Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 4

message: Why is the text so tiny in the Obama article?  It's the only article in mini-type.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.167.189.167 (talk • contribs).
:Font looks fine on my computer. Are you talking about the text itself, or other sections of the article? The references are in a smaller font so that they won't take up too much room. Gzkn 06:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it may have been related to this issue. Gzkn 02:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: why would that affect only this article, and only for one user (apparently)?  that's weird Tvoz 06:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh, s/he was probably mistaken. Might have been browsing Obama right when the small tag was unclosed. Gzkn 07:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Font problem 

message: See opening paragraph:
:Obama delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention while still serving in the Illinois State Senate. In November 2004, he was elected to the United States Senate as a Democrat by a landslide in a presidential election year marked by Republican gains. (note no citation)
These two bolded bits show some of the pro-Obama bias that comes out in the article.  Surely, he is a phenomenon and significant politician.  But some of the rhetoric in the article takes it too far.  Any other comments or views on this issue should be outlined below; I am not establishing a comprehensive look at the POV of the article, but it is quickly obvious that it is not neutral.  Happy editing! Shagmaestro 14:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I've addressed the specific concerns you raised in your comment.  Do you (or anyone else) have any other specific NPOV concerns? · j e r s y k o talk · 14:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took the liberty of removing the NPOV tag after reviewing the article. Andrew 19:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What was wrong with the original opening paragraph?  Or is Shagmaestro just trying to provoke?  They're facts.  Obama was still serving in the state senate, the election was a landslide (70% to 27%), and the year was marked by Republican gains. Sjenkins7000 22:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The word in question is landslide.  This is a subjective opinion and not a fact.  There is no agreement as to the point where you switch from a 'close' victory to a 'landslide' victory. Kelvinator 08:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortunately it's not a decision Wikipedia has to make, nor should it. Even though Jersyko made the requested changes, there are several reliable sources that cite Obama's 2004 election as "landslide". Namely, the Chicago Tribune, Newsweek, and the New Statesman, to name a few. However, it was quite appropriate of you to point out that the term was not properly cited or attributed. But hey, moot point now that Jersyko made the changes. --Bobblehead 08:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By any reasonable measure, a Senate election victory in which the victor garners 70% is absolutely a "landslide".  I detect no bias whatsoever in referring to it as such. KyuzoGator 06:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I don't see any harm in not including the word "landslide" in the opening paragraph, I do think it is interesting to note that Obama's victory is listed in the US section for landslide victory. --Bobblehead 07:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but why not report that he won by a large majority? This is just factual and does not contain any POV pushing elements. --Kukini 19:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is POV/weasel wordish to simply state a "large" majority.  What is the threshold for large? 60%? 70%? 80%?  It is entirely subjective.  I think that article makes it very clear that Obama is a popular politician in his district.  I wouldn't have a problem with simply saying "Obama was elected with 70% of the vote" or something neutral like that. --Rtrev 19:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does.  Neutral statement of 70% was alreeady there - see end of Senate campaign grafTvoz | talk 20:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave it a shot, let me know what y'all think. Oh, just out of curiosity, what would you call a 70% to 30% vote? I thought "large" was a reasonable description, yet it was called it weasel language. Anyways...it is on there now as suggested. --Kukini 22:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: He is half-white, or as we say today, half-European-American.  What is (or are) the national origin(s)/ethnicity origins of Obama's maternal side?Dogru144 01:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: American is not an ethnicity.  Mis mother is from Kansas, in a region with many German and other northern Europeans -is she of English, German, Swedish heritage?Dogru144 16:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Ethnicity]] within the [[European American]] component of his heritage

message: Respectfully, I'm half white and half black. In a pinch (because I don't really like the phrase for personal reasons), I will say I'm African-American. I really liked the article the last time I read it (two days ago). 
In the end, it doesn't really matter what anyone wants to call me, but I would really appreciate it if they would respect what I want to call myself. Barack Obama calls himself African-American, so please lets leave it. Since I begged the question, I call myself a human being and that's about it.Nina Odell 01:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we just drop this tired subject. Restarting this debate is not going to get anywhere. Issues of race and racism are not going to be resolved through a Wikipedia talk page. Gzkn 07:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: seconded Tvoz | talk 07:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No doubt - I just saw "African-American - again" on a summary and thought maybe I would nip whatever it was in the bud. I'm often wrong though:).Nina Odell 17:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: If there is further debate

