Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 11

message: The presidential campaign section in this article is a summary of the sub article expanding on the same topic. As a summary, it should be kept relatively short. For example,  a major edit condensed the section in December, removing events before February 2007, including details about the Insight article and related media controversy that it seems some editors here would like to see reinstated.  My own view is that we should not burden a summary section with excessive details, and that the topics currently addressed there already cover notable elements of the campaign that are most relevant to this article. Although the Nevada results still need to be added, we should take care that the section does not become burdened with extensive reporting of election results. There will be lots more to report over the coming weeks, so additions should be made while also weighing the possibility of removing or condensing more dated information that would be better to include in the sub article. Open to hearing other views. --HailFire (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should add Nevada now, before South Carolina. And then we can talk about whether to remove all of the results or what from this main article: we don't want to stop to talk while holding off adding a loss.  And I still question the NH rounding up of the .5 - it's minor, but let's add the actual percentages as we did for Iowa. Tvoz |talk 10:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presidential campaign section 

message: The end of the first paragraph, "He is a faggot who should not win down with obama! down with obama BOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! =(=(=(=(=(=(" is inaccurate and nasty.  I don't know how to correct it, myself, though.
Chuckwrox (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate 

message: The intro of the article reads "He was elected to the U.S. Senate in November 2004 with a landslide 70% of the vote in an election year marked by Republican gains." While this factually accurate, it doesn't convey the circumstances of Sen. Obama's victory and is misleading. This statement seems to suggest that Barack was elected in spite of strong support for Republican candidates. However, in Illinois, the Republican candidate withdrew from the race and Barack was running uncontested for some time until the republicans found a replacement. Barack didn't win in the face of broad Republican support; he won because there was no Republican candidate. This statement is misleading and suggests that Barack overcame popular support for the Republicans. While there may have been national support for the Republicans, this was absolutely not the case in the Illinois race. Let's edit it How about "Barack was elected to the Senate in Nov. 2004 with a landslide 70% of the vote after Republican Jack Ryan dropped out of the race..."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.164.202 (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, your suggest edit seems a little more POV than the current version.  You seem to be implying that his electoral victory is entirely due to Ryan dropping out.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading statements 

message: He has been asked in an article publised by Washington Post to distance himself from the anti-semitic views of Louis Farrakhan who has a close friendship with Obama's spiritual advisor Jeremiah Wright. This is a legitimate concern among many political observers and he has neither clarified nor commented on this issue. If in Europe, a political candidate's close friend attends Neo-Nazi meetings, then it would be a huge controversy. Although I have a lot of admiration for his vision and audacity of hope, I find it quite odd that his supporters on this page resort to any means possible to suppress any criticism.Heja Helweda (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Barack Obama isn't in Europe. And from what I can tell, this isn't a major issue and you have only quote one source which appears to be an editorial. The fact that this isn't a big deal isn't surprising since the views of a friend of Obama's spiritual advisor hardly seem that significant. Besides that, isn't it just as important that Obama distance himself from the homophobic and other racist views of Louis Farrakhan? In any case, I'm pretty sure there are many politicians who are friends with people who are friends with someone who has controversial views. I don't think we always mention the fact since usually the views of a friend of a friend don't affect the person. Heck I'm sure some of Bush's friends of friends have homophobic, anti-Islamic, anti-Arab, anti-semitic etc views but I don't think we mention these in his article either. If anything, Islamo-phobia and anti-Arabism is a far greater problem in the US then anti-semitism so I would say it's far more important that people disassociate themselves from anyone with Islamophobic  and anti-Arab views Nil Einne (talk) 10:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how Jeremiah Wright's connection to Louis Farrakhan is worth mentioning in the article about Obama. Richard Cohen states that he doesn't think Obama shares Wright's view of Farrakhan, and he just advises him not to associate himself in that manner. Nothing of this sort has happened yet, so I don't see why it's worth mentioning. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with Nill Einne, above.  This is worse than simply "guilt by association." The fact that we're talking about a friend of a friend makes it especially irrelevant. One editorialist writing an opinion piece doesn't make the issue notable.  (and before I get accused of being an "Obama supporter suppressing any criticism" I should mention that I made the exact same argument on the John McCain article last week.)--Loonymonkey (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree. They also happen to live a few blocks away from each other, another association?! HG | Talk 06:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/14/AR2008011402083_pf.html  Obama's Farrakhan Test] 

