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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Why is the sentence "During his first year as a U.S. Senator, Obama said he would not run for the presidency in 2008, but in a recent television interview he said that he has "thought about the possibility" of becoming a presidential candidate.[2]" in the lede? Is it really that important, and does it significantly add to the intro? Seems to me a small tidbit of his life. Thoughts? Thanks. -- 198.185.18.207 20:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I reverted the edit changing "has been identified by..." to "is" because I think that per WP:NOR and WP:CITE the way to solve the question of race is to side step it. It is open to debate whether Obama is black, biracial, multiracial, white, or anything else. Many people will even tell you that race is a subjective social construct that cannot be definitively proven. Wikipedia is not the place to decide how to classify people racially or if it is even a legitimate practice.
The fact remains that he has been identified as the only African American senator. That is not disputed and there is a verifiable source for it. That can be cited and added because it is notable and verifiable. However, to definitively state that he is African American, or Black, or biracial, or multiracial is a step too far considering the loaded discussion surrounding it. I realize that the wording is a little awkward but it is better to be awkward than violate WP policy.
So... if people would like to calmly and logically engage in even minded and civil debate on the issue I am definitely open to it. I think that the current wording is a good consensus compromise for the various schools of thought here. -- Rtrev 01:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully, this version will not be up for too much debate. Shakam 04:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Have commented out [ from this version] the text under discussion pending agreement here on consensus language. -- HailFire 08:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Restoring self-identification+reliable sources view and removing {{disputed}} tag in this version. Let's continue to discuss here, but avoid negatively impacting the article's clarity for readers more interested in biographical content. Harro5, thanks for your patience. I hope that the current text will be reasonably satisfactory to all until such time as we can agree on something better. -- HailFire 14:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
He is "also" (hence the quotes), the only black/white biracial currently serving in the Senate. But that seems to be non-existant; and, it would be superfluous to say African-American and black/white biracial. Shakam 05:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Just to stir the pot, in the USA, which is where the subject resides and serves in the Senate, there is no official legal definition of percentage of ancestry required for a person to refer to themself as "black" or "African-American". At one time in the past, having one-eighth African ancestry qualified you as "black", but that law was long ago repealed. There is currently no mechanism for verifying the race that a person claims to be on any official document. If you check the "black", "asian", or "native american" box on an official form, there is no way for the agency collecting that information to verify that fact. Where does that fit in here? Hell if I know, but to me, he looks black, and he claims to be black, so therefore, he must be black. - Crockspot 17:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if this isn't just as awkward, but I would like to see what others think of this wording. Instead of the current first sentence in the article intro, should it be changed to the following: "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. (born August 4, 1961) is the junior U.S. Senator from Illinois. The Senate identifies Obama as the fifth African-American Senator in U.S. history and the only African-American currently serving in the Senate."? · j e r s y k o talk · 19:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
How about: If race existed (which it doesn't) then Barak Obama could possibly be put under consideration as to what could possibly be an African America Senator, if African Americans actually existed as a viable racial construct (which is certainly debatable)...This was just a thought. We might want to expand upon this and make sure everyone knows that even if African American existed as a viable racial construct(Debatable) that Obama doesn't qualify even though the senate, the near majority of American print media, dictionaries, wikipedia and Obama himself would put him in this category. If there are no objections I will put this in the article. Thanks Jasper23 21:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Thats funny. Saying that I was making false accusations and vandalizing this page and your talk page when you made the personal attack. Then you go and change your attack on this page, to a more neutral tone. You know its still in the page history right? Drop the accusations-drop the personal attacks-stay away from me. Jasper23 22:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the best thing to do at this point would be to simply drop the conversation for a few days, work on other Wikipedia articles, and then come back to it later? · j e r s y k o talk · 23:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Jersyko said, "Perhaps the best thing to do at this point would be to simply drop the conversation for a few days, work on other Wikipedia articles, and then come back to it later? · j e r s y k o talk · 23:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)"
