problem in stating it right away.  BTW I find it offensive for someone to say "American" and assume the listener will think "white American." Steve Dufour 20:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  added "black" and "white" 

message: Can the RFC be closed now? Eiler7 17:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which RFC are you referring to? Tvoz |talk 20:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh -I thought  the Rezko one had been closed.  It was brought by a sockpuppet who was evading a community ban, and yes, it should be closed.  Tvoz |talk 20:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC 

message: Near the start of the article it says: "...Obama worked as a community organizer, university lecturer, and civil rights lawyer before entering politics."  Some people might say that these things are a part of politics.  I don't think it's such a big thing, but what do people think about saying "running for office" rather than "entering politics"? Steve Dufour 23:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed here and here. Also added "public" for both edits. --HailFire 11:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Steve Dufour 19:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, in the sense that he lived in that part of the world.  On the other hand, he is certainly a black American. Steve Dufour 22:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  question 

message: May I know whose voice is on the recording of the article? I find it very professional. Is that some wikipedian or someone else? regards. -- 132.230.150.178 14:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whose voice that is? 

message: Just to let everyone know, Local667forOb is another sock of banned editor . I've already posted a comment on AN/I to get him blocked. Hopefully that'll come at some point and we can go about undoing his recent edits. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: -sigh- If I wasn't involved with monitoring and editing this article myself I'd do the duty.  Best to have an uninvolved admin take care of it.  I see the WP:AN/I post, which should draw someone's attention soon. --StuffOfInterest 21:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully an uninvolved will respond. I've had the worst luck getting them to do anything about Dereks1x socks in the past.--Bobblehead (rants) 21:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spoke to soon. Picaroon blocked 'em. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Local667forOb is Dereks1x 

message: Reason per deleted reason deleted by another user. Oprahwasontv 02:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dan Hynes 

message: Her endorsement is very notable. Oprahwasontv 02:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already included on the presidential campaign article. --Bobblehead (rants) 03:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oprah 

message: Any reason we can't protect the page or something? Especially with the prevalance of sockpuppets and whatnot? The only non-consensus to the edits seem to be the puppetmaster and, now, "Oprah" - which I kind of find suspect based on edits and contrib history... Granted, the sockpuppets seem to have been established a long time ago (well, more than the five days a semi-protection places). There's got to be a way to stop this insane and inane re-editing of that text. VigilancePrime 02:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only next step is full protection and there isn't nearly enough activity to warrant that. --Bobblehead (rants) 03:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor should legitimate editors be inconvenienced because of one person who insists on being disruptive and tendentious. Tvoz |talk 04:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop the Insanity 

message: There is a dispute over on Talk:Obama (disambiguation)/Talk:Obama about whether "Obama" should redirect to this page. More contributors to the discussion would be appreciated. —Lowellian (reply) 20:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have create a move discussion and protected the Obama and Obama (disambiguation) pages from being moved during the discussion to prevent the move warring. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You made the move then protected the outcome you openly desire.  There's no "requested move" discussion to be had, the move has been made and protected. Italiavivi 00:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not make the move and then protect the outcome I openly desire. You are blatantly lying here. Just check the logs and the history. The current location of the article is not where I'd prefer it, but I wanted the moving to stop long enough to have a rational discussion without the article being moved from one title to another and back again. If you don't want to have a rational discussion, that's your choice, but your lying and constant assumption of bad faith on the part of others is not acceptable. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your use of sysop tools in in collaboration with another editor who supports the same outcome as yourself is what's unacceptable here.  No one need assume good faith of your actions given the discussion on your User_talk page during your and Neier's protection of the articles. Italiavivi 00:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are assuming collaboration where there is none. If you look at the timestamps on the various pages, you'll see that I protected both articles from being moved and started the discussion a while before that comment was placed on my page. Again, there was no collaboration here. Nothing was premeditated. I saw that Neier had moved the article again, so I protected both pages for 7 days to prevent further moves so a discussion could be held on what to do with the pages. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you saw Neier had moved the article again, so you protected it.  Thank you. Italiavivi 00:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're going to quote me, please don't take it out of context. The rest of the quote is, "...protected both pages for 7 days to prevent further moves so a discussion could be held on what to do with the pages." The rest of the sentence is necessary to get the full meaning instead of the slanted, partial, and incorrect meaning you are implying. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obama redirect 

message: There is currently an ongoing discussion about whether Obama should be a disambig or should redirect to here. Interested editors should participate at Talk:Obama (disambiguation) Nil Einne 08:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obama 