message: His father is identified in the article as "Barack Obama Sr."  Why then isn't the son identified using "Jr."?  I've never heard of a "Sr." whose son was not a "Jr."Ferrylodge (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't a hard and fast rule about what happens with a "Jr." after the "Sr." dies and ultimately it is up to the person if they continue to reference to themselves as Jr. following their father's death, or if they "move up".  In the case of Barack Obama, his lack of a son that shares his name adds an extra layer of ambiguity because the death of his father allowed him to drop the suffix entirely and that seems to be the route he took.  In most cases the addition of Jr. or Sr. is not a legal name, but is just an addition used to differentiate the father from the son. So the birth certificate of a person that shares their name with their father will frequently not include Junior, but will just be their name (So Barack Hussein Obama, rather than Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.). --Bobblehead (rants) 23:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It appears to depend on which source you find and who you ask. According to his records at the Catholic school and childhood friends, he was Barry Soetoro. --Bobblehead (rants) 01:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the sources conflict, and since the presently cited sources do not support the sentence, maybe it would be best to just say: "In 1969, he transferred to the Basuki school, which he attended thru 1971, and where he was known as "Barry".[14][15]Ferrylodge (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it really necessary to clarify that he was known as "Barry" as a child? --Bobblehead (rants) 01:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice that "Barry" is already in footnote 9, so maybe we can leave it out of the Indonesia text.  But I disagree with you about leaving the "I want be President" essay out of the text; if it's not a coincidence, then it's a very interesting factoid indicative of a very long-standing goal.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so you know, Britannica, does say, "Barack Obama, born August 4, 1961, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S., in full  Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. ..." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Given that Obama is a presidential candidate, I would have expected to see a section covering whatever position information is out that might be expected to constitute his political platform.  Was a decision taken somewhere that that wasn't a fit topic for WP, or is it just that no one's done it? --Baylink (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Look here Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008  Jons63 (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked, where is the platform?--Nowa (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can also look at Political positions of Barack Obama. --Bobblehead (rants) 01:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Platform? 

message: Seriously, I don't know how this merits a featured article or any kind of kudos from the press. It reads like a campaign biography. There should be a questionable neutrality flag on it. No mention of the Rezko scandal? Mr Obama may yet be deposed and/or required to testify in this upcoming trial. Not up to snuff at all. I am unimpressed Awomanforachange (talk) 10:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry you're unimpressed. See the section on Personal life, which  mentions Rezko and includes a link to the separate article Antoin Rezko. Tvoz |talk 10:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why wouldn't that be in a "controversy" section? It is beyond his "personal life" He used his position and/or status to get     millions in government funding for Rezko's projects. And he "returned" $80,000 of nearly $170,000 in campaign contributions raised for him by Rezko. That's political, not personal. One sentence is not more than lip service at any rate, compared to all the apple-polishing about what bills he sponsored. The article on Rezko is problematic all on it's own. It has a neutrality warning. Awomanforachange (talk) 10:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Already doing the GOP's work for them? Karl would so appreciate it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not our job to make decisions on matters based on whether the opposition party may or may not relish using a controversy. I believe the term "slum landlord" was used in the debate last night, making the issue a bit more prominent in the campaign. Any controversy being discussed between the candidates has a certain level of relevance. NoSeptember 16:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true. If the issue becomes more prominent in the campaign (as seems to be happening), it will need to reflected here. Seems more of a campaign issue than a biography issue so I imagine it would be more of an issue in the Campaign article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If anywhere, it belongs on the presidential campaign article, i.e. the Clinton-Hsu connection. Take it there. johnpseudo 18:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rezko 