I giggled. Shakam 03:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I have been away from my computer the past few days, but have to say that the compromise version looks good. Incidentally, in looking at the rest of the article, I happened to look here: [3]. I found that some of his ancestors were also black slaves, such as "George Washington Overall, b. Bullitt Co., Ky., 4 July 1820, d. Nelson Co., Ky., 9 Jan. 1871." He is found at no. 110 on the list, being Barack's great-great-great-great grandfather. I thought that was interesting. Just wanted to share, since it came up in the discussion. I too would love to see Obama elected, but also believe that for Wikipedia to be a valuable resource, it has to remain unbiased. Well done on the compromise. Stealthound 16:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I just want to say again, that it is an unfair statement to say he is Black or African American. We can "compromise" cite all the sources we want but the truth is the truth. Mr. Obama is a mixed race individual. We can cite to news papers and website and articles that are also mistaken; can look up definitions; we can try to define race but the fact still stands, him mother is white and is father is black. That means it is equally acceptable to write he is another White senator in the United States. If we are going to construct the African American race as anyone with one drop of African American blood then we would be doing society a great injustice setting our country back 150 years. I do not understand what the problem people have with telling the truth. He is of mixed races THAT IS A FACT, to try to manipulate the words to push an agenda particularly in a forum that puts itself out as a site with factual information is just unconscionable.
Jasev01
16:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that it is not true and at best a misleading lead it. What is the problem with making the lead in factual? Someone can identify with being from Pluto and swear by it but it would not be true. I would think the point of the article is to be factual. The point of the lead in is to give a brief synopsis of what the article is about. Why are people so interested in burying the truth paragraphs down? What is the problem with putting in the lead in paragraph that he is of mixed races unless you don't want people to see it? It’s offensive to reinstate racist policies that we claim were abolished in this country. (if you are a part black then you are all black). And yes I'm sure he is ok with it because it gets him votes but this should not be about that is should be about the truth. Jasev01 17:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your view Jasez01, but I kinda gave that up because I came to realize it wasn't a likely outcome. It's OK now, I suppose. Shakam 03:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Like Shakam, I won't fight it either but I would like to state that it is clearly racist and sets us back to the days of Plessy v. Ferguson where 1/8 of "black blood" made you Black, African America or whatever else there term of the day is. The Supreme Court overturned Plessy and saw the error of some racist thinking but apparently we all have not caught up with the times. I do not see the problem with simply editing it to say the truth that he is a mixed race person but apparently there are higher powers that do not want to see that done so I will leave it as it is. Hopefully when the consensus can join the world in the 21 century and get over the standards set in 1800s the article will change. Jasev01 23:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
There's a difference between the term "black" and the term "African-American". African-American has more in common with other terms like German-American, Chinese-American, etc. The AMOUNT of German heritage, or Chinese heritage, etc. doesn't matter. It's a self-identifier.
I'm half black and half white. I'm frankly offended by the opposition to calling Mr. Obama African-American - and I don't even like the term African-American (like we were tourists who just decided to stay). Underlying the arguments is an implication that calling someone African-American or black is pejorative. Jasev's comments particularly disturb me.
In any event, Mr. Obama identifies HIMSELF as African-American. To call him anything else is a violation of the policy on biographies of living persons.
