This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
It appears that some Wikipedia editors are removing or downplaying any mention of Obama early childhood Islamic origins and history. This is causing a general misrepresentation of Obama's childhood history by omission of important facts.I have tagged the article appropriately. So far no one has challenged any of the points below. Please so not remove the tag until dispute is resolved.
-- CltFn ( talk) 17:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
[outdent] HoosierState is right about this being settled here. Repeatedly adding the list of particulars is disruptive. You've made your point, we all understand it, but we don't agree with your view. Please let it go already CLtFn. And by the way - your attempt to "subtly" suggest that you're a "Clinton Fan" with your username isn't going to fly either: I do not think you represent her views, would guess that she'd rather not have your kind of support, and wonder if it's not an attempt to smear two for one. Not that dirty tricks are something that anyone would consider using Wikipedia for. Enough already. Tvoz | talk 22:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that the first section of the early life and career be as follows:
Any objections?-- CltFn ( talk) 23:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Guys - This is a presidential election. Is there an intellectual among us that would pretend that a candidate's views on religion are not important. Obama talks about his views (and his mother's) in great detail in his biography. He references the Koran and the Bible (among others) as being on the shelf in his home. He is an intellectual himself with a thorough understanding of Islam and Christianity. If it's a big part of his biography, why is it not a part of this one? I only go back to this issue as it seems that his supporters refuse to look at this issue through a neutral perspective. Look at the comments above. People on this board are actually suggesting that a presidential candidate's family and religious influences (including past practices) are not relevant. Be serious. In this country, where censorship is an extremely bad word, the voters get to hear all and decide what's relevant. As one writer said above, I did not 'give up' on this issue....I just decided that the issue of Neutrality was more important. Frankly, unless I don't understand the rules of Wiki (and I'll admit I am new), it really seems obvious that Neutrality is in fact missing in this article. There is just too much missing (the Islam background being one example) for anyone to believe this article to be anything other than a campaign piece. If a POV issue was not raised in the 10 hours....what is a POV issue? Can someone explain? 76.108.82.49 ( talk) 01:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
So you are ok that we alter the first sentence of the the early life and career section to as follows?:
Obama was born on August 4, 1961 at The Queen's Medical Center[9][10] in Honolulu, Hawaii to a Muslim father Baracka Hussein Obama, Sr. (born in Nyanza Province, Kenya, of Luo ethnicity) and Christian mother Ann Dunham (born in Wichita, Kansas). -- CltFn ( talk) 03:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The user who made the above section has an extremely long history of violations of Wikipedia policy ( See Block Log). We as Wikipedians do not have to tolerate people using our site to spread out political smears (See WP:SOAP and WP:BATTLE). Having taken into account the long-term abuse by this user which dates back to 2005 I as an administrator have indefinitely blocked his editing privileges. I ask all users who regularly contribute to this article to leave me a note if such activity continues on this or related articles so that the proper action can be taken. Thank you and good day.-- Jersey Devil ( talk) 20:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Thus truth was silenced because no one wanted to here her.( 208.61.109.241 ( talk) 04:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC))
RE: Barack Obama's name. In general Muslims do not name a child the exact name of the parent. It is considered a form of ancestral worship forbidden by the Qu’ran. You rarely if ever find a “senior,” “junior,” designation in Muslim nomenclature.
Most often children will be given their own first name. Some Muslim communities go so far as to dictate that no other living relative may carry that same first name. Thus allowing for a kind of individual ownership of the name within the family. The middle name most often will be first name of the child’s father, even if the child is a girl. This identifies them as the child of so and so, through male lineage. The last name of course is the family surname (which according to Muslim tradition girls may keep when they marry).
So if the person is named Fatimah Abdullah Shaikh, you will know that her father is Abdullah. Likewise, Muhammad Mustafa Khan, indicates that his fathers is named Mustafa.
The fact that Barack Hussein Obama carries the exact same name, in the same order as his father strongly suggests that the father was not a practicing Muslim at the time of the junior Obama’s birth. It further suggests that his father was very westernized and just adopted the very western nomenclature of naming his son after him. Nothing religious in how Barack was given his name at all. Bcc cindy ( talk) 05:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
CltFn, you seriously need to get over your erroneous anti-Muslim bias. The "fact" that Obama's father was a "practicing Muslim" at the time of Barack's birth has been thoroughly discredited . . . he was non-practicing and atheistic. If you knew anything about Islam, this is considered apostasy and in extremist circles such as Wahhabism is punishable by death. Now, putting this aside for a second, I'd like you to admit that your attempts to insert the canard of Barack and Islam is nothing more than an attempt to appeal to the post-9/11 anti-Islamic climate in America in order to tarnish the character of a man who stands a decent chance of being elected President. You're transparent. Scientz ( talk) 18:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
For the record I'm viewing this from the UK, and this section on the one above seem bizarre to say the least. Being impartial (well relatively so) I read the comment "Wikpedia does not care if he is running for the office of the president" (or a statement to that effect) - this is simply wrong in my view. I for one I came to wikipedia on this matter to have a look at his background *because he is running for president". Excluding information on his upbringing is stupidity surely? CltFn does appear to have a questionable editing history, but if they are facts, then I can't see a reason not to have them on the page. What is anti-muslim and what is anti-muslim is for the reader to decide not you editors. Your job (as I see it) is to insure the article is accurate and relevant, and looking at the comments CltFn made (which I can of course see why you have concerns) they do fit here (if and only if they have valid references of course). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.156.106 ( talk) 16:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Some of the arguments concerning Obama's "Muslim past" are ridiculous, for example "why did his father give him a Muslim name if he was an atheist?" here is an easy answer: his father gave obama his name, meaning he is Sr, and his son is Jr. Also im am sure you will find many atheists naming their kids John, Michael, Paul, or even Chris which is derived from Christian, these are all names you will probably find in the bible, does that mean their kids are going to be raised as Christians even thought their parent's are Atheists? no, I find that linking Obama to Islam just because of his name to be stupid, and yet there are still anti-Islam bigots who will still try to do this with unreliable evidence and rumors, even though it has been discredited many times. Wraith12 ( talk) 23:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Wraith12
I've restored this image to the location in the Barack Obama#Political advocacy section where it appeared previously. If you want to replace the image, its caption, and references with an alternative contribution that better illustrates adjoining section content, please consider stating your reasoning here and seeking consensus before making the change. Thanks. -- HailFire ( talk) 11:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a little unclear. Did his mother and siblings sister (his mom's article only mentions her) also return at the same time? Was he sent back by his mother? I don't think he decided to return on his own since he was only about 10 years old.
Redddogg (
talk) 15:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems like there are far too many wiki links in the article. I mean, is it really necessary to provide links to words like "pronounced", "memoir" and "multimillionaire"? 66.32.217.17 ( talk) 20:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
That was a speech broadcast world wide. Many newspapers around the world translated it and put it in 2nd or 3rd page. That speech reborned JFK spirit inside of many people on internet. I vote to mean it as an "historial speech", of course in his political career, and may discuss in political history. -- 213.97.224.11 ( talk) 10:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, i wanted to put on discussion one fact, Obama was unknowed for the world until that Iowa speech. And may be, time will say us that we will need a single wiki-page for describe that speech.-- 213.97.224.11 ( talk) 10:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree, this is a enciclopedia article, not a biography book. People want to know things with a eye-rush. Thats what wiki means, right? Yes. This article has to show the key things that people should know. Specific issues to specific articles. If people want to know more of an specific issue they will click to go to the subarticle. You are right, this article is going too long and it has to "branch-and-bound" spliting in many others subarticles. Anyway, theres a way to qualify and give importance and the significance of the facts, as brief as possible, but without loosing this qualification. Also, to put many things together hides the important facts. Theres a lot of work.
So, Why i keep discussing that Iowa is a key issue that should be remarked as brief as posible with the importance that it had?
1- You said, "actually brought him out of obscurity was the 2004 speech at the Democratic convention". Thats true for an american scope. Iowa was for a wide-world scope.
2- Within the historical context, Iowa caucasus predicts the democratic results. In people's minds iowa is an oracle.
3- It was a popularity inflexion point inside and outside america. Respect H. Clinton.
I will post some references and facts for all these points. Ill need time and help.--
MisticVisions (
talk) 18:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I see that someone has removed my sentence (cited) about his famous third grade school essay. I agree that this is kind of a minor item, but still I think it added interest to the article and I don't see how it could have done any harm.
On an unrelated item... Do you think it would be a good idea if the article mentioned that he was born a US citizen? Of course we Americans all know that he was, but people in other countries will also be reading the article and in other places it's possible that a child born to a non-citizen father would not be born a citizen. Borock ( talk) 19:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I reverted the change by Kencf. The first line already plainly states that he was born in Hawaii; further elaboration in this context will only confuse readers. -- HailFire ( talk) 16:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
[out] I agree with Hailfire on this - he is clearly identified as having been born in the US (and to an American mother, which wouldn't even be necessary for citizenship). Seems to me that saying that he is raises questions in people's minds that might not have been there before - certainly we don't say the equivalent thing for others if they are born in the US. John McCain was not born in the US, he was born in Panama, so it is relevant to state that he is an American citizen, and even so we do it in a footnote. Obama was born in the US so why would we say it there? Tvoz | talk 19:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Tvoz and Hailfire. Some uninformed readers may be confused, or may perceive this as a jab at McCain whose citizenship is discussed at footnote 1 of the John McCain article. Obama's birth made him a lot of things (e.g. an earthling, a citizen of Hawaii, et cetera). No need to list them here in this article. Ferrylodge ( talk) 23:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you please update your page to include the dates Barack Obama Graduated Columbia University and Havard Law School. Only seems fair since the dates were included in Hillary Clinton Bio.
Education: Graduated from Columbia University in 1983 and Harvard Law School in 1991. Became first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review in 1990
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/28/at_harvard_law_a_unifying_voice/?page=1
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgdme ( talk • contribs) 19:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
reference to working on a PhD is typical Obama Jr endless hyping that is simply a lie. And see next , no one knows who Obama Jr is as never did Harvard.
source: Harvard University see following:
Subject: FW: obama Date: 2/21/2008 11:49:50 A.M. Eastern Standard Time From: pdyer@fas.harvard.edu Reply To: To: "x" CC: BCC: Sent on:
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Dear" X": We do have a record that indicates a person by the name of Barack Hussein Obama graduated from Harvard University with an AM degree in Economics in 1965. We cannot confirm, however, this is the father of Barack Obama.