message: Please protect this article.  With Super Tuesday coming up next week, it is important that vandalism and misleading edits be specifically prevented, on the page of all prominent candidates.
Ashwinr (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessary. --HailFire (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: As has been commented upon numerous times on this article's talk page, this article is far from neutral and often reads like an advert. I am placing a POV tag on the article which should not be removed until the neutrality issues are resolved. The lack of neutrality includes the following topics. 
* Insufficient coverage of Obama's involvement with Rezko, including extent of funding, the purchase of Obama's home and adjacent lot with Rezko involvement.
* The lack of mention of Obama 17 year plus friendship with the indicted Rezko
* The lack of coverage of early religious upbringing of Obama
* The lack of coverage of Obama's absenteeism on Congressional voting
* The lack of coverage of the Muslim world's opinion of Obama's religion
* The lack of coverage of Obama's role in denying survival care for prematurely born infants, when Obama was in the Illinois legislature
* The lack of coverage of multiple slum properties in Obama's Illinois district, which properties fell into slum standing under management by Rezko at the same time Obama's law firm was representing Rezko and helping him acquire more properties which Rezko would then neglect
* The lack of coverage of criticisms of other foreign leaders such as the Prime Minister of Australia
The above is a partial list of items whose coverage has been eliminated or sanitized. Let us have more respect for the readers of Wikipedia than to use this as a platform for advertizing.  Decoratrix (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Please read the talkpage before aggressively placing neutrality tags. These issues (every one of them) has been extensively dealt with above. As such, I've removed your spurious tag. -- Bellwether BC 00:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of neutrality in Obama article 

message: I noticed this on the page without an actual source for proof of this matter.
As a member of the Democratic minority in the 109th Congress, Obama co-sponsored the enactment of conventional weapons control and transparency legislation, and made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. In the 110th Congress, he has sponsored legislation on lobbying and electoral fraud, climate change, nuclear terrorism, and care for returned U.S. military personnel.
It think that this is not true. Not unless there is proof of him actually signing documents of this matter, it should be removed. Nicknyte (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congressional History 

message: I would like to learn more about this man, but in a neutral fashion...neither a "for" or "against"...I just want an objective source of information on him.  This article is obviously cheerleading Obama all the way.  The support for Obama in this article is so blatantly obvious it just oozes out of the text.  This article is severely lacking in neutrality, but thats not a surprise.  This is wikipedia! Well known for bias.  I want to learn about Obama, but this is not a good place.  I don't want a conservative source either.  Does anyone know a neutral source of information on Obama?  Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5  (talk • contribs) 
::I think that when you include his middle name, which he does not use, you betray your own bias.  I do not see anyone asking where they can find information about Rudolph William Louis Giuliani, or commenting about Willard Mitt Romney.  A Google search on Obama returns well over 4 million web pages, so I would suggest starting there. Paisan30 (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said, Paisan. Tvoz |talk 05:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, Paisan. Besides I don't think an article makes it to FA if it had contested POV points. HoosierState 05:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this is a good WP article.  However there is nothing special about FA status. I see many on the main page that are clearly not NPOV. The poor reader could also check out some of the articles linked for more info. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If it's biased to include the middle name, I wonder if Wikipedia should perhaps remove it from the first sentence - or is it normal to have a person's full official name as the start of the article?  Interestingly, if you look up Bill Clinton, his III is only given in brackets afterwards, and "Bill" is inserted in quotes into the middle of his bolded name.  So clearly there is some variation. 81.154.49.23 (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: After a relatively cursory glance, it seems pretty neutral to me. It may not be perfectly NPOV, but it certainly doesn't seem like it was written by his campaign staff. Balderdash707 (talk) 06:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Though not a part of his campaign staff, I know one of the biggest Obama campaign organizer my University contributed/edited chunks of this article specifically to create a more favorable image of Obama.  Though I realize the person who brought up the issue appears not to like Obama much (as you all have suggested with the inclusion of his middle name), he/she still makes a very valid point.  The article is nowhere near NPOV, though personally I can't blame Wiki editors entirely.  I tried looking at many of the sources of information while looking through his articles.  Most of the ones I've seen come from sources that openly support Obama or have generally written articles in his favor throughout this entire primary campaign.  Unfortunately, given the current state of the media, and wikipedia's dependence on it as a source, I'm afraid there is no neutrality on Obama.  I do believe Wiki editors have done their best to make the articles sound neutral, taking facts out after the spin make it very hard to discern what's a fact and what was an exaggerated POV of his experience and stance on many issues.  As a lukewarm supporter of Obama, I've never been all too fond of the media spin on his whole campaign, but his message seems genuine.  As for finding a NPOV, my best suggestion would be to search for articles with an Obama spin (not hard to find), then find some with a Hillary spin (if it's possible), and try your best to come to your own conclusion. FantajiFan (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where can I learn about Barack Hussein Obama Neutrally? 