This whole discussion is so....it's the most difficult RFC that I have responded to. I honestly can't even wrap my brain around it. NinzEliza 09:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I did forget to log in and it was me who made the “mixed" changes sometime yesterday. To be clear my comment was not to insult, defame, or single anyone out. I am African American, to be fair my mother traces her roots back to slaves and my father was born in the Dominican Republic but with African heritage too. I'm not saying someone who is mixed is not African American I'm saying to solely classify him as an American or whatever else is in a way offensive and is an attempt to push home a politic gain and is bias and is a way racist for the same reason stated above(the 1/8 part discussed above which without reading it I though of myself)I personally believe the difference between African American Black American whatever else is pure semantics of the time we all know what we are talking about and we can use whatever term is less offensive. When someone looks at me in general most people say you are black. Around people of Latin origins I sometimes get you look Dominican (as a side bar I get from a lot of people that I look like Carton from the fresh prince who is also Dominican go figure). When I travel to South America I've been called Brazilian. But throughout all of this I will not deny either side of my heritage or place one above the other i.e. in an article about me I would never say I am the first Latin Senator because it would be unfairly prejudicial and not accurate. I'm not accusing anyone but the point I am making is that we all can agree that Mr. Obama grew up with his white family member yet to Google and find a picture of any of them is nearly impossible. He just met his African family and I can Google and the first things that comes up are pictures of him in African kissing and hugging (no offense to anyone) people in traditional African grad, who look like they have stepped out of some movie. Is that to drive home to the black voters he is one of us? I'm just saying to use being African American to political gain is insulting to me and o other African American. To use a racist test developed by slave holders in the 1800, even in a "positive" way is insulting. Like someone else said somewhere in here he can identify as Chinese American but that would not be true and we would not put it here. And like someone else said I don't see what his race need to be in the first paragraph at all. It just looks like someone is going way out of their ay to throw that in upfront and it must e for a reason. I am not kicking Mr. Obama out of any black club I am just asking that he be identified as what he is upfront a mixed individual. I don't car if it says only senator with African American heritage because that is fair and true and ideally I'd like to see:
Mr. Obama is multiracial, however According to the U.S. Senate Historical Office, he is the fifth African American Senator in U.S. history and the only African American now serving in the U.S. Senate.
I think that is a fair statement of the facts and what is going on otherwise it looks like someone is trying to hid and bury something for whatever reason Jasev01 11:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
African-American is the ethnic group, black is the race. Only problem is that in the US those two words are considered synonymous. I can read in my school's history books, where it jumps around from calling people African-American to black.
70.144.220.11
21:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
So Jasev, you're blacker than I am? I still get called nigger, and I still can't get a cab in Manhattan.
I'm from Illinois. There is no political gain to be had by being a person of color in Illinois politics, much less calling yourself African-American. There is certainly no political gain to be had being a person of color on the national level.
The 1/8 rule applies to white people identifying people of color (which timelist has done here), not to people of color identifying themselves. Furthermore, the 1/8 rule was used specifically for the purposes of oppresion and discrimination, NOT mere identification. Barack Obama identifies himself as African-American. I suggest that it's racist, particularly for a person of color, to suggest otherwise. NinzEliza 03:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
First before you put words in my mouth I never said anyone is blacker than anyone. I simply said that if we are going to report fact REPORT FACTS. I said to write that he was mixed upfront not that he Black with bells and whistles. In the same way that you headline with he is black, it is equally correct to headline that he is white yet no one would suggest doing that. For what ever reason it is political or the war feeling in someone stomach it makes people feel good to headline with he is black, yet no one would headline is white. Both are equally correct. The clearer more correct statement is he is mixed that’s all I am saying. You can attack me personally you can ignore me but it does not change the fact that I am right and no one has said one thing to attack the merit of what I am saying and I presume that is because what I am saying is correct. There would be little or no harm is removing the statement or changing it to clarify that he is mixed. No matter who makes the 1/8 argument or calls whoever else a nigger or whatever else it is equally harmful. It’s not me being racist; if you read what I said Ninz, "I am not kicking him out the black club...I am simply asking that the truth is told." If speaking the truth makes me a racist then I guess I am. I personally do not want to accept any racist policy even if it affects me positively and just because some ascribes to something does not mean it’s true. I was under the impression we were here to tell the truth not the truth as someone wants it reported. And who ever can't get a cab in Manhattan isn't trying hard enough I was born and raised in NY and never had a problem. Jasev01 00:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm half white half black. I'm African-American. SAY DIRECTLY TO ME that I'm not. NinaEliza 07:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