Sincerely
Pat Dyer Supervisor of Information Services FAS Registrar's Office Harvard University 20 Garden Street Cambridge, MA 02138 617-496-3713/fax 617-495-0815
It seems somewhat incongruous that Mr. Obama's short and comparitively speaking, relatively uneventful, senate career of three years has recieved 6 full paragraphs while his apparent Republican rival's (John Mcain) controversial and eventful senate career of some 22 years only has 3 paragraphs devoted to it. I note also that while there is no mention of the oft cited but hardly conclusive Muslim connection there is no problem devoting three paragraphs to Mcain's role in the Keating 5 scandal. I do realize that being the issue of a Muslim father and having studied the Koran as the chosen faith to fulfil a religious studies requirement is not a crime or an ethics violation whereas the Keating 5 behavior was at least an ethics violation.
Without having read the guidelines for entries for presidential candidates I would think that any controversies should at least be mentioned in passing if for nothing more than to document its importance in the American voting publics political purview. Surely the subject of Mr. Obama's exposure to Islam or percieved exposure should at least ne mentioned.
Uwharries ( talk) 20:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)uwharries
I would be interested to know what "Obama" means in Kenyan. I think that Barack means blessing in Kenyan. -- Timtak ( talk) 11:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
In an archive Mr. Bobblehead argues:
"As far as including Jr. is concerned. Barack seems to be following the model of if the Senior dies, then you drop the Jr. from your name (or if you named a son the same, you become Senior and your son becomes Junior). There aren't any official references of his name with Jr. at the end.
Still, Wikipedia is not a vanity press. In light of the fact that, were Barack elected (at this point, as likely as not), he would round out the percentage of presidents' whose names are the complete namesakes of their fathers', to exactly 10% (11-out-of-44):
--to do our encyclopedic duty, through indicating that our subject's name is entirely his father's namesake, while also acknowleging Barack's preference in usage, we simply put the encyclopedic emendation (Jr.) in a parenthetical notation after Barack Hussein Obama in the lede sentence. Any disagree?
Justmeherenow (
talk) 07:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Justmeherenow ( talk) 08:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Barack Obama
American politician
in full Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.
Full name: Barack Hussein Obama Jr.
I don't understand how 11 out of 44 makes 10%-- Timtak ( talk) 11:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
"Later in 2007, Obama sponsored with Kit Bond (R-MO) an amendment to the 2008 Defense Authorization Act adding safeguards for personality disorder military discharges, and calling for a review by the Government Accountability Office following reports that the procedure had been used inappropriately to reduce government costs."
How could Obama and Bond amend a 2008 bill in 2007? What is the correct date of the bill? Fishal ( talk) 21:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the voting record sections for Clinton and Obama is revealing, but not in the way Obama supporters might hope; I think the two need to be more similar in the sort of stuff they cover and in their overall format. For instance, where is the war stuff Obama voted on? Where are other things for Clinton? These seem like they need to be covered and be fairly similar across similar articles (as both are senators). Titanium Dragon ( talk) 03:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a section about obamamania ? Look here [3] Contralya ( talk) 13:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Somebody needs to mention that Barack Obama did not serve in the military. There are references in other presidential candidate articles with respect to their absence of military service (e.g. Rudy Giuliani). I just wanted to bring this to attention. 128.83.206.177 ( talk) 23:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me why that's the first sentence of his bio? Doesn't seem very encyplodia-ish. "He is a black man." Ok... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.194.154 ( talk) 03:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
As of this time, I still see this in the article, despite the fact that the history shows it having been deleted.03:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.76.182.96 ( talk)
FYI. -- Y not? 22:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
However, Ryan withdrew from the race in June 2004, following public disclosure of child custody divorce records containing sexual allegations by Ryan's ex-wife, actress Jeri Ryan.
What's a "sexual allegation"? Is it an allegation made during sex? "allegations of sexual improprieties" would read better. -- 82.139.115.120 ( talk) 18:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is an article, hidden away in the footnotes, that gives a much more positive view of Obama as a high school student. Do you think some stuff from it could be added to the article? Redddogg ( talk) 15:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Your link to the article doesn't work. 66.32.217.17 ( talk) 20:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Obama gave a speach recently. The speech was a rebuttle to Mrs. Clinton's assertion that Obama is nothing but words, no action, just words. Obama's speach quoted several famous speaches. However, a very similar speech was given by Massachusetts Govonor Deval Patrick. Patrick and Obama are friends. This incident was in the all the papers (Boston Herald, Boston Globe) here in Boston. I'm not sure if it received as much attention Nationaly. I was just kind of thinking it may deserve a mention in the Wikipedia article, along with Mr. Obama's explanation. Bluesmanjay ( talk) 17:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is an article from ABC News which describes Mr. Obama's position and Mr. Patrick's position.
[4] —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bluesmanjay (
talk •
contribs)
I believe it is legitimate to learn about this man's family. How come nothing exists in this article about Obama's family? We have his scottish ancestry, but considering his father is from Kenya, we obviously have other ancestry there too. Tell me about Abongo Obama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 ( talk) 19:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I think a person's half brother or sister would normally be mentioned in a biographical article. I think it this has been said before that if people are racist against African people they will not vote for Obama in the first place. Mentioning his relatives in Africa is not going to lose him any votes, and might even gain some. Not that a WP editor would ever be considering that, of course. ;-) Steve Dufour ( talk) 22:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
(Hopefully we won't get sidetracked by placement/format over substance this time, but in any case here is a new thread)
My inquiry is to whether there ought to be any mention of Senator Obama's refusal to wear lapel flag pins because he sees them as portraying a sort of token patriotism? I know it may seem like a minor issue with the myriad of policy questions, but to be fair it has caused a buzz. Also, it's fair to note that (whether by his design or not), Obama's style, charisma, and personality has become an major media-frenzied issue in the campaign, I dare say more than any Presidential candidate in recent elections. Certainly one could make a case that this would fit within that frame of discussion.
The infobox on Michelle Obama mentions that she got her undergraduate degree cum laude. If mentioning the distinction is the usual practice I figure we should include magna cum laude in the box next to Barack Obama's law degree. (If not, someone should remove the distinction from Michelle Obama's infobox.)
The article also doesn't note that Obama is your new bicycle, but I can live with that omission. ;)
Who paid for Obama's Columbia and Harvard education? Honestnow Honestnow ( talk) 01:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I still don't think this sentence adds much to the article:
I happen have some friends in inter-racial marriages. This is totally normal and expected for all children to see things this way. There is nothing remarkable or interesting in Obama's statement. Steve Dufour ( talk) 22:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
[out] No - this sentence is a defining expression of who he is - it's going back in. PLease don't remove things that have long been in the article without real discussion. Tvoz | talk 01:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought that the African diaspora refered to African people who were taken from Africa to other places by the slave trade, and their descendants. That doesn't seem to apply to Obama or his dad. Steve Dufour ( talk) 22:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Barack Obama, Sr., who IMO deserves an article of his own, was a "raised a Muslim, but a confirmed atheist by the time his parents met," according to the article in present form. A recent column by Nicholas D. Kristof in the New York Times and International Herald Tribune, which you can read here: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/24/opinion/edkristof.php , says that Obama Sr. converted to Catholicism after attending a Roman Catholic school. Has anyone read from anywhere else that Senator Obama's dad became a Catholic? I think that's important information which deserves a mention in this article. -- Tocino 22:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The pronunciation guidance apparently in Arabic is not supported by the cited source, inogolo.com. It's clearly meant to be inflammatory and to support claims that Obama is a closet Muslim, discredited by many of sources cited in this article. Why include pronunication guidance at all, particularly when it isn't there for other presidential candidates or politicians, even those with names of African descent (e.g.; Kweisi Mfume article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.34.246 ( talk) 05:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be good to layout his stances on the issues (based on his quotes and voting records). Does anybody have an objection to this section? It would be modeled similarly to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_buchanan another political figure. -- Kibbled bits ( talk) 06:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Also what about putting his political career under one bullet point. The layout for the article seems somewhat flat. Again I reference the Buchanan article above in that I think the hierarchy makes sense. Would anyone mind organizing this? -- Kibbled bits ( talk) 07:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The "Homosexual Issues" section reads; "He states that in his opinion marriage is between a man and women". The correct quote is "a man and a woman". The phrasing "a man and women" doesn't make sense and even has incorrect connotations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.2.173 ( talk) 09:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Having looked at From West Wing to the real thing: Scriptwriters modelled TV's ethnic minority candidate on young Barack Obama, perhaps it's time for an Barack Obama in popular culture/ Cultural depictions of Barack Obama article? Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008#Effect of the Internet could be used to spin-off and expand it. Alientraveller ( talk) 15:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
This sentence was removed:
This is sourced by interviews done by the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, a respected newspaper in Hawaii. To me, anyway, it seemed like the kind of information that would usually be found in a person's biography. I don't see why it was removed. Steve Dufour ( talk) 15:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a section on his political ideas? Velho ( talk) 03:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed the category Category:American spoken word artists from this article. Categories are to be applied only where they define the person in question (see WP:CAT) and not to be applied for trivial aspects of someone's life (see WP:OCAT). In particular, this category should only apply to people who are defined as spoken word artists; not to people who have trivially engaged in spoken word at some point in their career, or to people who are simply "artists" as in highly skilled in oratory. -- Lquilter ( talk) 15:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I question the importance of this section:
Is the first sentence about Keyes being from out of state (you might say a carpetbagger) intended to put down Obama by showing that his Senate race victory was against a weak opponent? Or can WP just not help itself when given the chance to take a slap against a conservative figure? Is it remarkable that they had a debate? Are the subjects of the debate remarkable? Is it remarkable that they expressed opposing views on these issues? (Especially considering that Obama is on the far left of mainstream politics in the USA and Keyes is on the far right?) Thanks. Steve Dufour ( talk) 13:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
does not anyone here think it is interesting that he has accepted an endorsement from a senator who was directly connected to the trajedy at chappaquedick (possible sic)?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.32.148 ( talk) 04:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Someone's added 'sickening and stomach turning' in front of 'presidential bid'.