message: Hi. I'm seeking additional reliables sources for background bio and other info on Pete Rouse, chief of staff. Would like to do this bio as a DYK. Thanks! HG | Talk 04:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Greetings. Glad to report that Pete Rouse is about be go onto the Main Page via Did you know.... So, if you can find any other info about him, this would be a great time to add it to the new article! Thanks. HG | Talk 03:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pete Rouse 

message: Regarding the edit you reinserted here today, the cited source provides no verification for our saying that "Obama campaigned on" this issue. It only quotes a supporter's view or expectation.  The supporter says: "I think when the Latino community hears Barack's position on such an important and controversial issue, they'll understand that his heart and his intellect is with Latino community." Note the use of future tense. You've not provided any WP:RS with clear evidence of Obama's political advocacy on this issue. I've reverted the edit. --HailFire (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is the lead paragraph from the source provided;
"Sen. Barack Obama easily won the African American vote in South Carolina, but to woo California Latinos, where he is running 3-to-1 behind rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, he is taking a giant risk: spotlighting his support for the red-hot issue of granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants."
To accurately represent the reference we would have to use language such as "spotlighted" instead of "campaigned" (which I happen to believe is more encyclopedic). Would you accept the addition if I changed the language to more accurately reflect the reference? Prester John  -(Talk to the Hand) 01:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: No, because the cited source offers no evidence of political advocacy by Obama on this topic. --HailFire (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does the source provide evidence of this as a high-profile topic of political advocacy by Obama that would merit its inclusion in the section? --HailFire (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note to Prester John 

message: Barack Hussein Obama holds dual citizenship with Kenya. This should be public knowledge.
Under the Independence Constitution of Kenya, Obama became a Kenyan citizen on December 12, 1963.
http://www.politicalgateway.com/main/columns/read.html?col=731 70.250.148.44 (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are quite a few of us who hold dual citizenship so it  doesn't  seem too remarkable.--Ѕandahl 05:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Except most people with dual citizenships acknowledge it.  Unless something can be found indicating that Obama has accepted his Kenyan citizenship, I'm not sure it warrants mention in the article. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dual Citizenship 

message: Can we remove the leading from the opening sentence. The John McCain article doesn't have it? GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What's your point? The John McCain article has nothing to do with this article. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what he was trying to say. If you look at delegate counts, no one is really "leading" the democratic race at this point, and it is a little pov-ish. John McCain's leading by a lot more v. Romney than Obama v. Clinton right now, though I don't think any article needs the word right now. Wizardman 18:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  We should have at least a few sources before using the word "leading". johnpseudo 18:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: That's acceptable, as it gives consistancy to both sides (Democrat & Republican). GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I thought you were adding leading to John McCain?? GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *I've made it clear I don't even watch those articles? If you think that they all need to be consistent, put the phrasing in there, yourself. -- Bellwether BC 00:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Can we at least wait until after Februay 5th?? GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Better to just say "X is a candidate",  "Y is a candidate",  "Z is a candidate" than to start characterizing them. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the word is included as a shorter form of "serious contender". For instance, Mike Gravel and Ron Paul are I think clearly not at this point "leading candidates". If the phrase "a leading candidate" is used, indicating there is more than one, I don't think it's necessarily objectionable, and is a rather common usage. John Carter (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *This has been exactly my point all along. There's no POV in saying that both serious candidates are "a leading candidate." -- Bellwether BC 00:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - I would support "a leading candidate" in Obama, Clinton, McCain and Romney - not because they all have to be equal, but because it is a true statement for all of them. I am less sure about Huckabee, being a distant third at this point.  Tvoz |talk 20:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: *I agree about McCain, Romney, and perhaps Huckabee. However, I'll leave those adds to you, as I have no interest in raising the ire of the POV-warriors on that side of the political spectrum. -- Bellwether BC 01:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I wanted to throw my two-sense into this discussion.  To me, it seems like using the phrase "leading candidate" without some sort of objective reason why the word "leading" was used is being inherently subjective and NPOV.  If there are actual measures by which any candidate is a leading candidate, then these measures should be able to stand for themselves without any classification.  If there is a clear and important measure that makes someone a leading candidate (clear lead in delegates or national polls), then this should be mentioned in the intro paragraph, otherwise, it should be left out.Karma Heretic (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leading candidate 