An amazing (and amazingly long!) discussion. I'm content with what's currently in the article (reporting what the Senate reports is fine with me), but I'd like to point out the obvious: if someone's mother were German and father Irish, I doubt we'd be having arguments over whether he's really German-American or Irish-American, or what he "self-identifies" as. Most likely that person would say "all of the above". Why is this situation any different? I expect Barack himself is more interested in who he is, than who he is not. Just because he self-identifies as African-American doesn't mean he doesn't self-identify as anything else. He was born and spent his formative years mostly in Hawaii, so he coul be described as a Polynesian-American. He spent a lot of time with his maternal grandparents from Kansas, so he's also a Midwesterner. Currently he's a Chicagoan. Few Americans have only one 'identity', and he's no exception. Please stop trying to pigeonhole him, or anyone else. It's not worth the effort, and there aren't enough hyphens to go around anyway. Flatterworld 15:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree whole heartily with Flatterworld and the Gzkn's proposed language(wordy or not)(if it were up to me, it honestly does not affect me one way or another I still wake up eat and carry out my daily life regardless). My point is simply what Flatterworld said there is no need to pigeonhole or identity as one thing particularly if you are equal parts. And as for a person self identifying not I'm not saying the self identifier is racist or lying. I am saying that in a place where were are looking to write complete information leading with a half truth is not far. Maybe its the lawyer in me but omission can be lies in some cases. In the case of a person of mixed races saying I identify with one or the other is not a lie that is them. To report it to the world in a lead in that he is that and thereby inferring that solely is a lie by omission. And as for what is true and Wiki policy, that’s ridiculous, you can find websites that say Borat is the ambassador from Kazakhstan and he identifies as so but we all know its not true. The truth may be relative but just because people choose to ignore it does not make it not so. Jasev01 13:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there any Wikipedia guideline on the torture of innocent sentences that have already suffered enough abuse? -- HailFire 22:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Somebody said something about mixed-race people often choose to identify as one of their races. If you aren't granted equal "passage" on both sides then it kinda is racist. If African-American and black were not viewed as synonymous in the U.S. then I wouldn't have a problem with it saying first African-American, but it just isn't that way in the U.S. (Not that I am suggesting it be changed anymore) Shakam 03:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Just throwing this out there, but it looks as if the one paragraph lead does not follow WP:LEAD for an article of its size. Gzkn 08:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Is anyone going to place a summary about that book on the subsequent page? ---- Bearly541 talk 08:27, Saturday November 4, 2006 (UTC)
Barack Obama is NOT running for re-election, and has anyone thought to archive the talk page? ---- Bearly541 talk 08:30, Saturday November 4, 2006 (UTC)
This section violates NPOV by just throwing in minor criticisms from various columnists. If there are any significant controversies for which Obama has drawn criticism, that should certainly be included. But this is just a bunch of cherry-picked quotes dissing Obama. I'm not aware of any other political article that has such a section. It's just not encyclopedic. Can you imagine what the article for President Bush would look like if we included every criticism from a newspaper columnist? It's got to be a notable criticism or controversy, not just something said by one person. Maximusveritas 22:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
So when the most highly regarded political commentator in Illinois criticizes the Illinois Senator for real estate deal with an indicted swindler who may be about to bring down the governor of Illinois...how can it not be notable? Would it be more notable after the next shoe drops and Gov Blago is indicted? How about when the leading news magazine in the world identifies Obama's tendency to waffle, while the rest of media thinks he is some kind of benighted leader? Is that significant? It seems from MV and J23 that entry that disagrees with Obamas PR is not significant. -- Jbpo 02:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
GZ, ok, but anyone can edit wiki. Feel free to jump in with more content.-- Jbpo 13:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
That second quote from The Economist, "something about him fills a gap in American politics..." is not criticism even though it appears in the criticism section. Perhaps it can be moved elsewhere? 