message: You've protected an article based upon editors reverting the contributions of a sock-puppet wielding community-banned user.  Go read WP:BAN, then kindly unprotect this page.  I'd like to get back to editing here, thanks. Italiavivi 18:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BAN describes reverting edits of banned users. It does not describes "reverting edits because I think that the editor is the banned user". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, siding with sockpuppets is bad policy. If you don't understand what is happening on the page then you probably shouldn't be the one "protecting" it. Turtlescrubber 19:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Discussed by whom? There is only one user trying to push a certain set of edits made by a previously banned user. If you would bother to look at the past history of the page and the puppeteer in question, you could easily come to the same conclusion that all of the editors on this page already have. I stand by my previous statement of, "If you don't understand what is happening on the page then you probably shouldn't be the one "protecting" it." Turtlescrubber 00:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure, JP. Feel free to overturn if you see that necessary. Unprotected. My concern is about not looking at the edits made instead of just simply saying that these edits where made by suspected SPs. From what I see, these edits are much of a do about nothing,  and if we can stabilize this article by looking at these edits, I am for it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: And if those SPs are verified, I will be more than happy to perma-ban them in the process. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you only listen to administrators. Guess the non-admins aren't worth your time. Much respect for that. Turtlescrubber 03:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If a fellow admin challenges an my action, I listen. Now, my concern still stands: I have seen a lot of smoke for very little fire.   ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is most definitely a good thing that us lowly plebeians don't have any pull with an elite admin like yourself. Imagine if you had to listen when uppity non-admins challenged your actions. That would be dreadfully unnerving, mixing with the baser classes and all. Turtlescrubber 05:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you are missing my point: I was doing RC Patroll when I came across this article seeing multiple reversions of material that seemed innocuous. I asked one editor about the reasons for his reversions, which he politely replied to. I made an assessment that a high quality article such as this one, should not have to be in such a state of flux, and in which the most heard comment in talk is about SPs, allegations of SPs, and other miscellanea. Looking at the edits themselves, I saw that regardless of the past with a banned user, some of these issues could be resolved as they were not major, protected the article and asked editors to provide a summary of the dispute. Involved editors did not approve, so I replied with the suggestion to contest my protection at WP:RFPP, which they did not take. Then jpgordon, came and contested the protection and I obliged. I stand 100% by m y decision to protect, my assessment that editors involved can do much better than this in dealing with WP:DE, and by my decision to unprotect after challenged by a fellow admin. Happy editing≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think I understand your point completely. I also understand that you believe yourself to be on a higher level than ordinary editors and only respect input from your fellow admins. I am not questioning the actions you took on this page except for how you ignored everybody's opinion until another admin came along. Think about it. Turtlescrubber 03:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  I thought about it and I stand by my comments. I did not "ignore the opinions" of any one. I acted based on  my understanding that required the action of protecting the article. I also invited you and others to contest my action at WP:RFPP, which you and others ignored.  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey now, Turtlescrubber. None of that. The page is unlocked, that's the important thing. How or why it happened isn't overly important. --Bobblehead (rants) 03:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Turtlescrubber is absolutely right about Jossi's attitude.  Jossi is being both arrogant and totally out of line.  This "I'll only listen if someone else with sysop access challenges me" stance is rubbish, and sysops who take that line are bad for the project. Italiavivi 05:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The only possible sock that remains unblocked is Oprahwasontv. Local667forOb's block log and Dexmar's block log. The only thing preventing Oprahwasontv from being banned is that the checkuser came back as unlikely. But it is odd that a user that claims to be a fan of Oprah's hasn't made a single edit to her article or pages related to her. Not to mention the oddity of a user that hasn't made an edit since July 4th (the same time , another Dereks1x socks returned to activity) suddenly appears and reverts my removal of most of Local667forOb's edits within an hour and a half. It could be a phenomenal coincidence, but given Dereks1x's habit to use multiple socks at the same time... Coincidence is difficult to believe. --Bobblehead (rants) 02:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And, of course, my "unlikely" is simply "unlikely as far as IP analysis goes" -- no behavioral analysis is involved at all. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is very true. Unfortunately checkuser results have achieved the status of manna from god lately. --Bobblehead (rants) 05:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  I have no problem in apologizing to you. If you spend any time in RC patroll, you will come across many different situations, some of which with long histories of disruption. In some cases, I am able to assist, and in some other cases I am not. In this case, I can see that my assessment and intervention was not appreciated, so be it. I just think that an article of the quality of this one, should not be disrupted in the way it is by one editor such as the banned editor and his alleged and confirmed SP, and there may be ways to encourage this person to let go than just continue escalating, reverting and perpetuating the situation. But that is just my opinion. Good luck. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hope springs eternal, but unfortunately I think the intent of the banned user and his many socks is to disrupt, not to legitmately edit.  Some of the more conciliatory among us have tried reasoning with him and offering often lengthy explanations of why a particular change is being reverted, but it hasn't made much difference.  He's like the proverbial dog with a bone, and it's not clear what the motivation behind it is, other than disruption.   But that's just my opinion. Tvoz |talk 21:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jossi, unprotect this page. 

message: I don't see anything in this article talking about his pro liquified coal position. Also his wife's connection to Treehouse foods and Bay Valley Foods. I think every political candidate should have an environmental position section. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BmikeSci (talk • contribs) 
:I moved the new topic to the bottom of the page.  But I see no reason not to have it in as a subheading.  Write something up with a source or two and put it in or put it here on the talk page and we can go over it.  Either way I have no problem with the addition. --Rtrev 16:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His position on liquified coal is in this article already with citations - see Barack Obama#lLegislation. The appropriate place for a section on all of his environmental stands would be an expansion of the "energy policy" section in the Political positions of Barack Obama article, and I  think that's a good idea.  Tvoz |talk 17:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmental Position 

message: I wonder if it's (in)appropriate for the early life/career section to include his drug use.  it seems out of place and irrelevent.  Perhaps if the consensus decides to keep it, would it not be more appropriate to put this in a category regarding "political controversy" or something to that extent.... 146.9.22.63 22:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree. Consensus was reached a long time ago that a mention of his teenage drug use was appropriate, and it therefore seems obvious that it belongs in "early life" - it is not a political controversy, it's a fact of his youth that he has written and spoken about. Tvoz |talk 07:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drug Use, revisited 

message: Due to page length here, I created a separate article for My.BarackObama.com after seeing this mainstream media coverage which came out today from Reuters. Sen. Obama appears to have started a political landslide of online social networking use, which has since been emulated by John McCain ("McCainSpace") and others.  It was immediately tagged as an advertisement (which it is not), and there is now an ongoing deletion debate for the article. Italiavivi 18:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[My.BarackObama.com]] article. 

message: The Audacity of Hope does not show up on the NYTimes's latest nonfiction bestseller list (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/books/bestseller/0826besthardnonfiction.html). It may reappear after its Nov. 6, 2007 paperback release, but is not currently a NYTimes bestseller.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.108.169.227 (talk) 02:38, August 24, 2007 (UTC) 
:Updated. Thanks. --Bobblehead (rants) 03:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone should update Audacity's bestseller status 

message: The more I read through this section, the more it comes across as a disorganized mishmash of random columnists' opinions.  The number of "not black enough" samples alone were very much bordering on WP:UNDUE, but I was able to find comments from Barack and Michelle on the matter.  This section needs a trimming, if not a total redefining, though. Italiavivi 14:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trying this. --HailFire 07:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural and Political image section revisited 

message: The concept of race is regarded as outdated by many scientific fields (reflected here http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/125/8/675), and the term non-white seems to imply that he is no parts white, but he is in fact half white.  According to many published scholars (and reflected in the full version of this article http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8330.1996.tb00519.x) the term "non-white" also confers the notion that "corruption" of the white genetic gene-pool qualifies one for non-white status, even if said person does have a mixed heritage in which a traditionally "white" heritage is present.  It seems more appropriate to say that he would be the first African-heritage president of the USA.  Also, I would have just changed this and left a note, but I haven't edited much and I am shy.  Bondolon 07:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of term "non-white" in "Presidential Campaign" section 

message: I created an article on 100 Black Men Of America. Please feel free to contribute to the article if you wish.
Grundle2600 17:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  100 Black Men Of America 

message: this page needs to be restored. someone edited offensive and irrelevent content into it. Politique 01:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you - the offending material was removed. Tvoz |talk 05:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article needs to be restored 