message: I didnt find no reference for any spreech and no links too. The spreech at iowa was historical and it has to be showed or at least mention or cite it.
: See Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008.  Tvoz |talk 21:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mentions, no references, no links for iowa spreech 

message: Why doesn't this article look into some of Mr. Obama false claims? While he has accussed Ms. Clinton of cozy relationships with lobbyists (with no concrete evidence), he himself as an Illinois state senator gutted an important comprehensive health care bill with unpalatable amendments causing it fail passage after insurance company lobbyists came knocking on his office door.
This first appeared in the Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/obama_borrows_f.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostoner (talk • contribs) 20:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship with lobbyists 

message: While finding a consensus on the appropriate wording is admittedly difficult, omitting any reference to Ann Dunham's ethnic background (and therefore Sen. Obama's multiethnic background and upbringing) seems to be one of the worst alternatives. Mr. Obama has been talking about his mixed heritage and upbringing—and how it has affected his personal and political life; his heritage has been a significant topic of media coverage. Any encyclopedia article about Mr. Obama is woefully incomplete without a reference to his heritage. --ThorstenNY (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That;s right, it is already in the article and not needed in the lede. Further, Kenyan and white are not equivalent - Kenyan and American are. That sentence says his father was Kenyan and his mother was American. The very first section of the article itself clearly says that his father was black and his mother was white. Nothing is omitted.  Tvoz |talk 23:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: His mother's ethnic heritage is not mentioned at all in the intro section, nor is it explicitly mentioned anywhere in the article. It is implicitly referenced by the quote "white as milk", but such a potentially ambiguous reference is not sufficient for an encyclopedia article. (E.g., without additional information, some readers could infer that the mother might have been what used to be refered to as "passing.") The criticism regarding equivalence is a red herring. Obviously, the mixed background of Obama's parents can and should be expressed differently then "Kenyan fater, white mother". --ThorstenNY (talk) 08:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mother's Ethnic Background Irrelevant? 

message: His portrait profile lists his year of birth as 1991, aging him at 16. As a new user, I cannot repair this. Somebody, however, should.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ripscallion (talk • contribs) 23:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age vandalism 

message: I've heard him being called this, but have no citation of it. Does anyone what any? Basketballone10 00:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Black Kennedy 

message: Profile states religion as 'Muslim' while article states 'Obama is himself a devout Christian'. I'm almost certain the latter is true.
Philpill (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which profile says he is Muslim? I did find an oddly placed sentence in the "Early life" section that inaccurately said his father was Muslim and mentioned Obama being a devout Christian. Considering the section is about Obama's early life and Obama's father was not Muslim then and Obama was not a devout christian at that point in time, I've removed the sentence. Does that resolve the contradiction you saw? --Bobblehead (rants) 16:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I figured out what you were talking about.  The article was vandalized by another editor, but the change has been reverted, so we're all good now. Thanks for identifying the issue. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I think it needs to be emphasized more than Obama is a Christian. I've had several people swear to me that he's a muslim and that he said he's a muslim. This needs to be cleared up once and for all, perhaps even being mentioned a top the page. 74.140.239.213 (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: People are stupid, and emphasizing his religion is stupid, given that it is not a major emphasis of his campaign. Just because people are stupid doesn't mean we need to emphasize that they're wrong at the top of the page; it should be in the article where it is appropriate. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, the fact that Obama is a Christian, and that religion is the basis of a major false (indeed potentially defamatory) smear against Obama raises the profile of this element of his personal history. bd2412 T 23:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion Contradiction 