message: Footnote #5 is actually a circular reference, as the article it footnotes credits as its own source wikipedia.  In other words, Wikipedia should not quote a source whose main source is wikipedia.  Also, the minor changes about his stepfather's occupation and Barack's childhood are from the following source:  [discoverthenetworks.org]
The circular reference whose link was removed is http://www.eastandard.net/hm_news/news.php?articleid=1143957108.  The article credits "wikipedia and its agencies" as its own source. --Djbrei 22:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  circular reference 

message: For new editors: there is hidden text on the intro for  good reason - please don't change the relevant sentences without reading the extensive archives on this point, and then please discuss here before proceeding, as requested.  Editors of this article worked hard to reach consensus on how to accurately and neutrally describe Senator Obama, and apparently it was agreed that the US Senate Historical Office was a neutral source and that they should be cited - in the text as well as in the footnote - exactly as: "According to the U.S. Senate Historical Office, he is the fifth African American Senator in U.S. history and the only African American presently serving in the U.S. Senate." followed by the footnote.  I was not editing this page at that time, but I believe the consensus reached by the editors involved  should be respected.  So I have reinstated the agreed upon text, and I hope that this reverting will stop.  I also believe discussion is welcome, however.  This is not a closed subject - nothing ever is closed on Wikipedia - but reverting wars won't get us anywhere.  Tvoz 08:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was here when this editing was been discussed.  The deal is this: It is unclear one way or the other to describe Obama's racial background.  Most attempts by Wikipedia editors to "decide" what to call him are pure and simple WP:OR.  It is not out place to assign a racial descriptor to Obama so it is best not to refer to him in racial terms unless you are citing from a RELIABLE SOURCE that describes Obama's race.  Otherwise you are running the risk of violating WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.  Its all in the archives many times... please read. --Rtrev 14:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's a helpful link: Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 3.  Nearly the whole page, so I won't link individual subsections. . · j e r s y k o talk · 14:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus on intro wording in is Archive- NEW EDITORS PLEASE READ 

message: Where are the election returns specifics for the state legislature election?Dogru144 01:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure I understand what you're saying...are you asking for a complete tally of Obama's voting record during his time in the state legislature? That's not something that would be worth including in an encyclopedia article. I'm not sure I understand the POV thing either. What are you saying is POV about that section? Gzkn 01:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Electoral history is selective --thus, inherently POV, to put it lightly

message: Was he a law professor at the same time that he was a state legislator?Dogru144 01:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well he wasn't a "professor", just a lecturer at UChicago. According to the article, he didn't take his leave of absence until he became a Senator: "Obama...taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1993 until his federal election." Gzkn 01:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarity for whether law professor post was concurrent with state legislator position

message: Removed trolling. Gzkn 02:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Over Rated?

message: The "web articles" section seems to have devolved into a list of articles that attack or support Sen. Obama - I don't see how these are "unofficial sites" at all.  They are at best "further reading", but would be out of proportion there - they are not in-depth looks at t Obama pro or con - they are just individual commentaries.   They could be used as references to the text of the article, if the article addresses the issues raised in these pieces and if someone actually used them as source material. We have to have a balanced view in this article, absolutely, but attaching an attack piece with no context as an "unofficial site" (like Raimondo's or Cockburn's) or for that matter a "pro"-Obama piece like the Vermont one - as "unofficial sites", I think is wrong on both sides.   I propose removing the "web articles" section from unofficial sites.  Tvoz | talk 22:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure.  WP:EL seems to lead to this type of edit. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I'm not saying this because of the  WP:EL guideline which I personally have some problems with - I am saying it because these just aren't sites of any kind, they are articles and as such amy be eminently includable but not in this way. I have no problem in principle with the rest of the unofficial sites listed here, or with the idea of external links - just think that these either should be incorporated into "further reading" or  used as actual references. Tvoz | talk 00:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unofficial sites - wrong on both sides 