message: Back in January, I wrote this:
Presidential candidates ought to take sustained and preemptive measures to protect their security, but their Wikipedia articles should not.
Over half a year and many edits later, I still feel the same. What is the justification for the sustained and preemptive semi-protection that we have seen on this article for most of the last six months? Are we trying to deal with recent vandalism or just wanting to not deal with it all? Don't we have smarter, more consensus-oriented tools for screening unhelpful edits on widely watched articles like this one? Before the vandals return in force (yes, I agree they will, it changes nothing in my view) let's please try  once more for a consensus strategy to keep this article  open to edits from unregistered and recently registered editors most of the time. I hope this view finds some support here, or at least a more sustained effort to build consensus. Thanks for listening. --HailFire 09:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When one is dealing with a persistent string of anons/redlines repeatedly changing his religion to "Islam," it ceases being about simple vandalism and starts being a WP:BLP matter. Italiavivi 13:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Italiavivi.  As I see it, the problem with this article being left open for anon and new editors is that every time we try it we are hit with a barrage of often vicious racist vandalism that is damaging to the subject and gives Wikipedia a very bad image.  It is true that there are many editors watching this page who are usually quick to revert, but as  you've mentioned above elsewhere, HailFire, this has been one of the most frequently read pages on Wikipedia  and there are likely people around the world looking at it constantly, day and night.   Most people do not know about how the encyclopedia works, and those who have the misfortune of landing on the page just when one of the racist vandals has made an edit will get a distorted, unacceptable view of the subject with at  best incorrect information and at worst libelous or hateful venom.  This is an embarrassment to the project and to all of us who work hard here trying to keep the article accurate and fair.  I am completely aware that registered editors often cause just as much damage, but by limiting editing to them, it seems to me that we at least reduce the problem.  With much respect - I haven't seen anything to change my mind from what I said here either - I truly don't understand what you have in mind as a consensus strategy for dealing with this, but as ever am interested to hear what you have in mind. Right now it hasn't started up yet, so I'm all for waiting and seeing if somehow this time will be different. Tvoz |talk 22:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I laughed just seeing Tvoz write the words "I agree with Italiavivi," so I took a screenshot. Anyhow, I should clarify: I'm not advocating permanent semi-protection, I'm only defending the past semi-protections of this article.  All protections followed lengthy strings of "Islam," "Hussein Osama," or "nigger" vandalism. Italiavivi 00:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Semi-protection is only a temporary measure. This, and many high profile articles in WP, can be semi-protected occasionally when there is a need. See WP:SEMI#Semi-protection. This article is watched by many, as well as being on the "watched articles" list on the RC patrol channel at #vandalism-en-wp ].≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, Italia, every once in a while.    For the record - I'm not necessarily asking for permanent sprot here either, but I think that for the duration of this campaign it probably will be needed, and after that who knows.  In the past we've found over and over again that it's needed here despite the many eyes watching it.  Same thing seems to apply to both Clintons, Bush, and some other articles that have what appears to be indefinite, not temporary, semi protection. As I said, I'm not against waiting to see what happens this time, but I think we need to remember why we've had to request semi-protection so frequently in the past, and it's not garden variety "Hi Mom!" vandalism that is irritating but not harmful or a BLP concern. Tvoz |talk 01:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not see the need for sprotection at this point. The current level of vandalism is being easily dealt with by editors watching this page and by the CVU. If you feel that there is a need to protect, and disagree with my assessment, place a request at WP:RFPP were it will be assessed by those admins that are active in that board. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone asked for it to be semi protected at this time - we're discussing the future, I believe, based on past experience.  I pointed out that it had been semiprotected when the last flurry of protect/unprotect took place and that sprot might have been retained then, but I further said a few times that I'm not against taking a wait-and-see approach. HailFire is talking theoretically about the future as well. Tvoz |talk 20:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are right. My misunderstanding. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Aside from thinking the sprot wasn't necessary, I don't have a comment.  The edit war over the redirect was more disruptive than the vandalism that has hit the page since it was unlocked. --Bobblehead (rants) 16:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: HF, I'm not sure that your request to DarkFalls represents the  overall consensus of the editors here - we've had the same tired argument lots of times without really reaching any conclusion. But I don't care - if it expires sooner we'll see when we need it again. Uninvolved neutral admins have repeatedly judged that the page needs sprot without being asked, I think because it's obvious.  I wish I understood why this approach seems better to you, and why you don't mind having the vicious vandalism available for readers unfortunate enough to log in at those times. It does damage to the subject and to Wikipedia's image,  is a gross waste of effort, and real changes have often been overlooked in the sea of vandalism that we've had to deal with. But it's not something I feel like fight ing about. Not while the Great Disambiguation War is going on, anyway...  Tvoz |talk 18:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Not sure I follow why Tvoz |talk 06:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is a view held by some contributors that small icons are best reserved for articles with indefinite protection. As this discussion had come to focus on whether this article is one of them, I thought it was better to use the more informative tag until consensus became clear. --HailFire 04:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Although, I must say this experiment with periodic unprotection seems to be indicating that an extended period of semi-protection for this article is a good thing. Since Jossi unlocked it on August 11, the article has only lasted an average of 3? days between protections (4 days, 5 days, 2 days). --Bobblehead (rants) 17:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if you ignore the first sprot, the second and third applications of sprot were done after an average of 3 days of unprotection. I'm not going to comment on the events leading up to the last two sprots as I haven't been around much lately, but the fact that two different admins felt the need to sprot the page should say something about the level of vandalism to this page and the visibility that vandalism has had.  With your opinion request on "anyone can edit", I point you to the next three words in that sentence "almost any page".  There are always going to be pages that, for whatever reason, are vandal magnets and as such it is in the best interest of the project that they get a lengthy sprot. This page just happens to be one of those pages. This doesn't mean the article has to be protected indefinitely, just for extended periods followed by experiments in unprotection to see if the need for protection remains or not.  The last month has been one of those unprotection experiments and, in my opinion, this round the experiment has failed.--Bobblehead (rants) 21:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  I've been watching the revision history via RSS for 3 months now.  For whatever reason the vandalism this last month has been rather high.  I suspect that the vandals wait for the protection to be removed and then strike again.  In a sense, the protection may be acting as a goad.  These guys are contesting with your ability to keep the page clean.  To defeat this, you need to deny them the satisfaction.  Make them work harder to introduce their vandalism and then remove it quickly when it appears.  I don't know what other tools are in the arsenal but protection certainly helps deter the vandals, because it forces them to register and then go through a waiting period before they can tag the page.  This delayed gratification coupled with an almost immediate removal of the graffiti is a good way to go.  --Tanjstaffl 21:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: This photo is the best available free image for illustrating this section. It has been used here before and relates directly to the opening paragraph. Bbsrock, please state clear reasons before making another replacement, and seek consensus on this talk page before changing it again. --HailFire 00:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this photograph depicts his announcement of his campaign. Why not use Bbsrock's :Image:Obamaaustin.jpg to replace :Image:Flickr Obama Austin 01.jpg further down in the article? It is definitely a nice photo, from the same rally in Austin (so the 20,000 caption could stay) and much better than a photo which doesn't even show Obama himself. Italiavivi 00:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Bbsrock made the right move in shifting :Image:Flickr Obama Austin 01.jpg to the Barack Obama#Cultural and political image section. The caption now being used in Barack Obama#Cultural and political image describes the Austin crowd, :Image:Flickr Obama Austin 01.jpg clearly portrays a portion of that crowd. The source cited at the end of the caption is worth reading, as it supports the "diverse" characterization included in the caption, and represented in the photo. This whole section is all about how people see Obama. This image shows people doing just that. I won't get into photo quality comparisons, but these too should be considered. --HailFire 01:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although both images in question depict Obama's rally in Austin, I feel :Image:Obamaaustin.jpg is far better for illustrating the presidential campaign, because it shows him campaigning. The image of him in Springfield is of low quality and not representative of his campaign. True, both images are from Austin, but I think for now the pros of that image outweigh the cons. For the image of his multicultural supporters, Austin does not need to be mentioned in the caption, because the image is supposed to be representative of the kind of overall support he receives. Bbsrock 22:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the image after no one responded. Bbsrock 22:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, maybe not everyone has weighed in yet.  I disagree with this last change and reverted to the previous -  the Springfield image specifically illustrates the text in the Presidential campaign  section and therefore makes much more sense and  :Image:Flickr Obama Austin 01.jpg works  well for cultural and political image because of the reasons HailFire gives above regarding the caption and footnote and the photo's relevance to the text.  ObamaAustin doesn't really show anything other than him and his campaign posters. (And relevance to the text is more important that technical picture quality, in my opinion.) Tvoz |talk 23:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The image does not necessarily have to be referenced specifically in the text if the section is about his presidential campaign. In a presidential campaign, a candidate obviously has to campaign, and I feel that is enough "reference" for inclusion in the article, especially over an image that is of poor quality and makes the article look worse, in my opinion. Several other articles for presidential candidates depict them "campaigning" in images without specific reference to where and when they were campaigning. Bbsrock 04:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe so, but that picture doesn't really portray anything specific - it could be anywhere, and is just his face surrounded by campaign signs. What does it add?  The Springfield picture actively illustrates the launch of the campaign, and is a more active shot. Tvoz |talk 04:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I added a new photo of Obama campaigning in South Carolina. Although there is no specific reference to this event in the section, I would ask that you consider the aesthetics of this high-profile article and leave this photo, which is of much better quality than the Springfield one. It also eliminates the problem of a "duplicate" with the previous photo that I had wanted to use. Bbsrock 06:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for uploading :Image:ObamaSouthCarolina.jpg. It's a sharper photo than the Springfield one, but IMO not nearly as meaningful from an encyclopedic point of view. :Image:Flickr Obama Springfield 01.jpg has special historic significance, and it is one of the rare free images where Obama is pictured together with his family.  In fact, it first appeared in this article in the "Personal life" section, just for that reason. People familiar with last year's "draft Obama" initiatives may also like to check the photo credit. I also think candidate-stands-in-front-of-US-flag photos are so commonplace as to be boring. What was significant about the Conway, South Carolina rally that it merits inclusion? Just some thoughts. Thanks again for contributing. --HailFire 18:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I again agree with HailFire about the Springfield picture - it may not be the very best in clarity, but it is a real shot that specifically illustrates the article text which is always preferable to yet another head shot. We know what he looks like -we want to see something more active and illustrative, I think.  The Springfield shot captures the feel of the announcement. Tvoz |talk 03:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trying this. --HailFire 14:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that version of the image is much better looking. Would you suggest putting :Image:ObamaSouthCarolina.jpg anywhere else in the article? I think it would be useful to have an image of him actually campaigning. Bbsrock 16:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of [[:Image:Flickr_Obama_Springfield_01.jpg]] in presidential campaign section 