This should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.187.34.100 ( talk) 17:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I do see scattered info on the web but nothing coherent or official. Geo8rge ( talk) 19:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
It might not be that important, but to make the topic name more accurate, why not change the title to Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. rather than plain Barak Obama? Redirecting is always availible for keyword search so it shouldn't bother the accessibility to the topic. -- 221.188.80.108 ( talk) 07:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
It is important. His name that was given to him coincidentally is the same as Saddam. I think it would be an enormous understatement to say that Saddam Hussein a hated figure. As far as I know no other politician is listed here with a middle name except for Hillary Rodham Clinton, and that's because Rodham is her maiden name and Clinton is her name by marriage. I think that there would be a tremendous neutrality problem. Wikipedia would be seen as helping the chances of John McCain, assuming Obama and McCain face each other in the general election. JonErber ( talk) 16:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
reply to 201, Are you making this same request at all biographies that do not have their middle name in the title? If not, why not? If so, what is the response from the editors working on those biographies? Jons63 ( talk) 16:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
In the "Cultural and political image" section, George Will is mentioned. Does anyone seriously think that Senator Obama is running for president because George Will told him too? Redddogg ( talk) 14:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Here are the 2 sentences:
I don't think most readers will understand what is being talked about. Steve Dufour ( talk) 06:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I was making a comment on the issue of Obama's church, which was swept away by the deletion of the whole section. I mentioned that I, a white person, have attended many services in mostly black churches and have never encountered any hostility or "racialism" there. I also mentioned that Obama's neighborhood, the South Side of Chicago is 90 - 95% black so any church there is probably going to have mostly black membership. Steve Dufour ( talk) 15:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The phonetic guide gives the same pronunciation for the second vowel in barack and the second vowel in obama, however not only is this inconsistent with his own pronunciation, it's also inconsistent with the website cited as a reference. That site in turn is problematic because it says the second syllable of barack is pronounced 'rock' which is clearly incorrect. As far as I can make out Barack rhymes with Jack and Obama rhymes (almost) with banana. However, vowels vary so dramatically with regional accents that some people may pronounce the two 'a's the same anyway. I think the phonetic guide may need to be adjusted. 217.44.180.84 ( talk) 21:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The article has the following abbreviated explanation of Obama's support for SCHIP:
"Obama also sponsored a Senate amendment to the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to provide one year of job protection for family members caring for soldiers with combat-related injuries.[79]"
Then goes on to say SCHIP was later vetoed by President Bush. My concern is that SCHIP is a tremendously complicated entitlement program, and the revised version was presented as expanding coverage to a maasive number of people, not just veterans but also people of substantial income, and many viewed it as a multi-billion$ entitlement increase in big government. The article should either do a better job of explaining the SCHIP expansion, explain why Bush vetoed it, or else delete any mention of the veto. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.171.42 ( talk) 23:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I think obama's position on guncontrol should be put in here. DeftalC3AU ( talk) 23:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The article should have some mention of Obama's connection to Chicago Democratic fundraiser Tony Rezko, who is currently under Federal trial in Chicago. According to the Chicago Tribune ( http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/obama_confronted_on_rezko_in_t.html) there could be something to be known about Obama's conncection to a house/land purchase in south Chicago. Rezka has been a key Obama contributor since 1995. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.238.38 ( talk) 00:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your attempt at smearing Obama and adding some more NPOV stuff to Wikipedia! Please come back later! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfunk1967 ( talk • contribs) 05:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
You can't even seem to smear senator obama correctly. The man's name is Tony Rezko, with an O. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.136.22.4 ( talk) 07:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
If that is so how come Hillary Clinton's Page lacks any information on her fraud charges which is very much conected to Peter Paul. I know he was discredited but that was by the Judge Hillary Clinton had appointed. If that information is added to her page then we will have to follow through with your claim and add to this page but seeing as how the prevelance of those charges have not been added/recognised I see no reason to give your claim any weight to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.250.173 ( talk) 18:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Smear? Give me a break - This man has a very good chance to be our next president and this article is from a reputable paper in his home town. Critical analysis should be available, and there is a connection here in the house purchase. This article barely contains a critical word about this candidate, it might as well have been written by a member of his staff.
Obiously this is a newsworthy and well sourced story being snubbed. Fair? NPOV? I dispute that.
Maybe it was, judging from this reaction. As far as the Clinton Paul connection, that should be on the Clinton page.
User:Scjessey, you claim that Rezko is not relevant to Obama's biography. I did not insert Rezko, nor did your edit delete. All I did was change the word "controversial" to explain why he is controversial. The mere fact that he is included in this article (and that you leave him in the article) shows that Rezko is relevant, not to mention the significant press coverage this issue has received lately. Charges of political corruption are highly relevant to political figures, so this information needs to remain. -- Flyboy121 ( talk) 04:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The title of the article for the 2008 Obama Campaign is quite a mouthful and people interested in it likely come first to the main article. In the interest of facilitating users navigation between the main article and the campaign and positions subarticles I've improved WP by adding a nav box directly under the infobox. -- Justmeherenow ( talk) 04:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
1: Where should this go? It happened last August
[7] and is particularly important,maybe, because he was a politician in a border state and should have known better, perhaps.
Mr.grantevans2 (
talk) 15:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
First you don't know if it was a simple mistake or a reflection of his ignorance of the government of Canada. Second, it's not the fact that he made a mistake it's the fact that this particular mistake has taken on political significance and has been widely reported and discussed. It's not simply what is said but how what is said is significant, politically or otherwise. Not mentioning these types of incidents that people are talking about does not give a complete encyclopedic picture. It's not for the editors to decide what mistakes are worth talking about and which ones are not. These stories take on a life of their own and the article should simply reflect the national conversation and potrayal of Obama. Voters deserve to be made aware of these types of incidents and its not the intention to simply smear him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.114.140 ( talk) 17:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I ran into this article: Trend spotter: Amateur songwriters for Obama in the Christian Science Monitor. I couldn't find a good place to add it to the article however. The "public image" section seems to be mostly about politics. Redddogg ( talk) 15:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
...The word 'controversy' appears precisely once in all the many reference links at the bottom of the page, (among which i have yet to find one link to a story even slightly critical of Obama), and that appearance is in a link to a Time story in no way critical of Obama, or of anything about his career. There seems to be an emerging pattern here: NPOV minimum use of one or two citations/links with 'negative-bias' terms, seemingly inserted only to give the appearance of neutrality by using the NPOV 'letter of the law' to evade NPOV purposes and intents. This assertion violates 'Assume Good Faith', but the pattern seems clear.
The word 'critics' also appears only once in the article, and only in the context of an assertion that even his 'critics' agree he has qualities which his supporters claim are positive character attributes. See the pattern?
The word 'progressive' appears only twice, and each time is used also only in a context which makes clear that Obama is considered not progressive 'enough' by others. Thus the insertion of the word seems intended only to blur Obama's appearance of 'progressiveness' in the mind of the reader, rather than to identify or clarify that Obama is frequently and publicly referred to as among the most 'progressive' of the candidates currently running for U.S. President.
How is this possible in an article which purports to detail, or to link to details of, the life of a politician who is also recognized widely as among the most 'progressive' of his peers in both the Illinois State Senate, and in the U.S. Senate?
The word 'liberal' appears nowhwere in the article, nor could I find it in the references, citations, or the links I followed which are included with the article. This apparent break in the asserted pattern actually shows the asserted pattern more clearly, through the exclusion of the word 'liberal' in this article, since the term 'liberal' is being gradually excised from public discourse. Since it is at least arguable the term is no longer 'widely used' or 'considered relevant' by many, the writer(s) appear to have concluded there was no need to include the term to further the appearance of upholding NPOV standards in this case. Thus, the complete and entire exclusion of the term strengthens the case that hidden bias is masquerading as NPOV in this article.
Every other biographical Wikipedia page on current political figures which I have thus far encountered has a section in the article titled something like 'Criticism', or 'Controversy', etc. There is nothing remotely like that on the Obama page.
The only reference to Obama and his links with Tony Rezko are in the context of a link to a story in which Obama is lauded for 'regretting' his real estate deal with Rezko. There is also no mention at all of Rezko's contributions to Obama campaigns, despite months of intense coverage in numerous sources.
How can an article be said to qualify as NPOV when there are no, or virtually no, references or links to criticism(s) in the body of an article, nor in the reference and citation links at the end of an article?
All one has to do is run a web search on Obama with any one of the term(s) 'Rezko', 'liberal', 'progressive', controversy', 'criticism', etc, to get a plethora of pieces in major sources to which to link. Yet there are on the Obama page no references or citations, let alone links to, any of those widely accepted sources. Why not, unless there is an attempt to circumvent NPOV standards by giving an appearance of adherence as demonstrated above?
It is my impression that lacking one, let alone all, of the commonly used NPOV conventions and standards referred to above, especially in an article on a public figure about which there is substantial public interest if not controversy and/or criticism, disqualifies the article under NPOV standards.
In my reading of the Obama discussion page, i find not one reference to the above facts. Even if my questioning of Good Faith Assumed in this case is incorrect, isn't the lack of 'criticisms' and 'controversies' links, citations, references, let alone article Sections, something which should raise at least some interest among editors?
In my opinion, this article should be immediately flagged as being under NPOV dispute. I am depending on the integrity and honesty of the editorial wikipedia community for this tag, since i have no idea how to do anything tech related, let alone Wikipedia-oriented. (believe me: you don't want me trying to tag and change things on article pages. It took me over two hours to find the discussion page, and to figger out how to do this raising of some questions! You can ask my kids about the chances for utter ruination when i try any sort of tech stuff. They won't let me even touch their computers!)
Please forgive if my lack of wikipedia/html skills results in confusion or hassles among more experienced users, or among editors. No offense offered to anyone, no offense inferred from anyone. Cheers, All! Whraglyn (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)whraglyn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whraglyn ( talk • contribs) (sort of)
Thx for the link, my friend; but I am not seeking 'Obama-bashing', let alone 'Republican' 'language' in any article on Wikipedia. I am seeking a resolution of what appears to my newbie brain to be bias in selective editing of the article. If your response were to the point, your ad hominem assumptions leading to your aspersion(s) regarding my intent would not reveal so clearly your seemingly obvious bias in this matter. You may wish to recuse yourself from further participation in this discussion before your apparent inability to control your seeming bias in such talk pages results in admin actions which you may find less desirable than actually discussing in an impersonal manner all points made in talk pages. -- Whraglyn ( talk) 04:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Your lecture, and the tone, are as useless in this dicussion as they are unrelated to the issue at hand. -- Whraglyn ( talk) 07:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The question is not whether enough has been made of these points by Hillary or any other person. The question is why is there such a clear and sharp break between the lack of 'criticism' on the Obama page and the almost universal acceptance of such on other pages. -- Whraglyn ( talk) 07:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thx for your input, 2.0.180.2 and Rosywounds. The fact that the terms I listed in my original post include the terms 'liberal' and 'progressive' has no bearing at all on the question of whether there are, or are not, included in the article sufficient facts regarding the personal beliefs and the personal character of the subject of the article.
The inclusion of a count of such terms in my original post was only to show that such terms are used far less frequently, and with far more, shall we say 'agility of usage', than on ANY other bio page i have seen thus far of other major public figures, even those with public records far less qualified to have such terms used in the Wikipedia pages covering their 'personal' lives.
The term count was done at all only to show there appears to be reasonable grounds to ask whether the Obama page is being selectively edited, and whether that selection in editing is pro-Obama, and if so, 'why'?
You seem to each be missing the simple fact that almost all, ( i say 'almost all' only because i have not read every single major public figure bio page posted on Wikipedia, but the usage of 'criticism' or 'controversy' sections is overwhelmingly frequent and widespread among the radnom sample of over 100 bio pages i have scanned), bio pages of other public have entire sections of 'controversy' and/or 'criticism' in the body of the article. The usage of such sections in the body of 'personal' pages covering other major public figures seems to be almost a standard or conventional usage across a wide range of persons and subjects on Wikipedia.