128.9.216.214 22:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The John Kass point should be removed. An opinion column is not a reliable source. — goethean ॐ 22:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0611090010nov09,1,6819020.story http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-0611050397nov05,1,750738.story http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0611030337nov03,1,7736524.story http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-0611010273nov01,1,2852476.story Rezko's motive was that anything he built on the side lot would be worth a whole lot more when Obama ran for President in (fill in the year). That also explains why he paid the full asking price, as he wouldn't be the only real estate speculator in Chicago who could figure that out. Barack's motive (or more likely that of his wife) was that the nominal sideyards needed to be equal in order to give a symmetrical effect. That meant they had to buy a 10-foot strip of land. Why didn't the original owner do that in the first place? I haven't seen a plat, photo or anything similar, but I expect that had something to do with the official survey which would have included the (probably) 10-foot parkway on the other side. Parkways may have public sidewalks, so any hedge or fence would be on the owner's lot beyond that line. As general information, these sorts of buybacks are common when a large piece of property with a house is subdivided by the original owner. The only problem that I can see is that Rezko is the speculator who happened to buy the land. The Obamas would have been better off to buy both pieces of land, resurvey and sell off the smaller piece. However, because of the parkway issue, I doubt they realized they had a problem at the time they bought the house. If this is the biggest 'scandal' Obama gets involved in, I think the world will remain safe for democracy. :-) Flatterworld 23:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Reading between the lines a little I picked up the idea that his wife is probably African American. If so this would be a major piece of information concerning his own identity as an African American, or his identification with the African American community if you want to say it that way.
Is there a way that this, if true that is, could be mentioned in the article? Steve Dufour 05:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I've seen his wife on Oprah many times and she does appear to be black. She probably has some white in her, but the majority of her ancestors appear to have lived in Africa so she's black. His kids are also black. Yes they have one white grand parent, but they have 3 black grand parents, so most of their ancestors are from Africa so they're black. So his wife is the only black person married to a senator, and his dad is the only black person with a senator son, and his kids are the only blacks with a senator parent, but is Obama himself black? He has 50% of his ancestors from Africa, and some would argue that 50 is a passing grade. But definitions state that you need MOST of your ancestors from Africa to be black, and most means greater than 50%. Perhaps his mother has a tiny amount of black ancestry, as there was a lot of race mixing in the South. If we can find evidence of this we can push him over the 50% mark and into the black category. Timelist 14:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I added the information that his wife is African American after reading it in this article [4]. It says "black" and her WP article says she was born in the USA. Steve Dufour 16:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, what is the point of including his wife's race at all? Would you include Laura Bush in the article on her husband as "Laura Bush, a European-American"? Is there some undercurrent of reason for including it here? CMacMillan 01:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Hope this satisfies. -- HailFire 07:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
"Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. (born August 4, 1961) is the junior U.S. Senator from Illinois. According to the U.S. Senate Historical Office, he is the fifth African-American Senator in U.S. history and the only African-American currently serving in the Senate."
It's been a day now since I last posted about this and there have been no comments against this compromise version. I'm assuming the silence means people accept this compromise. If not, please post! I'll let this sit for another day for people to respond to with requests for changes. If there are no objections by then, I will be bold and put this into the article. Gzkn 14:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Un-indenting (undenting?) Looks like Hailfire beat me to the punch in adding the compromise version. Gzkn 13:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
"The actual Swahili word for "Blessings" is "Baraka". In Kenya, where Obama's birth farther was born, several men go by the name Barrack and it is not a Swahili word at all"
It could very well be true though, so I kept it here in case anyone wants to investigate. Gzkn 13:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I could see this to be quite problematic in the future, as more and more random links get thrown in there by passersby. I would rather not see those two just become endless lists. :( Any suggestions as to what might be done to limit the two sections? Or maybe this may not be as a big of a problem as I think it is, in which case, feel free to state so :). Gzkn 03:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
There are only 5 or 6 items. If a person is not interested it's easy to skip over. If no one objects I will remove the tag, which itself takes up room and is a distraction Steve Dufour 02:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Following up on the suggestion by goethean... no more trivia in this version. -- HailFire 17:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I've just added more details about Obama's father's birthplace, on the grounds that a) Nyangoma is unlikely to warrant its own article any time soon, so we can't just make that a link, and b) it's easy to look up Wichita, but people not familiar with Kenyan geography would have trouble finding Nyangoma. Given that Obama travelled there, and spoke about it in his autobiography, I feel it's relevant. The town is now in Bondo District, but appears in a map [5] of Siaya District (linked from both articles) which was made before the boundary was redrawn, and is clearly south of the dividing line (latitude 0° 18’ north). mvc 09:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Here it is. I was wondering if we could change the title of the section to Criticism and Controversy to be more comprehensive. Comments/suggestions welcome.