message: One may be interested by the news that Alexis Debat, an "expert" associated with the National Interest review, has made a false interview of Obama published in the otherwise reliable French magazine Politique internationale. See Pascal Riché, Une fausse interview d'Obama dans Politique internationale in Rue 89, 5 September 2007. Debat also works at the Nixon Center and is a consultant for ABC News since years. He is often quoted by the media (Pentagon ‘three-day blitz’ plan for Iran)... Asked by Rue 89, Ben LaBolt, Obama's speaker, was astounded to learn of the existence of this "interview" which Obama never made. Debat has claimed in the past having been in Edenvalle University in Great Britain — which doesn't exist. He claims to have had a doctorate in the Sorbonne, but this was denied by André Kaspi, French historian at the Sorbonne, specialized in US history. During the 2005 civil unrest in France, he was interview by TV as a "former social worker", allegedly because he has passed some times at Martine Aubry's foundation, Agir contre l'exclusion (which, if true, would still not make him a "former social worker"). He however usually presents himself as an expert on terrorism and Al-Qaida matters... Tazmaniacs 12:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rue 89's scoop was taken up by The Washington Post, and Debat resigned from The National Interest: Howard Kurtz, Consultant Probed in Bogus Interview, The Washington Post, September 13, 2007. Tazmaniacs 16:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A false interview of Obama in ''Politique internationale'' 

message: "I think we should not have had this discussion on nine-eleven or nine-ten or nine-twelve,..."
"It perpetuates this notion that the original attacks had something to do with going into Iraq."
"This continues to be a disastrous foreign policy mistake,..."
"There are bad options and worse options."
< http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html >.
 hopiakuta  Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message.  %7e%7e   Thank You. - 05:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you had actually explained why you were adding the quotes to the talk page, then it would have been kept. Instead, all you did was provide a list of quotes with no explanation as to where the quotes came from or who made them and a link to the MoveOn ad which contained none of the quotes in which you provided. As such, the only assumption one could draw was that your addition was not an attempt to improve the article, but rather an attempt to use this talk page as a discussion board. As an editor with over a year of experience, in which time you've made almost 840 edits to article talk pages, you should be familiar with the proper usage of talk pages, if not, please familiarize yourself with WP:TALK and next time.. Try and actually include an actionable description of what you are expecting to happen as a result of your addition to the talk page. I would also remove the link to the MoveOn ad from your initial addition as it is clearly does not support your quotes and serves no purpose in your stated intention of needing assistance on how to get these quotes worked into the article. --Bobblehead (rants) 16:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I also was saying on your user talk page last night. These quotes are not self-explanatory - I for one still can't tell what point you think they illustrate.  Tvoz |talk 17:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.. Good point. When I initially read hopiakuta's explanation I sent it through the internal copy editors and the corrected version they returned gave the impression the user was confused on how to include the quotes in the article. But now that I've fired the copy editors and have closely read the unmodified version of what hopiakuta read, it would appear the point of the addition is not to improve the article, but to rather to use the talk page as a discussion board or as a substitute for Wikiquotes. Outside of a better explanation from hopiakuta, I'm left with the opinion that the inference they are trying to make is that there is a connection between Obama's quotes and the rather silly ad that MoveOn put in the NY Times that the wingers are trying to get the Dems to distance themselves from..--Bobblehead (rants) 17:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you could work a summary of the quotes into the rather lengthy section on Political advocacy, in which there are several paragraphs covering Obama's position on the Iraq War. Although, I would caution against drawing any connections between Obama's comments and the MoveOn article unless you can find a source that makes that connection. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or maybe on Political positions of Barack Obama where there is more room for detailed explanation. Tvoz |talk 19:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "I think we should not have had this discussion on,..." 

message: This page garnered a positive mention in a recent Washington Post article. Kudos to Hailfire, Tvoz, Jersyko, and everyone else who has helped maintain the high quality of this article. 140.247.131.86 17:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations! 