'Why is this norm acceptable for so many pages, but not for that of the 'personal' page on Obama?' is a legitimate question.
The question thus becomes not one of 'Why do some contributors ask about the lack of such sections/terms on the Obama 'personal' page?', but that of "Why do some contributors strive so strongly and persistently to deny the disparity between the use of such terms on the 'personal' page of Obama and those of others on Wikipedia?'
A related question which arises naturally from a casual and disinterested reading of this discussion page is 'Why do so many of those who oppose the insertion of 'controversy' or 'criticism' sections, references, citations, or links in the 'personal' page of Obama use a tone which is condescending, patronizing, and subtly impugning of the intent of contributors who ask these questions?'
Each of the above questions regarding the editing of the Obama page are asked because they are raised by the apparent seeming bias in the editing of the Obama page under discussion.
Rosywounds, as for your assertion there is no 'need' to include 'controversy' and/or 'criticism' references on the Obama 'personal' page simply because there is 'little controversy' regarding Obama: Guess you have not heard of how media coverage of Obama is so sycophantic that the notoriously liberal/progressive writers and players on Saturday Night Live parodied same in a now-world famous skit the last couple of weeks, eh? Please search on the terms 'Obama' and 'controversy' or 'criticism'. I would truly be interested in your response to the results of such a search. Cheers All! -- Whraglyn ( talk) 07:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
My friend, we know the answer...we all know it. Obama is coddled and protected here. His followers (aka Obamists) protect their Messiah, leaving out untold amounts of valid sources. Note on McCains article you find the word "conservative" dozens of times. This Obama page is nothing more than a delicately constructed promotional piece. Here are some opinions cited in this article: a May 2004 New Yorker magazine article described as his "everyman" image. in a March 2007 Washington Post opinion column, Eugene Robinson characterized him as "the personification of both-and," a messenger who rejects "either-or" political choices, and could "move the nation beyond the culture wars" of the 1960s. An October 2005 article in the British journal New Statesman listed Obama as one of "10 people who could change the world All of them op-ed, but all of them sourced...all of them in the article. So why wont the Obamists include the sourced and valid (and often cited) fact that the National Journal calls him the most liberal of all Senators. I find that a fascinating distinction. Well, Loony has himself said that the reason the National Journal citation isn't included is because it is "opinion"...yet there is plenty of positive, heavenly, Messianic opinion in the article right now....I find it sickening that the hawks over this article view Obama as so frail that they somehow have the "High Calling" of protecting him. THis article is a sham, it is not neutral. Don't even try to label it as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 ( talk) 00:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Bravo! Thx for the data included in your post, 24.18.108.5! Where is the outrage at the inclusion of such 'opinions' positive and supportive of Obama on the 'personal' page? Each of the above cited quotes from the article has far less to do with the 'personal' life of Obama and far more to do with his public life and aspirations to power. Why has not one of those who were so quick and thorough in their resistance to even asking the question under discussion ever commented on this point? IF such obviously 'public' comments are allowed on Obama's 'personal' page when it is clear they are far more relevant to a page devoted to the 'public' life of Obama, the conclusion that there is some degree of selective editing in some form on this page becomes more inescapable every day. I ask each of those who above have resisted the raising of this question to apply their points to this latest factuality. Come on, folks! Show us your unbiased uncompromising editorial zeal for only truth in this case! Failing that, i shall begin to, according to Wikipedia standards, BOLDLY insert the facts, citations, references, and links after 9:00 PM CST on Friday, March 7, 2008. Cheers All! -- Whraglyn ( talk) 03:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The Obama article does seem more biased then the Clinton article. Clinton's article discusses *two* instances she was critized for wearing a skirt. However the Obama article doesn't mention the *one* time he incorrectly refers to the "president of Canada". In addition "Gender" is a whole heading over on the Clinton page, but Obama's ethnicity is only mentioned in passing. Whats the big difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.149.189 ( talk) 19:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Please check all information someone has been slowly removing information from the article in between edits. I pick up one. User: 02:08, 1 March 2008 User:Gigi2934 removed information about Obama's past drug use. I would recommend someone look into this. Other thing might have been removed. 204.52.215.128 ( talk) 08:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The reason Hillary's middle is in upper case because it was her original name. She was Hillary Rodham and now she is Hillary Clinton. If you took the time to look at other examples of men and womens names on wikipedia you would know that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.107.231.63 ( talk) 00:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
1. Someone has to do something about this arrogant mindset that there's such a thing as 'universal' health care in the US. It's like saying 'world series' when international teams are not invited. Wikipedia is not a resource for people in the US and calling a national health service 'universal' is just repugnant.
2. Stop hyping Obama's health plan as universal/national. It's not. He doesn't have a plan like that at all and to promote this in the first or second graf smacks of partisanship. Obama's plan is a way to increase affordability according to current guidelines. In other words without changing the basic infrastructure. THIS IS NOT A HEALTH CARE PLAN. Were you to know anything about national health care plans elsewhere on this beautiful planet you'd understand this; as you've obviously not gone through the trouble of doing the research as you should - then take the word of others who know a lot better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.5.136.204 ( talk) 08:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
1."Universal" has more meanings than just one (across the universe). Universal in universal health care refers to "everyone" having access. It's not arrogant or "Ameri-centric" or whatever. "Michigan has universal health care" means every one in Michigan is covered. "Spain has universal health care" means everyone in Spain. It doesn't have anything to do with arrogants, it's word usage. Context is everything. "Comprehensive insurance" refers to coverage, not to being able to comprehend it! Check out a dictionary, most words have more than one definition.
2,YOu might not approve of the "World Series" being named as such, or consider it arrogant, but that IS what it's called. It's not up to Wikipedia to change the language or to redefine words. As I said, words have more than one meaning- world for example can mean the earth but it can also refer to "the world of" (ie. in the world of coin collection, in the fashion world etc.) World Series of Baseball refers to the world of Major League Baseball in North America, currently including 1 team from Canada.
3. I do agree that Obama's plan is not Universal and is misrepresented as such. That should probably be fixed. But wikipedia is NOT the place to redifine the meaning or usage of the word universal in universal health care. In this usage it means, 1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of all or the whole. NOT the whole of the universe, the whole of the population or citizenship of the specific area being discussed (in this case the US). Any body fo government or anything else can use the term "univeral" to pertain only to themselves without arrogance.
u·ni·ver·sal /ˌyunəˈvɜrsəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[yoo-nuh-vur-suhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of all or the whole: universal experience. 2. applicable everywhere or in all cases; general: a universal cure. 3. affecting, concerning, or involving all: universal military service. 4. used or understood by all: a universal language. 5. present everywhere: the universal calm of southern seas. 6. versed in or embracing many or all skills, branches of learning, etc.: Leonardo da Vinci was a universal genius. 7. of or pertaining to the universe, all nature, or all existing things: universal cause. 8. characterizing all or most members of a class; generic. 208.53.102.132 ( talk) 20:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)amyanda2000
It would be theoretically universal in the USA, by your logic universal would include aliens, animals etc... There are subsets of "universality" if you understand what I mean.
Starmurderer (
talk) 21:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
RE the current reference 15, which starts with the article called "Obama Madrassa Myth Debunked". The article itself correctly refers to the madrassa as an "Islamic madrassa", unfortunately it's title doesn't. Isn't displaying this title perpetuating the wrong usage of the word? It is the only use of "madrassa" in the article. Since the NYTimes apologised for misusing it in the wake on the Insight story, I doubt many in the media have misused it since. The problem is that so many of the old reports used the incorrect meaning. Is there one which hasn't? It would be better to cite that one.
Also The Jakarta Post link in the ref15 list goes to a mostly blank page for me - it might be broken.-- Matt Lewis ( talk) 15:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I have protected the page due to edit warring. The protection will naturally expire in one week. Should the issues be resolved, any administrator can unprotect it earlier than that. Please work your issues out on the talk page, here, keeping the WP:BLP policy front and center in mind. Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 17:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Somebody needs to add about Barack Obama campaign's controversy over the double speak on NAFTA, which Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Canadian and America media outlets have confirmed.
Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources. The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.
— Canadian News
Source of Obama's NAFTA Controversy
24.174.46.149 (
talk) 00:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
24.174.46.149 ( talk) 18:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Aside from the issue of whether it belongs here, the latest is that Hillary's team may have been the one to reassure the Canadians.And the Obama campaign has denied the previous Canadian version of events which now has been made inoperative. I will now go to where it's "already there". JonErber ( talk) 17:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to remove this distinction again unless the editor chooses to add it to Hillary Clinton's page as well. To add it to one and not another, even to say "a leading candidate" instead of "the leading candidate" does add bias to the article. Scottmkeen ( talk) 01:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. He leads the delegate count, so on the books, he is what is defined as "the leading candidate." 70.137.160.103 ( talk) 07:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
But the wording is not 'the leading candidate' - it's 'a leading candidate'. And to be 'a leading candidate' you don't have to have a majority or plurality of anything. There are some that would argue that with Ohio and the big swing states Hillary is actually 'the' leading candidate but I see no reason to intersperse that distinction - unless of course one wants to be as undemocratic as the Obamabots are. But that's not generally a good idea, is it? [unsigned]
The article states that Barack Obama is a muslim. He is not, he is of the United Church of Christ. I suspect this is a change to the page with malignant motives. -Preceding unsignedcomment added by 68.92.239.57 ( talk) 02:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh this is so childish. Personally I doubt he has any religion at all. But the facts are these.
1. He got ten hours per week tutelage for over four years in islam. 2. His mother was a muslim. 3. His father was a muslim. 4. His stepfather was a muslim. 5. Who knows what his grandparents were but someone can look that up. 6. Saudi Arabia regards him as a muslim. 7. His Somali origins indicate he's not only a muslim but an ARAB.
It's clear however that this is a promotional article written by and for more Obamabots so it's really futile to discuss the matter. One can only hope you learn the proper meaning of two words eventually.
1. Democracy. 2. Encyclopaedia. [unsigned, by 90.5.136.204]
Shouldn't the fact that Dick Cheney is his cousin be mentioned? Contralya ( talk) 05:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
-- Justmeherenow ( talk) 01:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)An archaeological dig in Cairo, conducted at the behest of Jesus Tomb producer James Cameron, turned up ancient manuscripts confirming that Obama's Egyptian ancestors enslaved the family of Elijah Lieberman, Joe Lieberman's "great-to-the-300th-degree" grandfather.
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
"U.S. Senate debate sponsored by the League of Women Voters in Illinois".
October 21
2004. {{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
"Debate sponsored by WTTW and the City Club of Chicago".