message: Most articles on the Obama children list Malia's birthday as 4 July 1999. I believe this is wrong and that her correct birthday is 4 July 1998, as evidenced by several articles from their campaign in Iowa, which stated that she turned 9 on 7 July 2007. Eg, http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/07/sweet_iowa_july_4th_blog_speci.html
90% of the other references to her birthday seem to be copies and miscopies of 1999, apparently from Wikipedia.
Manumoka  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manumoka (talk • contribs) 17:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to sound rude, but who cares? This is an encyclopedia article, not an obituary.  Actually even obituaries, don't have exact dates of children's birth.  How about other luminaries like Einstein, Gandhi, or Freud, does Wikipedia have exact dates of their children's birth?  Unlikely, I think.  It is enough to say, "The year 1999 saw the birth of ..."  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: PS I just realized, you are talking about the year.  Sorry.  Please correct the year, but throw out the day and month.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: More apologies! :) Apparently, Einstein's first son's actual date of birth is mentioned (but not the second's).  So, you be the judge.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is generally preferred to only include the year on living people that are not notable except for their relation to their parents.  Heck, in many cases the name of the children are not listed in articles, just that a son or daughter was born in a certain year.--Bobblehead (rants) 19:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malia's birthday 

message: The name of the law firm where Barack Obama and Michelle Obama met is "Sidley Austin" not "Sidley & Austin"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.40.53 (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. I made the change. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, this is obscure - but was it ""Sidley & Austin" at the time they met?  And, importantly, would that even matter?  (I have no idea...never come across this issue before...) --TheOtherBob 19:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Going purely off the article and this source, it was known as Sidley & Austin at the time of Obama's employment. The company renamed to Sidley Austin, LLC in 2006.--Bobblehead (rants) 19:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Per Wikipedia article, current Sidley Austin, LLP is result of 2001 merger of Sidley & Austin and other firm whose name has since been dropped. So I've restored '88 name, S&A. Andyvphil (talk) 04:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sidley & Austin 

message: baruch needs disambig Randomblue (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  disambig/delete... 

message: What do you think about mentioning the essay he wrote when in third grade saying he wanted to be president someday?  It might be interesting to the readers. Borock (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third grade essay 

message: Watching him on tv, he seems to have a American Southern accent, but he was born in Hawaii and lived in his formative years in Indonesia.  Is it affected to seem more "folksy?"  Did he spend time somewhere that this accent was prevalent?
I think his mother's family is from Kansas and that's what his accent sounds like to me. People from the Illinois-Iowa-Kansas-Nebraska region have this sort of sound. 71.66.231.200 (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such thing as an "Illinois-Iowa-Kansas-Nebraska region", linguistically. Southern Illinoians have what could be described as a Kentucky accent; Obama has never lived there. Northern Illinoians either sound like Wisconsinites or else have the classically neutral Midwestern accent (which actually comes from Missouri). Iowans speak just as neutrally. Nebraskans are more culturally close to Denver than any of the places you mentioned, and would at least marginally derive their mannerisms from there. I don't understand the argument that Obama talks like he's from Kansas because his mother's family is from there, given that he himself never lived there. --76.217.94.0 (talk) 11:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the origin of his accent? 

message: I perused the article but can find nothing about two issues that have been bothering me.  Did you write about them? First of all:  Is it true that Barack took his oaths of office on the Koran? and not the Bible?  Secondly:  Is it true that Barack will not do the Pledge to the Flag or say the Pledge?  Thanks Ekalaka333  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekalaka333 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of those assertions are false - see the Snopes article debunking them. Obama was sworn in on the Christian Bible, and has actually led the entire Senate in the Pledge of Allegiance on several occasions., . bd2412 T 20:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unrelated questions 

message: There is a section that mentions that he has been criticized by pro-choice people for his present votes on critical legislation.  What is not mentioned is that the citation used for this fact states outright that this criticism is baseless. This convenient omission is clear POV.  The article is locked now, so I cannot make the correction needed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.209.253 (talk) 10:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is locked so that only established editors can make changes. This is due to repeated vandalism. →Wordbuilder (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Present vote criticism 

message: As of February 9th, Barack Obama has won in the presidential primaries the states and territories of:
Lousiana
Utah
Missouri
Illinois
Delaware
Georgia
Connecticut
Alabama
South Carolina
Washington (state)
American Samoa
and the Virgin Islands  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrftkd13 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obama victories 