message: Although I am not sure "where" to place this on the main page; I think it is rather important to note that Obama was sworn into office with his hand on the Koran, not The Bible. Just because someone is baptized doesn't mean they practice Christianity (his own statement about faith is that it can be used to accomplish his political goals). I see the "Personal life" section mentions his father being Muslim, but says nothing about his education as a Muslim himself. It also doesn't mention that even after his father left, Obama continued in Muslim school. Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, introduced Obama to Islam. Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta. Wahabism is the radical teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world. Isn't all this information very importanat? I apologize for my lack of links, but I am pretty new at this and am at work. I just thought someone might take enough interest in this information to add it. (Waxman22 22:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no, Obama was not sworn in on a Koran.  Nobody is sworn in on any holy book, it is not part of the official ceremony.  If they want to be sworn in on a holy book in a private ceremony, they can be, but even then, Obama was not sworn in on a Koran.  You seem to be conflating him with Keith Ellison, who did hold a private ceremony in which he was sworn in on a Koran as the first Muslim elected to Congress. And if you go back through the archives, you can see a lot of discussion of the talking points you raise. Shsilver 22:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The debunked and bullshit school claim is mentioned in a footnote along with a bunch of references showing how bullshit it is. It's not worthy of mention in the article IMHo given that it's basically a non issue. The only ones who fell for it were Fox News everyone else quickly realised it was complete BS so basically it was a tiny blip Nil Einne 23:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't Obama a Muslim? 

message: Someone should update this to include the fact he was a gun control zealot who was on the board of the Joyce Group a rabid anti-gun group. Also note Chicago has an illegal gun ban in his home state, as well as an equal protection (14th) violating ban on concealed carry permits (cops get them, others dont, violates equal protection of laws). 
Barack Obama was on the Board of Directors for the Joyce Foundation from 1998 to 2001. You can find more information at The Joyce Foundation. 
http://www.sportsmenforobama.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33
He is well versed in constitutional law so he is premeditating treason.
mickrussom 20:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the Board of Directors Joyce Group 

message: As of Sept 24, 2007, the following links in this article return an HTTP code of 404:
*http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-oxy29jan29,0,2099497,full.story?coll=la-home-local
*http://www.senatedem.state.il.us/obama/index.html
*http://www.senatedem.state.il.us/obama/index.html
*http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/elections/primary/
*http://lugar.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=267485
*http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-money16jul16,1,3876162.story
*http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.wage22jul22,0,3701056.story
*http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20040318/ai_n12537351
*http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070518/obama_iran.html
*http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/4580864.html
I recommend that they all be removed since they are a waste of the reader's time. I find that the changing  to  is a good way to handle removing the url while otherwise leaving the ref in place.--RidinHood25 13:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replaced the broken links and confirmed that all current links were available as of September 30, 2007. Also updated accessdates. --HailFire 16:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  404 links 

message: Is his middle name really Hussein? Contralya 11:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should definitely read the archives.  It is. --Rtrev 13:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks. It sure is odd how someone running for president has the same middle name as Saddam's last name. Contralya 00:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a very common Arabic name.  As you can read here, it means "beautiful" or "handsome".  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: His parents were atheists.  It's cultural, not religious. johnpseudo 13:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forgive me if I am mistaken but... 

message: Somebody please mention hes the youngest person running for president of 2008. Hes way younger then the rest of those old bags.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Blizzard King (talk • contribs) 00:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be worth a mention, if it is true and has been mentioned by an outside source. Steve Dufour 00:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Youngest person running for president 

message: In the more than two weeks since this article was semi-protected without an expiration date I count three vandal/unhelpful edits. Any support for reopening this article to new and unregistered editors and giving unprotected status a similar two-week trial?  --HailFire 12:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hailfire, the problem with vandalism on this article(and Wikipedia wide, for that matter) has rarely been an issue with the named accounts that have been around long enough to edit this page, it is the anonymous/newly created accounts that have been problems. So I'm not sure what the amount of vandalism that this article has received since the indef semi-protect was implemented has to do with getting this article unprotected... All in all, your count just shows that semi-protection is working. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright Bobblehead, I admit the unconvincing logic of my previous post. :) Here's another try: Perhaps the idea I have been trying to express is that I don't think vandalism on this widely watchlisted biography of a leading presidential candidate ought be managed the same way as we might manage it for articles about cheese and taco. Considering the  context of this article, isn't there a substantial risk that semi-protection, a tool designed to help us address one  problem, may be creating  another? Semi-protection is great for calming suspected outbreaks of coordinated vandalism after revert, warning, block strategies have failed. I am all for that. But that is not what has happened on this article the last few times that semi-protection was applied. All I am saying is we should give anyone can edit a chance--at least once every two weeks, and we really don't need to make a dash for the bunkers the moment someone hurls some nasty language or an inappropriate image at the article. Is this logic just a bit more convincing? --HailFire 20:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how anything has changed in regards to the nature of Obama's high profile/visibility since the sprot was last implemented that would alter this article being a vandalism magnet. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you'll guess, I agree with Bobblehead.  And if Pro crast in a tor's  reading of Wikicharts is correct here - even 10 minutes of vandalism standing on this article  means that hundreds of people see the problematic material - and I think that is unacceptable, given the nature of the vandalism.  Setting ground rules for participation in a given activity is not prior restraint: If the Wikipedia Foundation is the government in your analogy, prior restraint would be  announcing ahead of time that an article about Barack Obama can't be published. Prior restraint is not Wikipedia deciding what ground rules for such writing are, any more than it's prior restraint when a newspaper  decides that you have to provide them with your name and contact information (a lot more restrictive and revealing of one's identity than getting a wikipedia username, I might point out) in order to have a letter to the editor published, even anonymously.  So let's try to keep freedom of the press out of this - it's really not relevant. Tvoz |talk 19:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected status revisted 

message: I believe that this article should include the fact that Barack Obama has been raised a muslim and should not be trusted with leading our country.  He could quite possibly be a threat to America especially with the war on terrorism.  He may be a threat to national security if elected for president.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robrhoten (talk • contribs) 15:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, you may "believe" that but can you cite any reliable sources which support that belief?  We don't edit the articles based on personal belief but on verifiable facts. --StuffOfInterest 15:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obama / Muslim 

message: Mr. Obama revealed that his not wearing an American flag pin was something that he purposely doesn't do.  He said it.  It is notable.
It is not that he didn't think of it.  It is not that he forgot.  He said "I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest." 
See http://www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/589618,CST-EDT-edit05new.article Ephraim Inoni Jr 15:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you add it to his you'll have to add it to every other candidate's page, except for Rudy's.  ABC News covered this a couple of nights ago and pointed out that Obama is far from being the only one.  Seems more like a flash in the pan news story than something worth having in a permanent biography. --StuffOfInterest 16:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, it is a politically driven point and should not be noted in the article. Doktor Waterhouse 06:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr. Obama does not wear an American flag on purpose 

message: Statements he's made (found here) seem to point in that direction:
The senator from Illinois asked the multiracial crowd of nearly 4,000 people to keep him and his family in their prayers, and said he hoped to be "an instrument of God."
"Sometimes this is a difficult road being in politics," Obama said. "Sometimes you can become fearful, sometimes you can become vain, sometimes you can seek power just for power's sake instead of because you want to do service to God. I just want all of you to pray that I can be an instrument of God in the same way that Pastor Ron and all of you are instruments of God."
He finished his brief remarks by saying, "We're going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."
So by "a Kingdom right here on Earth," does he mean a Christian-run government? That would be the conclusion a lot of people would make if a Christian Republican had said those things. Jinxmchue 03:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems a little sketchy to me. I would say it doesn't need to be included that you can label Obama as such because he hasn't really clarified what he meant. He could possibly mean he wants to create a heaven on earth? Coffee and TV 15:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dominionist? 