October 26
2004. Retrieved 2008-01-14. {{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
It appears that some Wikipedia editors are removing or downplaying any mention of Obama early childhood Islamic origins and history. This is causing a general misrepresentation of Obama's childhood history by omission of important facts.I have tagged the article appropriately. So far no one has challenged any of the points below. Please so not remove the tag until dispute is resolved.
-- CltFn ( talk) 17:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
[outdent] HoosierState is right about this being settled here. Repeatedly adding the list of particulars is disruptive. You've made your point, we all understand it, but we don't agree with your view. Please let it go already CLtFn. And by the way - your attempt to "subtly" suggest that you're a "Clinton Fan" with your username isn't going to fly either: I do not think you represent her views, would guess that she'd rather not have your kind of support, and wonder if it's not an attempt to smear two for one. Not that dirty tricks are something that anyone would consider using Wikipedia for. Enough already. Tvoz | talk 22:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that the first section of the early life and career be as follows:
Any objections?-- CltFn ( talk) 23:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Guys - This is a presidential election. Is there an intellectual among us that would pretend that a candidate's views on religion are not important. Obama talks about his views (and his mother's) in great detail in his biography. He references the Koran and the Bible (among others) as being on the shelf in his home. He is an intellectual himself with a thorough understanding of Islam and Christianity. If it's a big part of his biography, why is it not a part of this one? I only go back to this issue as it seems that his supporters refuse to look at this issue through a neutral perspective. Look at the comments above. People on this board are actually suggesting that a presidential candidate's family and religious influences (including past practices) are not relevant. Be serious. In this country, where censorship is an extremely bad word, the voters get to hear all and decide what's relevant. As one writer said above, I did not 'give up' on this issue....I just decided that the issue of Neutrality was more important. Frankly, unless I don't understand the rules of Wiki (and I'll admit I am new), it really seems obvious that Neutrality is in fact missing in this article. There is just too much missing (the Islam background being one example) for anyone to believe this article to be anything other than a campaign piece. If a POV issue was not raised in the 10 hours....what is a POV issue? Can someone explain? 76.108.82.49 ( talk) 01:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
So you are ok that we alter the first sentence of the the early life and career section to as follows?:
Obama was born on August 4, 1961 at The Queen's Medical Center[9][10] in Honolulu, Hawaii to a Muslim father Baracka Hussein Obama, Sr. (born in Nyanza Province, Kenya, of Luo ethnicity) and Christian mother Ann Dunham (born in Wichita, Kansas). -- CltFn ( talk) 03:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The user who made the above section has an extremely long history of violations of Wikipedia policy ( See Block Log). We as Wikipedians do not have to tolerate people using our site to spread out political smears (See WP:SOAP and WP:BATTLE). Having taken into account the long-term abuse by this user which dates back to 2005 I as an administrator have indefinitely blocked his editing privileges. I ask all users who regularly contribute to this article to leave me a note if such activity continues on this or related articles so that the proper action can be taken. Thank you and good day.-- Jersey Devil ( talk) 20:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Thus truth was silenced because no one wanted to here her.( 208.61.109.241 ( talk) 04:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC))
RE: Barack Obama's name. In general Muslims do not name a child the exact name of the parent. It is considered a form of ancestral worship forbidden by the Qu’ran. You rarely if ever find a “senior,” “junior,” designation in Muslim nomenclature.
Most often children will be given their own first name. Some Muslim communities go so far as to dictate that no other living relative may carry that same first name. Thus allowing for a kind of individual ownership of the name within the family. The middle name most often will be first name of the child’s father, even if the child is a girl. This identifies them as the child of so and so, through male lineage. The last name of course is the family surname (which according to Muslim tradition girls may keep when they marry).
So if the person is named Fatimah Abdullah Shaikh, you will know that her father is Abdullah. Likewise, Muhammad Mustafa Khan, indicates that his fathers is named Mustafa.
The fact that Barack Hussein Obama carries the exact same name, in the same order as his father strongly suggests that the father was not a practicing Muslim at the time of the junior Obama’s birth. It further suggests that his father was very westernized and just adopted the very western nomenclature of naming his son after him. Nothing religious in how Barack was given his name at all. Bcc cindy ( talk) 05:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
CltFn, you seriously need to get over your erroneous anti-Muslim bias. The "fact" that Obama's father was a "practicing Muslim" at the time of Barack's birth has been thoroughly discredited . . . he was non-practicing and atheistic. If you knew anything about Islam, this is considered apostasy and in extremist circles such as Wahhabism is punishable by death. Now, putting this aside for a second, I'd like you to admit that your attempts to insert the canard of Barack and Islam is nothing more than an attempt to appeal to the post-9/11 anti-Islamic climate in America in order to tarnish the character of a man who stands a decent chance of being elected President. You're transparent. Scientz ( talk) 18:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
For the record I'm viewing this from the UK, and this section on the one above seem bizarre to say the least. Being impartial (well relatively so) I read the comment "Wikpedia does not care if he is running for the office of the president" (or a statement to that effect) - this is simply wrong in my view. I for one I came to wikipedia on this matter to have a look at his background *because he is running for president". Excluding information on his upbringing is stupidity surely? CltFn does appear to have a questionable editing history, but if they are facts, then I can't see a reason not to have them on the page. What is anti-muslim and what is anti-muslim is for the reader to decide not you editors. Your job (as I see it) is to insure the article is accurate and relevant, and looking at the comments CltFn made (which I can of course see why you have concerns) they do fit here (if and only if they have valid references of course). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.156.106 ( talk) 16:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Some of the arguments concerning Obama's "Muslim past" are ridiculous, for example "why did his father give him a Muslim name if he was an atheist?" here is an easy answer: his father gave obama his name, meaning he is Sr, and his son is Jr. Also im am sure you will find many atheists naming their kids John, Michael, Paul, or even Chris which is derived from Christian, these are all names you will probably find in the bible, does that mean their kids are going to be raised as Christians even thought their parent's are Atheists? no, I find that linking Obama to Islam just because of his name to be stupid, and yet there are still anti-Islam bigots who will still try to do this with unreliable evidence and rumors, even though it has been discredited many times. Wraith12 ( talk) 23:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Wraith12
I've restored this image to the location in the Barack Obama#Political advocacy section where it appeared previously. If you want to replace the image, its caption, and references with an alternative contribution that better illustrates adjoining section content, please consider stating your reasoning here and seeking consensus before making the change. Thanks. -- HailFire ( talk) 11:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a little unclear. Did his mother and siblings sister (his mom's article only mentions her) also return at the same time? Was he sent back by his mother? I don't think he decided to return on his own since he was only about 10 years old.
Redddogg (
talk) 15:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems like there are far too many wiki links in the article. I mean, is it really necessary to provide links to words like "pronounced", "memoir" and "multimillionaire"? 66.32.217.17 ( talk) 20:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
That was a speech broadcast world wide. Many newspapers around the world translated it and put it in 2nd or 3rd page. That speech reborned JFK spirit inside of many people on internet. I vote to mean it as an "historial speech", of course in his political career, and may discuss in political history. -- 213.97.224.11 ( talk) 10:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, i wanted to put on discussion one fact, Obama was unknowed for the world until that Iowa speech. And may be, time will say us that we will need a single wiki-page for describe that speech.-- 213.97.224.11 ( talk) 10:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree, this is a enciclopedia article, not a biography book. People want to know things with a eye-rush. Thats what wiki means, right? Yes. This article has to show the key things that people should know. Specific issues to specific articles. If people want to know more of an specific issue they will click to go to the subarticle. You are right, this article is going too long and it has to "branch-and-bound" spliting in many others subarticles. Anyway, theres a way to qualify and give importance and the significance of the facts, as brief as possible, but without loosing this qualification. Also, to put many things together hides the important facts. Theres a lot of work.
So, Why i keep discussing that Iowa is a key issue that should be remarked as brief as posible with the importance that it had?
1- You said, "actually brought him out of obscurity was the 2004 speech at the Democratic convention". Thats true for an american scope. Iowa was for a wide-world scope.
2- Within the historical context, Iowa caucasus predicts the democratic results. In people's minds iowa is an oracle.
3- It was a popularity inflexion point inside and outside america. Respect H. Clinton.
I will post some references and facts for all these points. Ill need time and help.--
MisticVisions (
talk) 18:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I see that someone has removed my sentence (cited) about his famous third grade school essay. I agree that this is kind of a minor item, but still I think it added interest to the article and I don't see how it could have done any harm.
On an unrelated item... Do you think it would be a good idea if the article mentioned that he was born a US citizen? Of course we Americans all know that he was, but people in other countries will also be reading the article and in other places it's possible that a child born to a non-citizen father would not be born a citizen. Borock ( talk) 19:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I reverted the change by Kencf. The first line already plainly states that he was born in Hawaii; further elaboration in this context will only confuse readers. -- HailFire ( talk) 16:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
[out] I agree with Hailfire on this - he is clearly identified as having been born in the US (and to an American mother, which wouldn't even be necessary for citizenship). Seems to me that saying that he is raises questions in people's minds that might not have been there before - certainly we don't say the equivalent thing for others if they are born in the US. John McCain was not born in the US, he was born in Panama, so it is relevant to state that he is an American citizen, and even so we do it in a footnote. Obama was born in the US so why would we say it there? Tvoz | talk 19:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Tvoz and Hailfire. Some uninformed readers may be confused, or may perceive this as a jab at McCain whose citizenship is discussed at footnote 1 of the John McCain article. Obama's birth made him a lot of things (e.g. an earthling, a citizen of Hawaii, et cetera). No need to list them here in this article. Ferrylodge ( talk) 23:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you please update your page to include the dates Barack Obama Graduated Columbia University and Havard Law School. Only seems fair since the dates were included in Hillary Clinton Bio.
Education: Graduated from Columbia University in 1983 and Harvard Law School in 1991. Became first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review in 1990
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/28/at_harvard_law_a_unifying_voice/?page=1
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgdme ( talk • contribs) 19:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
reference to working on a PhD is typical Obama Jr endless hyping that is simply a lie. And see next , no one knows who Obama Jr is as never did Harvard.
source: Harvard University see following:
Subject: FW: obama Date: 2/21/2008 11:49:50 A.M. Eastern Standard Time From: pdyer@fas.harvard.edu Reply To: To: "x" CC: BCC: Sent on:
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Dear" X": We do have a record that indicates a person by the name of Barack Hussein Obama graduated from Harvard University with an AM degree in Economics in 1965. We cannot confirm, however, this is the father of Barack Obama.