Note: you'll probably have to edit the section to see the refs.
Also, after reading both the Economist and David Sirota articles, my view is that they should not be included in the criticism section. First, placing the Economist article under the Criticism section wrongly characterizes it. Two sentences from an Economist article that is more describing who Obama is than criticizing him does not make for notable criticism even if it is the Economist. If the Economist writes an entire editorial criticizing Obama (which a previous version of the criticism section seemed to infer), that'd be another matter. The Sirota criticisms, if you read the article, are actually from blog posts. Once again, the inclusion of this source under the criticisms section gives readers the wrong impression about the actual article. Also, Sirota's position on Obama (he's actually a self-described fan of him) is certainly more nuanced than the current criticism section suggests.
I realize, of course, that this may not be the consensus. If not, I was hoping that the above could at least replace the current one sentence on the Rezko deal. Looking forward to all of your comments. For the most part, the debates have been civil and enlightening so far, and I hope they stay that way. =) Gzkn 06:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the good ideas, Gzkn. I've borrowed substantially from your draft and entered a more condensed paragraph in this version. -- HailFire 17:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
A new bill was added and deleted two edits later - can someone check its validity?• Le on 22:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Modified text and re-added in this version. -- HailFire 13:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The Jr. should be dropped, as both of Barack's parents are deceased. It's only used to differentiate the two Barack Obamas (and their wives, when referred to as Mrs. Barack Obama - although that disappeared when she remarried - and Mrs. Barack Obama, Jr.). Source: any etiquette book. Flatterworld 14:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Just as a curiosty in this discussion, my son is a jr. and i am listed as the sr. Now legally my name is not such and such, sr. because it does not appear that way on my birth certificate, however, my sons legal name is such and such, jr. legally because that is how it appears on his birth certificate. Would the legality of his name have any bearing on how it is represented here? I am only asking as a point of reference because i dont even know if his name was recorded as a jr. or not on the birth certificate. Thanks Jmsseal 03:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I think his stance towards Wal-Mart is a very crucial one. He's a very influential politician, teaming up with another very influential political, against the largest retailer in the world. Taking a firm stance against the health care and wages being put out by the largest retailer in the world, is noteworthy in my opinion. Especially if you're being critiqued on economic policy. Bleu`dove 22:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
User:Jbpo added: "Despite his November 3, 2006 campaign statements against voting along color lines in Maryland, when the Republican candidate happened to be African American [6], on November 5, 2006, Obama campaigned for fellow Democrat and African American Harold Ford in a historically black Church in Tennessee, stating that "I'm feeling lonely in Washington, I need my dear friend to join me." [7]."
Forgetting the fact that it uses the wrong citation form, I fail to see how this is notable controversy. The sources don't cite any controversy that arose from this. The addition smells like original research to me. Gzkn 14:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
An Associated Press story is hardly original research. There are about 32,700 results on Google showing the audacity of Obama's comment, and a heavy amount of discussion on Blogs and newspaper columns about Obama's playing the race card when it could aid his party, and claiming to be a racial unifier when race plays against his party. Here is a good column [8] by a Chicago newspaper columnist. I am putting this entry back in. I really get tired of the censorship on this entry. How about:
1) Do at least a cursory Google Search before you decide to delete an entry 2) If your viewpoint is contradicted by an entry, try a second Google Search before you censor.