message: Will someone who understands the story of Obama's involvement in, and voting on, the reauthorisation of the Patriot Act, please provide an accurate and reasonably thorough summary. (It seems bizarre that this is missing.  Perhaps it was in an earlier version of the article.) 
Archelon (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh-huh.  Well, the article may as well just say that he voted for the reauthorisation then, since that seems to be the simple truth.  Objections? Archelon (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't object to any addition that is relevant, encyclopedic, and properly sourced. If it fails any of these three, then I do object. →Wordbuilder (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The USA PATRIOT act 

message: This article has a clear bias. I can't see one negative pointed out yet on Hilary's page there are a couple.  I know everyone likes Obama and he is a nice guy but this the primary information source for many people and i believe it is morally wrong to present a bias like this. His  pros and cons should be listed.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Androm (talk • contribs) 18:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish to add anything to the article, please be bold and do so. Remember to cite any information you add to reliable sources. Make sure to write from a neutral point of view. Also keep in mind that "Controversy" sections are frowned upon. Failure to comply with these suggestion will most likely result in your edits being reverted. Rami R 20:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read discussions above and previously - consensus is that "a leading candidate" is accurate and should be included.  I'm reinstating it.  Tvoz |talk 07:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  rewrite 

message: It would be very much appreciated if someone (preferably a US native) could record the pronunciation of his name as a free alternative to this page. --Morten LJ (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repost: Pronunciation of his name 

message: I've realigned this non-lede "extreme aspect ratio" image to the left and increased to 240 pixels. Alternating left and right alignments in sections makes for a better flow of images and text. See also: Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 9#Use of Image:Flickr Obama Springfield 01.jpg in presidential campaign section. Open to other suggestions. --HailFire (talk) 12:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:Flickr Obama Springfield 01.jpg 

message: The statement that Barack Obama supports universal health care is erronous. In the campaign debates only Clinton and Edwards were for universal health care. Obama is for lower insurance costs for most people, but it is not for universal health care.
RHBrown (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Universal health care does not necessarily mean "free" insurance for everyone, it just means that everyone has access to health care insurance regardless of financial or health status. People that can not afford to pay the premiums of Obama's health care plan, but do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP will get federal subsidies based upon income. This is not functionally different than Hillary Clinton's plan or Edwards's plan. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Obama has said in the debates that he does not support Single-payer health care, perhaps that is what is confusing you? --Bobblehead (rants) 20:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health care statement incorrect 

message: The effort that went into compiling the list of electoral results is appreciated, but this feature article is already well over the 32k readable prose target, so we should be selective about how we allocate the available space. Listing results that are already detailed and fully sourced in the article or the Illinois senate election sub article may not be the best use of that space. Open to other views, but please keep in mind that the article already exceeds 38k of readable prose, even without this new section. I think previous consensus agreed that listing election results is not a good use of this biography article space, but need to search the archives to locate that discussion. --HailFire (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Election history 

message: This is now a featured article, and I notice certain categories relating to Obama's descent. One of them is this " Americans of Irish descent" Does he also come under Scottish descent? This is a faily n00bish search, but it yields some citable evidence.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=obama+scottish+ancestry+metro&meta=
Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Descent categories 

message: Obama has been the topic of scandal very recently. The scandal has included Karl Rove in saying that he got Republicans to change their party in order to vote for Obama. He has also been quoted in saying that he was able to get the right people on CNN and MSNBC news cast to bash his opponent and support Obama, in the hopes of having Democrats vote Republican. Source: http://thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winter08/2008Election.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paexo (talk • contribs) 17:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow... That Karl Rove is a genius. I was unaware that the life-long Democrats that support Obama were actually Republicans in disguise. But to be honest, Karl really has to work on controlling the rest of the Republicans as there seems to be a grassroots campaign to have Republicans vote for Hillary because they believe they have a better chance of beating her in the general election than Obama. Although, one has to wonder about your source.. It seems to have been written by a person that hasn't actually read the Time magazine article they claim to use as a source. Karl Rove's name isn't mentioned once and there is absolutely no mention of any of the former Republican's being organized by anything other than themselves... --Bobblehead (rants) 18:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced that Paexo is interested in improving the article (see ClueBot's reversion of the user's "contribution"). →Wordbuilder (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scandal 