message: Obama is not African American. For two reasons. Firstly African Americans are not the same thing as immigrants from Africa. African Americans are descendents of slaves who have been in America for many generations, and effectively have only American heritage. Obama is the child of someone born in Kenya. He has no African American heritage. The only similarity is the colour of his skin. Secondly, Obama is 50% white. Sorry if I'm being too picky. Carl Kenner 01:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  He's not [[African American]] 

message: This article reads as though it could have been clipped right from the biography page of Barack Obama's campaign website. In order to be neutral, the article needs to present a more complete picture of Obama containing criticism from all sides. As it stands now the article basically fawns on him. I think it still needs a lot of work despite being labeled as a "featured" article.216.153.43.38 18:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this post from  who posted the neutrality tag?  It would appear so based on recent edit histories. If so, this is not specific enough to be useful.  My reading of WP:BLP is that we are charged with writing a neutral biographical encyclopedia entry,  presenting facts about the subject that include criticism where it is relevant and notable, not including anything we can dig up just so that we can say that we have criticism, and not giving it undue weight in the article. I believe we've done this properly. We're not supposed to do analysis - we're supposed to present facts and let the readers and researchers draw their own  conclusions from them.  Criticism  that appears here include his voting record in the Illinois legislation, his position on liquified coal, his comments regarding Kenya, his stance on abortion rights, the "is he black enough" critiques, his political image, and perhaps other things. I don't see fawning - I see a well-sourced, neutrally worded  biography that has gone through the FAC process and two FA reviews.  If you have specific areas that you think need addressing, please share that with us.   Thank you. Tvoz |talk 00:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: This isn't a joke. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071016/pl_nm/usa_politics_cheney_obama_dc Member - Society of Dog Lovers 23:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL. The things you learn from Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an interesting piece of trivia, but I think it's being given far too much weight in the article at the moment.  It should probably be pared down to just a sentence or two.  --Loonymonkey 00:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much improved as part of the family tree footnote. Tvoz |talk 06:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I beg to differ. It's just trivia and not even worth the sentence. Turtlescrubber 01:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it was not taken out completely - it is in footnote 154 (Cultural & political image section) along with a bunch of other incredibly distant relatives - as indicated above - more than that would be giving a very minor point too much weight. Tvoz |talk 07:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You do not put content in notes or references. That is not the way you construct or read an article. Content goes in the article. References are where that information came from. A reader can choose to look at the reference or not, it must not be content but citation of content. It is either important and in the article, or it is not. Putting something only in references is utter editorial nonsense. WikiDon 07:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree - and so does WP:FN. ""Footnotes are useful for material that would be distracting if included in the main text, yet is helpful in explaining a point in greater detail."  This is done all the time: on Wikipedia, in scholarly books, everywhere.   I would not object to the header being "Notes and references" rather than just "References", but I don't think that is particularly  necessary.  However, what you call "utter editorial nonsense"  is common practice, and not nonsense. Tvoz |talk 08:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  my vote is for inclusion of the facts in the main body of the article. pertinent information that should be left for the reader to interpret.Whitemensburden 16:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pertinent to what? And what is preventing the reader from interpreting material that is in a note? No one is taking it out, as pointed out above. It's just a matter of how much can go in the text and how much in the notes.  Tvoz |talk 17:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Pertinent to the election process--- knowing a candidate's family ancestry. Obama had slaveowners in his ancestry, this is also pertinent, and is also excluded from the main body of the article. If you or anyone else had relations to either the Cheney or Bush families, wouldn't you want others to know about it? I wouldn't. Come on people, quit the blatant partisan censorship and at least mention it in the main body.Whitemensburden 00:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha, ha. Yes, everyone needs to know he is an eighth cousin of Cheney. Lame. Ass. Trivia. Turtlescrubber 14:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dick Cheney and Obama are cousins 

message: I was going through all the current candidate articles to make sure they are consistent in "future election" tagging.  When I went to change this one, I noticed there was a note on the page saying to not tag this as there is already a tag on the 2008 election section of the article.  I disagree that it belongs here.  Although the 2008 election section will change the most, during most elections, we find out a lot more about candidate, including that which is not specific to the 2008 election.  As it is, candidates' entire articles are likely to change, not just one section.  I decided to WP:Be Bold and change this as I could find nothing about in this in the archived discussions.  Maybe I missed it.  Let me know.  --Jdcaust 14:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, forgive me, I see that in other articles the standard seems to be to keep it to the election section.  I changed back to keep this with the standard, but I'd still like to here people's thoughts on whether it belongs there or up top. --Jdcaust 14:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think it belongs on top. The article doesn't change enough to constitute the tag. I think it looks wiki articles look unprofessional, like the myspace of encyclopedias. I don't think there is an official policy on it but just more user preference. Turtlescrubber 14:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a good point on how it keeps it clean looking.  Its not like this tag is of top importance like a neutrality tag or deletion tag or something.  I'll just leave it alone.  Good luck to the editors here as the election approaches!  Unfortunately, I'm sure all the presidential candidates will see plenty of unscrupulous editors drop by. --Jdcaust 18:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future Election Tag 

message: I'm afraid that this article, by it's selective exclusion of factual events, does not reflect the stated policies of Wiki.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.14 (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What selective exclusion?  In order to make constructive changes to an article, you need to provide specific examples and explain yourself better.  Simply coming on here and complaining generically accomplishes nothing.  --Jdcaust 18:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This would probably make more sense in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 than here, I think. I do agree that the article is mildly hagiographic, but that's true of a decent portion of our '08-election-related articles (much of the rest are mildly attacking, with relatively few at the happy middle). So it goes with contentious issues. --Delirium 08:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does not reflect the stated policies of Wiki 

message: Shouldn't this link be at least at the bottom of the page?
 Contralya 10:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wiki 

message: I read in the german vanity fair his full name is "Barack Kisuaheli Hussein Obama" ? Is it right? Sei217.232.103.35 08:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's doesn't appear to be correct. At least I can't find any source anywhere that indicates his legal name is other than listed here.  --Loonymonkey 17:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  His full name 

message: Anyone notice that the footnotes section is just as long as the main article?  Isn't that kinda odd?Heqwm 20:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to the world of featured articles on Wikipedia where every little thing that anyone could possibly question (and quite a few things where no one would) require a citation. I'm currently working on a featured article review and we've got about 170 citations and they are still saying the article is undercited. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: Somebody probably ought to fix that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.100.5 (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing to fix. Hussein is Obama's middle name. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, Wikipedia includes full names in the lead for every biography if they are known and sourcable.  Please see our manual of style.  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, Hussein is really his middle name.--Rise Above The Vile 13:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barack Hussein Obama? 