Sincerely
Pat Dyer Supervisor of Information Services FAS Registrar's Office Harvard University 20 Garden Street Cambridge, MA 02138 617-496-3713/fax 617-495-0815
It seems somewhat incongruous that Mr. Obama's short and comparitively speaking, relatively uneventful, senate career of three years has recieved 6 full paragraphs while his apparent Republican rival's (John Mcain) controversial and eventful senate career of some 22 years only has 3 paragraphs devoted to it. I note also that while there is no mention of the oft cited but hardly conclusive Muslim connection there is no problem devoting three paragraphs to Mcain's role in the Keating 5 scandal. I do realize that being the issue of a Muslim father and having studied the Koran as the chosen faith to fulfil a religious studies requirement is not a crime or an ethics violation whereas the Keating 5 behavior was at least an ethics violation.
Without having read the guidelines for entries for presidential candidates I would think that any controversies should at least be mentioned in passing if for nothing more than to document its importance in the American voting publics political purview. Surely the subject of Mr. Obama's exposure to Islam or percieved exposure should at least ne mentioned.
Uwharries ( talk) 20:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)uwharries
I would be interested to know what "Obama" means in Kenyan. I think that Barack means blessing in Kenyan. -- Timtak ( talk) 11:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
In an archive Mr. Bobblehead argues:
"As far as including Jr. is concerned. Barack seems to be following the model of if the Senior dies, then you drop the Jr. from your name (or if you named a son the same, you become Senior and your son becomes Junior). There aren't any official references of his name with Jr. at the end.
Still, Wikipedia is not a vanity press. In light of the fact that, were Barack elected (at this point, as likely as not), he would round out the percentage of presidents' whose names are the complete namesakes of their fathers', to exactly 10% (11-out-of-44):
--to do our encyclopedic duty, through indicating that our subject's name is entirely his father's namesake, while also acknowleging Barack's preference in usage, we simply put the encyclopedic emendation (Jr.) in a parenthetical notation after Barack Hussein Obama in the lede sentence. Any disagree?
Justmeherenow (
talk) 07:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Justmeherenow ( talk) 08:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Barack Obama
American politician
in full Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.
Full name: Barack Hussein Obama Jr.
I don't understand how 11 out of 44 makes 10%-- Timtak ( talk) 11:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
"Later in 2007, Obama sponsored with Kit Bond (R-MO) an amendment to the 2008 Defense Authorization Act adding safeguards for personality disorder military discharges, and calling for a review by the Government Accountability Office following reports that the procedure had been used inappropriately to reduce government costs."
How could Obama and Bond amend a 2008 bill in 2007? What is the correct date of the bill? Fishal ( talk) 21:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the voting record sections for Clinton and Obama is revealing, but not in the way Obama supporters might hope; I think the two need to be more similar in the sort of stuff they cover and in their overall format. For instance, where is the war stuff Obama voted on? Where are other things for Clinton? These seem like they need to be covered and be fairly similar across similar articles (as both are senators). Titanium Dragon ( talk) 03:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a section about obamamania ? Look here [3] Contralya ( talk) 13:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Somebody needs to mention that Barack Obama did not serve in the military. There are references in other presidential candidate articles with respect to their absence of military service (e.g. Rudy Giuliani). I just wanted to bring this to attention. 128.83.206.177 ( talk) 23:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me why that's the first sentence of his bio? Doesn't seem very encyplodia-ish. "He is a black man." Ok... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.194.154 ( talk) 03:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
As of this time, I still see this in the article, despite the fact that the history shows it having been deleted.03:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.76.182.96 ( talk)
FYI. -- Y not? 22:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
However, Ryan withdrew from the race in June 2004, following public disclosure of child custody divorce records containing sexual allegations by Ryan's ex-wife, actress Jeri Ryan.
What's a "sexual allegation"? Is it an allegation made during sex? "allegations of sexual improprieties" would read better. -- 82.139.115.120 ( talk) 18:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is an article, hidden away in the footnotes, that gives a much more positive view of Obama as a high school student. Do you think some stuff from it could be added to the article? Redddogg ( talk) 15:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Your link to the article doesn't work. 66.32.217.17 ( talk) 20:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Obama gave a speach recently. The speech was a rebuttle to Mrs. Clinton's assertion that Obama is nothing but words, no action, just words. Obama's speach quoted several famous speaches. However, a very similar speech was given by Massachusetts Govonor Deval Patrick. Patrick and Obama are friends. This incident was in the all the papers (Boston Herald, Boston Globe) here in Boston. I'm not sure if it received as much attention Nationaly. I was just kind of thinking it may deserve a mention in the Wikipedia article, along with Mr. Obama's explanation. Bluesmanjay ( talk) 17:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is an article from ABC News which describes Mr. Obama's position and Mr. Patrick's position.
[4] —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bluesmanjay (
talk •
contribs)
I believe it is legitimate to learn about this man's family. How come nothing exists in this article about Obama's family? We have his scottish ancestry, but considering his father is from Kenya, we obviously have other ancestry there too. Tell me about Abongo Obama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 ( talk) 19:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I think a person's half brother or sister would normally be mentioned in a biographical article. I think it this has been said before that if people are racist against African people they will not vote for Obama in the first place. Mentioning his relatives in Africa is not going to lose him any votes, and might even gain some. Not that a WP editor would ever be considering that, of course. ;-) Steve Dufour ( talk) 22:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
(Hopefully we won't get sidetracked by placement/format over substance this time, but in any case here is a new thread)
My inquiry is to whether there ought to be any mention of Senator Obama's refusal to wear lapel flag pins because he sees them as portraying a sort of token patriotism? I know it may seem like a minor issue with the myriad of policy questions, but to be fair it has caused a buzz. Also, it's fair to note that (whether by his design or not), Obama's style, charisma, and personality has become an major media-frenzied issue in the campaign, I dare say more than any Presidential candidate in recent elections. Certainly one could make a case that this would fit within that frame of discussion.
The infobox on Michelle Obama mentions that she got her undergraduate degree cum laude. If mentioning the distinction is the usual practice I figure we should include magna cum laude in the box next to Barack Obama's law degree. (If not, someone should remove the distinction from Michelle Obama's infobox.)
The article also doesn't note that Obama is your new bicycle, but I can live with that omission. ;)
Who paid for Obama's Columbia and Harvard education? Honestnow Honestnow ( talk) 01:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I still don't think this sentence adds much to the article:
I happen have some friends in inter-racial marriages. This is totally normal and expected for all children to see things this way. There is nothing remarkable or interesting in Obama's statement. Steve Dufour ( talk) 22:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
[out] No - this sentence is a defining expression of who he is - it's going back in. PLease don't remove things that have long been in the article without real discussion. Tvoz | talk 01:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought that the African diaspora refered to African people who were taken from Africa to other places by the slave trade, and their descendants. That doesn't seem to apply to Obama or his dad. Steve Dufour ( talk) 22:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Barack Obama, Sr., who IMO deserves an article of his own, was a "raised a Muslim, but a confirmed atheist by the time his parents met," according to the article in present form. A recent column by Nicholas D. Kristof in the New York Times and International Herald Tribune, which you can read here: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/24/opinion/edkristof.php , says that Obama Sr. converted to Catholicism after attending a Roman Catholic school. Has anyone read from anywhere else that Senator Obama's dad became a Catholic? I think that's important information which deserves a mention in this article. -- Tocino 22:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The pronunciation guidance apparently in Arabic is not supported by the cited source, inogolo.com. It's clearly meant to be inflammatory and to support claims that Obama is a closet Muslim, discredited by many of sources cited in this article. Why include pronunication guidance at all, particularly when it isn't there for other presidential candidates or politicians, even those with names of African descent (e.g.; Kweisi Mfume article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.34.246 ( talk) 05:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be good to layout his stances on the issues (based on his quotes and voting records). Does anybody have an objection to this section? It would be modeled similarly to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_buchanan another political figure. -- Kibbled bits ( talk) 06:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Also what about putting his political career under one bullet point. The layout for the article seems somewhat flat. Again I reference the Buchanan article above in that I think the hierarchy makes sense. Would anyone mind organizing this? -- Kibbled bits ( talk) 07:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The "Homosexual Issues" section reads; "He states that in his opinion marriage is between a man and women". The correct quote is "a man and a woman". The phrasing "a man and women" doesn't make sense and even has incorrect connotations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.2.173 ( talk) 09:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Having looked at From West Wing to the real thing: Scriptwriters modelled TV's ethnic minority candidate on young Barack Obama, perhaps it's time for an Barack Obama in popular culture/ Cultural depictions of Barack Obama article? Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008#Effect of the Internet could be used to spin-off and expand it. Alientraveller ( talk) 15:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
This sentence was removed:
This is sourced by interviews done by the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, a respected newspaper in Hawaii. To me, anyway, it seemed like the kind of information that would usually be found in a person's biography. I don't see why it was removed. Steve Dufour ( talk) 15:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a section on his political ideas? Velho ( talk) 03:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed the category Category:American spoken word artists from this article. Categories are to be applied only where they define the person in question (see WP:CAT) and not to be applied for trivial aspects of someone's life (see WP:OCAT). In particular, this category should only apply to people who are defined as spoken word artists; not to people who have trivially engaged in spoken word at some point in their career, or to people who are simply "artists" as in highly skilled in oratory. -- Lquilter ( talk) 15:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I question the importance of this section:
Is the first sentence about Keyes being from out of state (you might say a carpetbagger) intended to put down Obama by showing that his Senate race victory was against a weak opponent? Or can WP just not help itself when given the chance to take a slap against a conservative figure? Is it remarkable that they had a debate? Are the subjects of the debate remarkable? Is it remarkable that they expressed opposing views on these issues? (Especially considering that Obama is on the far left of mainstream politics in the USA and Keyes is on the far right?) Thanks. Steve Dufour ( talk) 13:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
does not anyone here think it is interesting that he has accepted an endorsement from a senator who was directly connected to the trajedy at chappaquedick (possible sic)?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.32.148 ( talk) 04:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Someone's added 'sickening and stomach turning' in front of 'presidential bid'.