message: On January 1st, from IP 12.219.104.40 I added to the Iraq War (5.3.3) the following paragraph:
Never the less Obama voted in favor of every additional funding for the troops in Iraq, and voted against Senator Kerry's Troop Redeployment Amendment 
It was edited out without comment. I do think it is relevant information about Obama's position on the Iraq War.
Peace!
Marcos 
marcos 07:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not the one who removed it, so I can't say why it was removed, but perhaps if you had a citation for the first part of your text it would have been better - this citation only refers to the Kerry amendment, and the first part is not given with any context (i.e., how did everyone else vote?) or verification.  Tvoz | talk 07:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  why remove my addition to Iraq War on Obama's page? (I was not logged in) 

message: People will be interested to know that a politician who wants to lead our nation in the fight against Islamic extremism spent two years in a Muslim school. I'm not saying it disqualifies him (maybe it's even an advantage -- know your enemy), but it is certainly relevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.163.230.185 (talk • contribs).
:The addition looks like WP:Undue weight to me. --HailFire 10:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Slow revert entered. --HailFire 16:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No personal attacks, please. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: OK. It's not clear what you're asking for a source on, but if you're asking about his schooling, here it is. Obama's mother married a non-practicing Muslim Indonesian man and they moved to Indonesia when Barack was 6 years old. He attended a school there for 2 years - when he was ages 6-8, which has been described as a "Muslim" school, but no further detail given as to what that means; he then was put in a "Catholic" school  from ages 8-10, then his mother sent him back to Hawaii to her parents where he went to a private non-sectarian school from fifth grade through high school.  It is apparent that going to these 2 schools from ages 6-10  neither made him Muslim nor Catholic - they were just elementary schools - and has been deemed an unecessary detail for this piece as it is completely irrelevant to anything else.  Some people seem to want to make a big deal out of it for unknown reasons.  The source we had for this was one short sentence in an article written by Scott Turow, and the point of Turow's article was that Obama is "the face of American diversity", not that somehow he is a secret Muslim, or a secret Catholic for that matter.   Somewhat ironic seeing as how this little tiny factoid seems to be wielded here.  If you look at earlier edits of that section you'll find one that I did which spelled out this unimportant story, because I thought that it was preferable to spell it out rather than just saying that he spent 2 years in a Muslim school as if that somehow conveyed something meaningful - when you look at  the whole story it is crystal clear that these were merely educational choices that his mother made, and of no lasting import at all.  I agreed with whoever decided to remove the whole explanation, because I never really thought it rose to the level of a notable fact either.   So that is the whole story as I know it.  Not worth the time it took to tell it, not significant, and not needed in the article.  Tvoz | talk 06:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen to that! Gzkn 06:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslim schooling 

message: What happened to NPOV?  This article looks more like an "I Love Me" campaign ad than anything.69.151.50.128 10:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can point out specific violations of NPOV, please do. Gzkn 10:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main thing notable about Senator Obama is his great popularity; there is no way to talk about that without sounding positive about the guy.   Of course any criticisms expressed in published sources should not be left out of the article.  Steve Dufour 04:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campaign Ad 

message: I asked this about a month ago, and i'd like to ask you all again
:Does anybody have a problem with removing that "according to the US Senate" part? It's incredibly redundant, particularly since there's a link right afterwards. Since it's been heated and discussed before, I'll wait a few days to see if anyone still has a problem. Just H 01:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I too think it's a bit awkward but it is accurate, and a reasonable compromise.  And I go along with respecting the consensus that editors managed to reach in this sometimes contentious crowd.Tvoz | talk 06:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Just figured i'd check. Just H 21:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't take out the disclaimer.  I lost two days worth of work spent arguing the point last time.  :-)  Steve Dufour 04:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Put it in if it was mentioned in any new articles.  Steve Dufour 04:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Opening Paragraph