message: One should know by reading,at least,the 3 first lines that 
"Barack Obama is a candidate for the 2008 presidential election."
The article is edited in that way that you'll only get to know that fact by arriving at paragraph 4.  
I mean take a look at the Hillary Clinton's page for example,there is no doubt left about whether or not she is running for presidency, already from the 2 first lines.
I believe we should clear up misunderstandings and edit it "fairly",without mentioning that there are millions of people seeking information on candidates and among those people many won't unfortunately get so far in their reading.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kigabo (talk • contribs) 22:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a point, actually.  Instead of saying he's the junior senator from Illinois and "a member of the Democratic Party" (which sounds a little clumsy anyway) it should probably say "and a candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination."  This is more or less how all the other candidate articles treat it. --Loonymonkey 01:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, changed it to the same intro sentence as Hillary's. Bjewiki (Talk) 15:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Barack Obama a candidate for the 2008 presidential election." 

message: An early sentence starts: "Born to a Kenyan father and an American mother...."  A while ago I changed this to "Born to a black Kenyan father and a white American mother...."  It stayed that way a while and then the words "black" and "white" were removed.  I think it is better with them.  For one thing some Kenyans are not black (about 1% according to its article) and many Americans are not white.  For another it seems like the article is trying to avoid talking about his racial background here.  To me that makes a bad impression, as if we were ashamed or embarassed to talk about race. I also mentioned before that I personally find it offensive when people say "American" and expect it to be understood as "white American", as the article now seems to be doing. (p.s. the introduction does not now mention his multi-racial background. This has got to be a part of his notability.) Steve Dufour (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You make some good points. I will try changing the wording back and see what happens. Redddogg (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Black" and "white" removed 

message: I'm closing this discussion as it is obvious that a "criticism" or "controversy" section will not be included in this article as it is a sign of a poorly written article and gives undue weight to minor controversies and criticisms.  If any editor feels a specific controversy or criticism needs to be included, or covered in more depth, within the existing prose of this article, you are more than welcome to discuss its inclusion and where to put it in another section of this talk page, but there won't be a section dedicated to such things. --Bobblehead (rants) 02:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many editors prefer to not have separate "criticism" or "controversies" sections in biographies because they can easily become dumping grounds for any real or imagined negative comment about the subject.  Rather, it is preferred to integrate reliably sourced critical material into the text and notes of articles, sometimes setting up subarticles about a particular controversy that warrants it - and that's what we've done here. Tvoz |talk 15:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, there's very little encyclopedic value to these opinion pieces. I'm tempted to pull the link, but I'd like to hear other voices. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - I didn't realize it had actually been added (thought it was just a suggestion) - I would pull it too, as it is not what is usually meant by "Further reading" - this is a minor editorial comment about one position, not a comprehensive editorial piece.  Tvoz |talk 15:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (EC)It should also be noted that the lack of a Criticism/Controversy section is not limited to articles on Democrats and the inclusion of the section is not limited to Republicans. Ronald Reagan's article lacks a criticism/controversy section, while the Bill Clinton and Al Gore articles include them. All in all, whether to integrate the criticism into the rest of the article, or to include a separate criticism section is up to the editors of that page. I know there have been several attempts to get the criticism sections of the current Republican Presidential candidates integrated into the rest of their article (or sub-articles as appropriate), but unfortunately these attempts have failed. --Bobblehead (rants) 15:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As for the editorial piece.. After reading it, I must say.. Not in the least bit NPOV and seems to be relying quite a bit on the crystal ball that is common in editorial board opinion pieces. So, not your typical "Further Reading" or External Link. --Bobblehead (rants) 15:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. "Further Reading" sections are generally for learning  more about the subject not a backdoor way to sneak criticism in.  The most recent editorial that was added to that section is simply an attack piece and offers no new information.  We already know that Republicans don't like Obama just as Democrats don't like the Republican candidates.  There is no need to stack up examples of such. --Loonymonkey 16:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course it is absurd to have an article without a criticism or controversy section.  I and others have repeatedly provided edits to document the Rezko scandal as well as his diverse religious upbringing (atheist, muslim); however there are a couple of SPA editors who spend much of their lives purging this article from anything that would detract from the positive image they are trying to portray for his campaign.  Per historical behaviour, this talk thread will be quickly archived to prevent others from understanding the extent of the fact purging.  This article is POV and a disgrace to wikipedia.  Good luck to others who wish to provide balance here Decoratrix 15:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Criticism sections are troll-magnets, and they don't present information in a neutral and useful way.  There aren't two realities- a pro-topic reality and a anti-topic reality- and so wikipedia should not present information as if there were. johnpseudo 15:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree.  One could make the same argument about any page and ask that all negative information be purged. A page should broadly reflect all available information about a subject, as long as it is reliably sourced. I think it does a disservive to both the candidate and wikipedia to purge all mention of controversies. lk 04:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one said anything about purging criticism, lk. It's criticism sections that are not desirable. And it's far from "absurd", Decoratrix -  integrating controversies is done in many articles on all shades of the political spectrum.  I argued against controversy sections on Hillary Rodham Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, for example,  so I'll thank you not to make assumptions about the motivation of editors here. Tvoz |talk 07:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we agree that there should be sections noting controversial issues?  Decoratrix, perhaps you should add a (NPV and properly cited) Rezko section? Also, considering the smear campaign that Obama's religous background has been subjected to, perhaps a section about his childhood experiences in Indonesia should be added? lk 08:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we do not agree - this material is already covered in the article's notes and subarticles, and separate sections would give them undue weight.  Tvoz |talk 08:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I can only read that as a desire to censor criticism.  I have no great desire to spend all my time checking this page. (On a personal note I actually prefer Obama to most other candidates.) But, I will do all I can to make sure that all factual cited, NPV controversies  remain on the page. lk 10:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never argued to have a "criticism" section, but merely to state the known facts of the Rezko and childhood religious upbringing clearly.  The IBD and Howard matters also deserve brief mention, and all these things can be integrated into existing sections or made into a topic heading without a POV heading. Everyone in this discussion seems to understand the value of this direction to neutrality except tvoz (who is a person that i believe has consistently deleted such material from this article). Decoratrix 15:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be a different argument if it were simply a matter of stating facts.  However, much of what has been added has been pure opinion or speculation (sometimes based on facts already stated, sometimes with no basis in fact whatsoever). Worse though is when "factual" material that is actually not true is added.  If an editor adds a false statement such as "Obama was raised Muslim but converted to Christianity" they can expect to have this edit reverted quickly, in accordance with Wiki policies.  Accusations of bad faith won't change that fact. --Loonymonkey 19:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fires up google.. What IBD matter? As for the Howard incident. If it isn't already in the presidential election article it should be and a quick check of the presidential article shows me that it isn't.. So if you want to add the Howard incident there, you're more than welcome to. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  Can we at least agree that the Rezko issue deserves a mention in the main text? Hiding it in a footnote is clearly not giving it proper weight.  I've been going through the archives of this discussion page, and it seems obvious to me that there are a significant number of editors who want Rezko to be mentioned in the main text. lk 08:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly the Rezko issue deserves coverage on Obama's page: not only from the questionable real estate transaction but for Obama's lobbying on behalf of Resko so that Rezko could receive approx 14 million in public funds and that Obama lied about the amount of campaign funds he has received from Rezko until the Chicago Sun uncovered the true amount (about $168,000). (Rezko is currently facing federal charges for fraud, money laundering and racketeering.) Obama's childhood, Prime Minister Howard's criticism  and the Investor's Business Daily (IBD) article also deserve mention.  All tolled these matters should not consume more than five percent of the article text. Decoratrix 15:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Rezko thing probably deserves a small mention, just a few sentences. Unless it turns into a big story (which it never has) it's still all just circumstance and speculation.  No reliable source has actually accused Obama of involvement in corruption (and saying Obama "lied" veers pretty far from NPOV).  Obama's childhood is mentioned in the article.  I'm not sure what facts you feel were left out in that regard.  As for the IBD editorial, it's just that...an editorial.  Every candidate has a stack of editorials (pro and con) written about them.  There is nothing noteworthy about this particular one and it doesn't present any unique facts. I can't see why it would need to be included.  --Loonymonkey 16:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Loonymonkey on these issues, Rezko deserves an NPV mention, editorials are not noteworthy, and 'lied' is not NPV. I would prefer it if the section on Obama's childhood stated that he attended Catholic school and then a non-religious public magnet school between the ages of 6-10 in Indonesia.  If someone introduces the Rezko issue in a neutral manner into the main article, lets not fight about it? lk 20:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The link you inserted is an editorial.  It does not reference the original newspaper articles that it claims to draw its conclusions from.  As per previous discussions here, editorials are not noteworthy and should be removed. --lk 06:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, the link is to a site that does not own the copyright to the editorial.  Chicago Sun-Times owns the copyrights, and has decided to put it behind a pay wall.--lk 09:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1k is on target here. The link suggested by Hailfire is an editorial, clearly pro Obama, and does not even discuss the meat of the issue: that Obama paid less than market price for his ORIGINAL parcel due to the oddly simultaneous closing by Rezko; thus the real estate transaction represented a substantial undisclosed contribution by Rezko to Obama.  The editorial fails to mention the important correlative data that Rezko was a major contributor to Obama and that Obama failed to attribute the correct amount of the Rezko contributions until the Sun Times exposed Obama's incorrect disclosure.  The editorial cited by Hailfire further fails to take note of the influence, lobbying and letter writing Obama conducted for Rezko's benefit so that Rezko could receive public subsidies for his real estate ventures. Decoratrix 14:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Intereseting opinion, but I don't see what it has to do with an encylopedic article.  If you're looking for a forum in which to argue your opinions about Barack Obama, there are much better options than Wikipedia.  --Loonymonkey 19:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Your recollection is incorrect.  Obama did not once trail Jack Ryan in polls in the election.  You can also read the article on this specific election here.  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: STOP TROLLING. HOWEVER, I DO ENCOURAGE CO-OPTING YOUR INTERESTS WITH THOSE OF TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS. AFTER ALL, YOU DO HAVE SHARED GOALS, AND THEY CARE ABOUT YOU AS AN INDIVIDUAL AS WELL AS YOUR NATION.Whitemensburden (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Apparently you haven't read the Hillary Clinton article. There are copious amounts of "negative" info in her article. As far as this article, is there any "negative" information missing that you feel should be included?  The complaints about Obama's church seemed more aimed at his church rather than Obama and seem to have pretty much disappeared lately, so not sure how notable that is. --Bobblehead (rants) 16:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Criticism Section?! 