This should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.187.34.100 ( talk) 17:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I do see scattered info on the web but nothing coherent or official. Geo8rge ( talk) 19:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
It might not be that important, but to make the topic name more accurate, why not change the title to Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. rather than plain Barak Obama? Redirecting is always availible for keyword search so it shouldn't bother the accessibility to the topic. -- 221.188.80.108 ( talk) 07:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
It is important. His name that was given to him coincidentally is the same as Saddam. I think it would be an enormous understatement to say that Saddam Hussein a hated figure. As far as I know no other politician is listed here with a middle name except for Hillary Rodham Clinton, and that's because Rodham is her maiden name and Clinton is her name by marriage. I think that there would be a tremendous neutrality problem. Wikipedia would be seen as helping the chances of John McCain, assuming Obama and McCain face each other in the general election. JonErber ( talk) 16:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
reply to 201, Are you making this same request at all biographies that do not have their middle name in the title? If not, why not? If so, what is the response from the editors working on those biographies? Jons63 ( talk) 16:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
In the "Cultural and political image" section, George Will is mentioned. Does anyone seriously think that Senator Obama is running for president because George Will told him too? Redddogg ( talk) 14:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Here are the 2 sentences:
I don't think most readers will understand what is being talked about. Steve Dufour ( talk) 06:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I was making a comment on the issue of Obama's church, which was swept away by the deletion of the whole section. I mentioned that I, a white person, have attended many services in mostly black churches and have never encountered any hostility or "racialism" there. I also mentioned that Obama's neighborhood, the South Side of Chicago is 90 - 95% black so any church there is probably going to have mostly black membership. Steve Dufour ( talk) 15:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The phonetic guide gives the same pronunciation for the second vowel in barack and the second vowel in obama, however not only is this inconsistent with his own pronunciation, it's also inconsistent with the website cited as a reference. That site in turn is problematic because it says the second syllable of barack is pronounced 'rock' which is clearly incorrect. As far as I can make out Barack rhymes with Jack and Obama rhymes (almost) with banana. However, vowels vary so dramatically with regional accents that some people may pronounce the two 'a's the same anyway. I think the phonetic guide may need to be adjusted. 217.44.180.84 ( talk) 21:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The article has the following abbreviated explanation of Obama's support for SCHIP:
"Obama also sponsored a Senate amendment to the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to provide one year of job protection for family members caring for soldiers with combat-related injuries.[79]"
Then goes on to say SCHIP was later vetoed by President Bush. My concern is that SCHIP is a tremendously complicated entitlement program, and the revised version was presented as expanding coverage to a maasive number of people, not just veterans but also people of substantial income, and many viewed it as a multi-billion$ entitlement increase in big government. The article should either do a better job of explaining the SCHIP expansion, explain why Bush vetoed it, or else delete any mention of the veto. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.171.42 ( talk) 23:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I think obama's position on guncontrol should be put in here. DeftalC3AU ( talk) 23:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The article should have some mention of Obama's connection to Chicago Democratic fundraiser Tony Rezko, who is currently under Federal trial in Chicago. According to the Chicago Tribune ( http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/obama_confronted_on_rezko_in_t.html) there could be something to be known about Obama's conncection to a house/land purchase in south Chicago. Rezka has been a key Obama contributor since 1995. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.238.38 ( talk) 00:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your attempt at smearing Obama and adding some more NPOV stuff to Wikipedia! Please come back later! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfunk1967 ( talk • contribs) 05:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
You can't even seem to smear senator obama correctly. The man's name is Tony Rezko, with an O. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.136.22.4 ( talk) 07:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
If that is so how come Hillary Clinton's Page lacks any information on her fraud charges which is very much conected to Peter Paul. I know he was discredited but that was by the Judge Hillary Clinton had appointed. If that information is added to her page then we will have to follow through with your claim and add to this page but seeing as how the prevelance of those charges have not been added/recognised I see no reason to give your claim any weight to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.250.173 ( talk) 18:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Smear? Give me a break - This man has a very good chance to be our next president and this article is from a reputable paper in his home town. Critical analysis should be available, and there is a connection here in the house purchase. This article barely contains a critical word about this candidate, it might as well have been written by a member of his staff.
Obiously this is a newsworthy and well sourced story being snubbed. Fair? NPOV? I dispute that.
Maybe it was, judging from this reaction. As far as the Clinton Paul connection, that should be on the Clinton page.
User:Scjessey, you claim that Rezko is not relevant to Obama's biography. I did not insert Rezko, nor did your edit delete. All I did was change the word "controversial" to explain why he is controversial. The mere fact that he is included in this article (and that you leave him in the article) shows that Rezko is relevant, not to mention the significant press coverage this issue has received lately. Charges of political corruption are highly relevant to political figures, so this information needs to remain. -- Flyboy121 ( talk) 04:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The title of the article for the 2008 Obama Campaign is quite a mouthful and people interested in it likely come first to the main article. In the interest of facilitating users navigation between the main article and the campaign and positions subarticles I've improved WP by adding a nav box directly under the infobox. -- Justmeherenow ( talk) 04:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
1: Where should this go? It happened last August
[7] and is particularly important,maybe, because he was a politician in a border state and should have known better, perhaps.
Mr.grantevans2 (
talk) 15:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
First you don't know if it was a simple mistake or a reflection of his ignorance of the government of Canada. Second, it's not the fact that he made a mistake it's the fact that this particular mistake has taken on political significance and has been widely reported and discussed. It's not simply what is said but how what is said is significant, politically or otherwise. Not mentioning these types of incidents that people are talking about does not give a complete encyclopedic picture. It's not for the editors to decide what mistakes are worth talking about and which ones are not. These stories take on a life of their own and the article should simply reflect the national conversation and potrayal of Obama. Voters deserve to be made aware of these types of incidents and its not the intention to simply smear him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.114.140 ( talk) 17:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I ran into this article: Trend spotter: Amateur songwriters for Obama in the Christian Science Monitor. I couldn't find a good place to add it to the article however. The "public image" section seems to be mostly about politics. Redddogg ( talk) 15:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
...The word 'controversy' appears precisely once in all the many reference links at the bottom of the page, (among which i have yet to find one link to a story even slightly critical of Obama), and that appearance is in a link to a Time story in no way critical of Obama, or of anything about his career. There seems to be an emerging pattern here: NPOV minimum use of one or two citations/links with 'negative-bias' terms, seemingly inserted only to give the appearance of neutrality by using the NPOV 'letter of the law' to evade NPOV purposes and intents. This assertion violates 'Assume Good Faith', but the pattern seems clear.
The word 'critics' also appears only once in the article, and only in the context of an assertion that even his 'critics' agree he has qualities which his supporters claim are positive character attributes. See the pattern?
The word 'progressive' appears only twice, and each time is used also only in a context which makes clear that Obama is considered not progressive 'enough' by others. Thus the insertion of the word seems intended only to blur Obama's appearance of 'progressiveness' in the mind of the reader, rather than to identify or clarify that Obama is frequently and publicly referred to as among the most 'progressive' of the candidates currently running for U.S. President.
How is this possible in an article which purports to detail, or to link to details of, the life of a politician who is also recognized widely as among the most 'progressive' of his peers in both the Illinois State Senate, and in the U.S. Senate?
The word 'liberal' appears nowhwere in the article, nor could I find it in the references, citations, or the links I followed which are included with the article. This apparent break in the asserted pattern actually shows the asserted pattern more clearly, through the exclusion of the word 'liberal' in this article, since the term 'liberal' is being gradually excised from public discourse. Since it is at least arguable the term is no longer 'widely used' or 'considered relevant' by many, the writer(s) appear to have concluded there was no need to include the term to further the appearance of upholding NPOV standards in this case. Thus, the complete and entire exclusion of the term strengthens the case that hidden bias is masquerading as NPOV in this article.
Every other biographical Wikipedia page on current political figures which I have thus far encountered has a section in the article titled something like 'Criticism', or 'Controversy', etc. There is nothing remotely like that on the Obama page.
The only reference to Obama and his links with Tony Rezko are in the context of a link to a story in which Obama is lauded for 'regretting' his real estate deal with Rezko. There is also no mention at all of Rezko's contributions to Obama campaigns, despite months of intense coverage in numerous sources.
How can an article be said to qualify as NPOV when there are no, or virtually no, references or links to criticism(s) in the body of an article, nor in the reference and citation links at the end of an article?
All one has to do is run a web search on Obama with any one of the term(s) 'Rezko', 'liberal', 'progressive', controversy', 'criticism', etc, to get a plethora of pieces in major sources to which to link. Yet there are on the Obama page no references or citations, let alone links to, any of those widely accepted sources. Why not, unless there is an attempt to circumvent NPOV standards by giving an appearance of adherence as demonstrated above?
It is my impression that lacking one, let alone all, of the commonly used NPOV conventions and standards referred to above, especially in an article on a public figure about which there is substantial public interest if not controversy and/or criticism, disqualifies the article under NPOV standards.
In my reading of the Obama discussion page, i find not one reference to the above facts. Even if my questioning of Good Faith Assumed in this case is incorrect, isn't the lack of 'criticisms' and 'controversies' links, citations, references, let alone article Sections, something which should raise at least some interest among editors?
In my opinion, this article should be immediately flagged as being under NPOV dispute. I am depending on the integrity and honesty of the editorial wikipedia community for this tag, since i have no idea how to do anything tech related, let alone Wikipedia-oriented. (believe me: you don't want me trying to tag and change things on article pages. It took me over two hours to find the discussion page, and to figger out how to do this raising of some questions! You can ask my kids about the chances for utter ruination when i try any sort of tech stuff. They won't let me even touch their computers!)
Please forgive if my lack of wikipedia/html skills results in confusion or hassles among more experienced users, or among editors. No offense offered to anyone, no offense inferred from anyone. Cheers, All! Whraglyn (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)whraglyn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whraglyn ( talk • contribs) (sort of)
Thx for the link, my friend; but I am not seeking 'Obama-bashing', let alone 'Republican' 'language' in any article on Wikipedia. I am seeking a resolution of what appears to my newbie brain to be bias in selective editing of the article. If your response were to the point, your ad hominem assumptions leading to your aspersion(s) regarding my intent would not reveal so clearly your seemingly obvious bias in this matter. You may wish to recuse yourself from further participation in this discussion before your apparent inability to control your seeming bias in such talk pages results in admin actions which you may find less desirable than actually discussing in an impersonal manner all points made in talk pages. -- Whraglyn ( talk) 04:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Your lecture, and the tone, are as useless in this dicussion as they are unrelated to the issue at hand. -- Whraglyn ( talk) 07:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The question is not whether enough has been made of these points by Hillary or any other person. The question is why is there such a clear and sharp break between the lack of 'criticism' on the Obama page and the almost universal acceptance of such on other pages. -- Whraglyn ( talk) 07:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thx for your input, 2.0.180.2 and Rosywounds. The fact that the terms I listed in my original post include the terms 'liberal' and 'progressive' has no bearing at all on the question of whether there are, or are not, included in the article sufficient facts regarding the personal beliefs and the personal character of the subject of the article.
The inclusion of a count of such terms in my original post was only to show that such terms are used far less frequently, and with far more, shall we say 'agility of usage', than on ANY other bio page i have seen thus far of other major public figures, even those with public records far less qualified to have such terms used in the Wikipedia pages covering their 'personal' lives.
The term count was done at all only to show there appears to be reasonable grounds to ask whether the Obama page is being selectively edited, and whether that selection in editing is pro-Obama, and if so, 'why'?
You seem to each be missing the simple fact that almost all, ( i say 'almost all' only because i have not read every single major public figure bio page posted on Wikipedia, but the usage of 'criticism' or 'controversy' sections is overwhelmingly frequent and widespread among the radnom sample of over 100 bio pages i have scanned), bio pages of other public have entire sections of 'controversy' and/or 'criticism' in the body of the article. The usage of such sections in the body of 'personal' pages covering other major public figures seems to be almost a standard or conventional usage across a wide range of persons and subjects on Wikipedia.