message: This article (like Hillary Rodham Clinton) -again-, should have leading removed. Neither Obama or Clinton have a large enough gap between them. GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Be bold and remove it. At such time he becomes the clear leader, it can be put back in. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I disagree with this - both articles correctly  say "a leading candidate", not "the leading candidate".  There is a clear and obvious difference between those two constructions.  As I said when GoodDay said this on the Clinton talk page, removing "a"  ignores that the Democratic race has narrowed down from eight to two, each of which is a leading candidate. The lack of gap between them is irrelevant, as is McCain. Please don't remove it.  Tvoz |talk 00:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh (sorry Al Gore), all right then. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I thought the Super Duper Tuesday results would discourage the usage of a leading. But I'm fine with it now. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "A leading" would have made good sense last week for either Clinton or Obama; however, with only two candidates remaining, it is now redundant.   More generally, "a leading" applied to a candidate X, implies that candidate X is one of a group of "leaders." That, in turn, in logical terms, presupposes  a group of "stragglers." However, the set of stragglers is now empty.  Alternatively, saying that Clinton or Obama is each "a leading candidate" is logically equivalent to saying, "Clinton and Obama are together the leaders in the field of candidates."  But that field doesn't have any one else.  In other words,  "a leading" applied to one candidate in a field of two, is equivalent to applying "the leading" to a field of one.  And that, most people will agree, is redundant.  The sentence should be changed to "one of two remaining candidates." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mike Gravel is still in and he has a section on the MSNBC delegate scoreboard ... ;)--Tombomp (talk) 09:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He has a snowballs shot in hell (or worse) of winning, or even finishing second.  Charles Stewart (talk) 09:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Definitely; I was just showing that the set of stragglers is in fact not empty --Tombomp (talk) 09:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leading candidate (again) 

message: This seems to have been written when Obama was still fairly new and unknown.  Now just about everyone in the country is talking about him at least once a day.  I'm not sure how the section could be updated. Maybe it should just be removed, and then rewritten and put back after he leaves office. ;-) Borock (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: hmm... Many hours of hard work have gone into that section. I contributed some of them myself. On the other hand you have a point. Rereading it now it seems kind of like a random collection of opinions, in a way.  The "controversy" over his "blackness" especially seems a bit outdated now. I'm not quite bold enough to remove the whole section however. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't remove sections from or make major changes to this article without discussion - this is a featured article that has been vetted and reviewed, and we need to talk about major changes like this.  I do not think the section should come out - this is an encyclopedia piece with a long view and we have to assume that people coming to read it now and in the future may not know about these image issues. Editing it is of course possible, but we ought to talk about how first.  Similarly, I think  big edits especially by new editors ought to be preceded by discussion - being bold is  generally fine, but in a high-profile article like this one there has been a great deal of discussion that you may not be aware of. We have extensive archives of how we got to the point we're at,and editors who are available to talk with,  so I think bold editing can be problematic.  New eyes are valuable, but let's talk first.  Tvoz |talk 03:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I would definitely not remove this section.  I do not find it dated; rather, it helps to explain why Obama is where he is today and why his presidential campaign is so successful.  It should be augmented at some point with reflections from the campaign, yes.  But I believe it is vital to the article.  Indeed, I have emulated it in both the Hillary Rodham Clinton article (*) and the John McCain article.  This section gives us a chance of describing the political and cultural intersection between a biographical figure and American public life, and that's an important thing to do.  Wasted Time R (talk) 05:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't plan on removing the section then. I've made a resolution not to hurt anyone's feelings here on Wikipedia. Borock (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Is the articles in Spiegel and other foreign news agencies about Obama the person or Obama the presidential election candidate? If it is about the presidential election candidate, it would probably be worthwhile to include it in Obama's election campaign article. If it is about the person, then the image section would probably be applicable. --Bobblehead (rants) 16:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It analyses his rhetoric and statements(especially about foreign politics), so I would include it in his campaign. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there ya go.. You may also consider adding some of it to the Foreign policy section of his political positions article. It'd be nice to add some critical reviews of his policies in that article. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Cultural and political image" section