message: I've moved the sentence about Rezko from the footnotes into the main text.  Please discuss here before changing it.  Also, I removed the link to the Sun-times editorial by Conor Clarke.  Firstly, it's clearly pro-Obama and doesn't present facts that are not available elsewhere.  Secondly the link is to a site that does not hold the copyrights to the piece.  If you believe that Obama is innocent of all wrongdoing in this issue, please make a (short & concise) case in the article itself. I've read and heard of Rezko in enough places that I think it's worthy of at least a mention in the main article.  --lk 10:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Restored single paragraph treatment of marriage, children, condo, 2005 house purchase, and neighboring property. --HailFire (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Could someone who knows about the issues and arguments have a look at the Antoin Rezko page? I'm afraid it's not up to the standard of WP:NPV. It needs to be cleaned up so that the facts are presented without any bias or speculation. thanks --lk 11:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just about to remove the POV tag from the the Antoin Rezko article.  Please have a look and let me know any objections. --lk 14:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rezko in the main text 

message: My dad is currently "warning" people about Obama being a radical Muslim.  I looked up this accusation and found an entry on Snopes.com.  Surely my dad isn't the only person who believes this rumor.  People who come here with that in their heads but find no information about it are going to think Wikipedia is "covering" for him or something (which is the mindset the rumor is designed to invoke), so it would be very good to acknowledge the rumor and give an easy link to Snopes ( http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp ).  I'm not putting it up myself because I'm not sure if it actually belongs under Personal Life (which seems the most likely) or elsewhere (perhaps a separate heading?), and furthermore I'm not sure whether this has been in the article before and removed for some reason.  Also too lazy to check through the history to find out.  So someone else please put this information in the correct place.  Thank you. Kilyle 06:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia does not exist to dispel rumors, no matter how incorrect they are. The article already covers his membership in the United Church of Christ in the infobox and the personal life section of the article.--Bobblehead (rants) 17:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. When the rumor is notable enough to generate significant press coverage, we can — and should — cover it here.  — goethean ॐ 18:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, I didn't realize reliable sources actually existed (I haven't trained myself to start paying attention to presidential politics a year before the election yet). In that case, it seems the context to the Muslim rumor is in connection with his presidential campaign, so perhaps that article would be a better place for it than here? --Bobblehead (rants) 19:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: His father has been dead for many years, and one doesn't "convert" to atheism. Senator Obama's religion and his background are covered in the article.  As for this false rumor, this has been discussed at great length (look back in the talk archives) and consensus reached to include the false rumors and refutation in the footnotes, which we do. More than that would give it undue weight.  Tvoz |talk 05:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The rumor campaign was mentioned in the Doonesbury comic strip.  Although that might not be a reliable source here.  I checked out Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 and there didn't seem like there was a place to talk about it there.  How about a new article: Barack Obama Muslim rumor? Redddogg (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will do this. Redddogg (talk) 06:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: And now this. --HailFire (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Boldy went: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama Muslim rumor. --HailFire (talk) 09:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslim Rumor