'Why is this norm acceptable for so many pages, but not for that of the 'personal' page on Obama?' is a legitimate question.
The question thus becomes not one of 'Why do some contributors ask about the lack of such sections/terms on the Obama 'personal' page?', but that of "Why do some contributors strive so strongly and persistently to deny the disparity between the use of such terms on the 'personal' page of Obama and those of others on Wikipedia?'
A related question which arises naturally from a casual and disinterested reading of this discussion page is 'Why do so many of those who oppose the insertion of 'controversy' or 'criticism' sections, references, citations, or links in the 'personal' page of Obama use a tone which is condescending, patronizing, and subtly impugning of the intent of contributors who ask these questions?'
Each of the above questions regarding the editing of the Obama page are asked because they are raised by the apparent seeming bias in the editing of the Obama page under discussion.
Rosywounds, as for your assertion there is no 'need' to include 'controversy' and/or 'criticism' references on the Obama 'personal' page simply because there is 'little controversy' regarding Obama: Guess you have not heard of how media coverage of Obama is so sycophantic that the notoriously liberal/progressive writers and players on Saturday Night Live parodied same in a now-world famous skit the last couple of weeks, eh? Please search on the terms 'Obama' and 'controversy' or 'criticism'. I would truly be interested in your response to the results of such a search. Cheers All! -- Whraglyn ( talk) 07:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
My friend, we know the answer...we all know it. Obama is coddled and protected here. His followers (aka Obamists) protect their Messiah, leaving out untold amounts of valid sources. Note on McCains article you find the word "conservative" dozens of times. This Obama page is nothing more than a delicately constructed promotional piece. Here are some opinions cited in this article: a May 2004 New Yorker magazine article described as his "everyman" image. in a March 2007 Washington Post opinion column, Eugene Robinson characterized him as "the personification of both-and," a messenger who rejects "either-or" political choices, and could "move the nation beyond the culture wars" of the 1960s. An October 2005 article in the British journal New Statesman listed Obama as one of "10 people who could change the world All of them op-ed, but all of them sourced...all of them in the article. So why wont the Obamists include the sourced and valid (and often cited) fact that the National Journal calls him the most liberal of all Senators. I find that a fascinating distinction. Well, Loony has himself said that the reason the National Journal citation isn't included is because it is "opinion"...yet there is plenty of positive, heavenly, Messianic opinion in the article right now....I find it sickening that the hawks over this article view Obama as so frail that they somehow have the "High Calling" of protecting him. THis article is a sham, it is not neutral. Don't even try to label it as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 ( talk) 00:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Bravo! Thx for the data included in your post, 24.18.108.5! Where is the outrage at the inclusion of such 'opinions' positive and supportive of Obama on the 'personal' page? Each of the above cited quotes from the article has far less to do with the 'personal' life of Obama and far more to do with his public life and aspirations to power. Why has not one of those who were so quick and thorough in their resistance to even asking the question under discussion ever commented on this point? IF such obviously 'public' comments are allowed on Obama's 'personal' page when it is clear they are far more relevant to a page devoted to the 'public' life of Obama, the conclusion that there is some degree of selective editing in some form on this page becomes more inescapable every day. I ask each of those who above have resisted the raising of this question to apply their points to this latest factuality. Come on, folks! Show us your unbiased uncompromising editorial zeal for only truth in this case! Failing that, i shall begin to, according to Wikipedia standards, BOLDLY insert the facts, citations, references, and links after 9:00 PM CST on Friday, March 7, 2008. Cheers All! -- Whraglyn ( talk) 03:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The Obama article does seem more biased then the Clinton article. Clinton's article discusses *two* instances she was critized for wearing a skirt. However the Obama article doesn't mention the *one* time he incorrectly refers to the "president of Canada". In addition "Gender" is a whole heading over on the Clinton page, but Obama's ethnicity is only mentioned in passing. Whats the big difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.149.189 ( talk) 19:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Please check all information someone has been slowly removing information from the article in between edits. I pick up one. User: 02:08, 1 March 2008 User:Gigi2934 removed information about Obama's past drug use. I would recommend someone look into this. Other thing might have been removed. 204.52.215.128 ( talk) 08:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The reason Hillary's middle is in upper case because it was her original name. She was Hillary Rodham and now she is Hillary Clinton. If you took the time to look at other examples of men and womens names on wikipedia you would know that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.107.231.63 ( talk) 00:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
1. Someone has to do something about this arrogant mindset that there's such a thing as 'universal' health care in the US. It's like saying 'world series' when international teams are not invited. Wikipedia is not a resource for people in the US and calling a national health service 'universal' is just repugnant.
2. Stop hyping Obama's health plan as universal/national. It's not. He doesn't have a plan like that at all and to promote this in the first or second graf smacks of partisanship. Obama's plan is a way to increase affordability according to current guidelines. In other words without changing the basic infrastructure. THIS IS NOT A HEALTH CARE PLAN. Were you to know anything about national health care plans elsewhere on this beautiful planet you'd understand this; as you've obviously not gone through the trouble of doing the research as you should - then take the word of others who know a lot better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.5.136.204 ( talk) 08:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
1."Universal" has more meanings than just one (across the universe). Universal in universal health care refers to "everyone" having access. It's not arrogant or "Ameri-centric" or whatever. "Michigan has universal health care" means every one in Michigan is covered. "Spain has universal health care" means everyone in Spain. It doesn't have anything to do with arrogants, it's word usage. Context is everything. "Comprehensive insurance" refers to coverage, not to being able to comprehend it! Check out a dictionary, most words have more than one definition.
2,YOu might not approve of the "World Series" being named as such, or consider it arrogant, but that IS what it's called. It's not up to Wikipedia to change the language or to redefine words. As I said, words have more than one meaning- world for example can mean the earth but it can also refer to "the world of" (ie. in the world of coin collection, in the fashion world etc.) World Series of Baseball refers to the world of Major League Baseball in North America, currently including 1 team from Canada.
3. I do agree that Obama's plan is not Universal and is misrepresented as such. That should probably be fixed. But wikipedia is NOT the place to redifine the meaning or usage of the word universal in universal health care. In this usage it means, 1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of all or the whole. NOT the whole of the universe, the whole of the population or citizenship of the specific area being discussed (in this case the US). Any body fo government or anything else can use the term "univeral" to pertain only to themselves without arrogance.
u·ni·ver·sal /ˌyunəˈvɜrsəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[yoo-nuh-vur-suhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of all or the whole: universal experience. 2. applicable everywhere or in all cases; general: a universal cure. 3. affecting, concerning, or involving all: universal military service. 4. used or understood by all: a universal language. 5. present everywhere: the universal calm of southern seas. 6. versed in or embracing many or all skills, branches of learning, etc.: Leonardo da Vinci was a universal genius. 7. of or pertaining to the universe, all nature, or all existing things: universal cause. 8. characterizing all or most members of a class; generic. 208.53.102.132 ( talk) 20:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)amyanda2000
It would be theoretically universal in the USA, by your logic universal would include aliens, animals etc... There are subsets of "universality" if you understand what I mean.
Starmurderer (
talk) 21:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
RE the current reference 15, which starts with the article called "Obama Madrassa Myth Debunked". The article itself correctly refers to the madrassa as an "Islamic madrassa", unfortunately it's title doesn't. Isn't displaying this title perpetuating the wrong usage of the word? It is the only use of "madrassa" in the article. Since the NYTimes apologised for misusing it in the wake on the Insight story, I doubt many in the media have misused it since. The problem is that so many of the old reports used the incorrect meaning. Is there one which hasn't? It would be better to cite that one.
Also The Jakarta Post link in the ref15 list goes to a mostly blank page for me - it might be broken.-- Matt Lewis ( talk) 15:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I have protected the page due to edit warring. The protection will naturally expire in one week. Should the issues be resolved, any administrator can unprotect it earlier than that. Please work your issues out on the talk page, here, keeping the WP:BLP policy front and center in mind. Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 17:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Somebody needs to add about Barack Obama campaign's controversy over the double speak on NAFTA, which Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Canadian and America media outlets have confirmed.
Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources. The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.
— Canadian News
Source of Obama's NAFTA Controversy
24.174.46.149 (
talk) 00:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
24.174.46.149 ( talk) 18:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Aside from the issue of whether it belongs here, the latest is that Hillary's team may have been the one to reassure the Canadians.And the Obama campaign has denied the previous Canadian version of events which now has been made inoperative. I will now go to where it's "already there". JonErber ( talk) 17:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to remove this distinction again unless the editor chooses to add it to Hillary Clinton's page as well. To add it to one and not another, even to say "a leading candidate" instead of "the leading candidate" does add bias to the article. Scottmkeen ( talk) 01:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. He leads the delegate count, so on the books, he is what is defined as "the leading candidate." 70.137.160.103 ( talk) 07:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
But the wording is not 'the leading candidate' - it's 'a leading candidate'. And to be 'a leading candidate' you don't have to have a majority or plurality of anything. There are some that would argue that with Ohio and the big swing states Hillary is actually 'the' leading candidate but I see no reason to intersperse that distinction - unless of course one wants to be as undemocratic as the Obamabots are. But that's not generally a good idea, is it? [unsigned]
The article states that Barack Obama is a muslim. He is not, he is of the United Church of Christ. I suspect this is a change to the page with malignant motives. -Preceding unsignedcomment added by 68.92.239.57 ( talk) 02:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh this is so childish. Personally I doubt he has any religion at all. But the facts are these.
1. He got ten hours per week tutelage for over four years in islam. 2. His mother was a muslim. 3. His father was a muslim. 4. His stepfather was a muslim. 5. Who knows what his grandparents were but someone can look that up. 6. Saudi Arabia regards him as a muslim. 7. His Somali origins indicate he's not only a muslim but an ARAB.
It's clear however that this is a promotional article written by and for more Obamabots so it's really futile to discuss the matter. One can only hope you learn the proper meaning of two words eventually.
1. Democracy. 2. Encyclopaedia. [unsigned, by 90.5.136.204]
Shouldn't the fact that Dick Cheney is his cousin be mentioned? Contralya ( talk) 05:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
-- Justmeherenow ( talk) 01:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)An archaeological dig in Cairo, conducted at the behest of Jesus Tomb producer James Cameron, turned up ancient manuscripts confirming that Obama's Egyptian ancestors enslaved the family of Elijah Lieberman, Joe Lieberman's "great-to-the-300th-degree" grandfather.
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
"U.S. Senate debate sponsored by the League of Women Voters in Illinois".
October 21
2004. {{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
"Debate sponsored by WTTW and the City Club of Chicago".
October 26
2004. Retrieved 2008-01-14. {{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)