It is pretty much a waste of time to edit this entry with anything other than PR for Obama, which pretty much makes the entry useless except for people wanting to read pleasantries about the Senator. Please do 30 seconds of research and quit censoring this entry.-- Jbpo 03:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
So let me get this straight Jko...any opinion that is different than yours is "ultra conservative" and not to be included. There is major difference between a challenge and censoring an entry. You continue to censor any information that does not read as PR for Senator Obama (where did the entry for Obama's support for the Bridge to Nowhere go btw?). Is it considered civil to censor all that may oppose your POV? About a month ago I noted that this article reads like PR for Obama, and that any entries that do not read like PR are removed. Though there was a lot of support for improving the article, the censors continue to lurk here, cleaning up Obama's image.-- Jbpo 15:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I started an Rfc on this "controversy", fyi to everyone. · j e r s y k o talk · 04:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Since when does citing AP sources qualify as original research. Rather than the opinion of one person, which this definitely is not, how about 32,000 others, as noted by a Google Search and cited. You can discount the opinions of opinionated journalists if you like, but if the controversy section is supposed to describe controversy, I suggest we show some analysis other than that of Obama's PR staff in this entry.-- Jbpo 15:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
So Bobblehead and JRSP..since a Chicago newspaper columnist published this controversy..doesn't that reduce the NOR claim? Someone somewhere has to do original analysis. Since this was in a published and much repeated citation, wouldn't that qualify as NOR? How could there ever be a controversy if no one ever did analysis of a candidates claims? -- Jbpo 21:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
In response to the RFC, I agree that lacking sources, this would be OR. IF one considers Bates' column to be a reliable source, that might negate the OR claim, but then you have another potential problem: WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. Given the reams the media has printed about Obama, I think including such a small criticism would be undue weight.-- Kchase T 19:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
An IP added this, which I removed because it was unsourced: On May 4, 2006, in his weekly Podcast, Obama stated that "we have to recognize that if we are going to uphold the traditions of this country as a nation of immigrants then we have to deal with this issue in a way that reflects common sense and compassion," disagreeing with actions the House of Representatives have taken to cut down on undocumented workers in the United States. He also pushed for creation of a "pathway to earned citizenship for the 11-12 million people that are already here." Obama continued later to say, "It's hard to imagine that we want to live in a country where we have police and immigration officials coming into peoples homes and taking away the father of the family...leaving a mother and child behind." Gzkn 00:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I was reading his description of his Grandfather Onyango in "Dreams of My Father" and was struct by how his behavior exactly match someone with AS, like myself. For example, he was very particular about how things are arranged, had an intense interest in Western farming techniques, and was physically clumsy. The description certainly seemed to indicate he was considered "quite odd" by Luo standards. 4.225.114.184 12:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)!
May well be. I know a couple people with AS and it seems to fit. Could also be just plain old OCD. However, I don't know if you want to add this or are simply commenting. You should read the Wikipedia's guidelines on original research before anything else. -- Rtrev 02:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I feel I should ask, purely to see the discussion on the talk page: Is Obama Muslim?
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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Why is the sentence "During his first year as a U.S. Senator, Obama said he would not run for the presidency in 2008, but in a recent television interview he said that he has "thought about the possibility" of becoming a presidential candidate.[2]" in the lede? Is it really that important, and does it significantly add to the intro? Seems to me a small tidbit of his life. Thoughts? Thanks. -- 198.185.18.207 20:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I reverted the edit changing "has been identified by..." to "is" because I think that per WP:NOR and WP:CITE the way to solve the question of race is to side step it. It is open to debate whether Obama is black, biracial, multiracial, white, or anything else. Many people will even tell you that race is a subjective social construct that cannot be definitively proven. Wikipedia is not the place to decide how to classify people racially or if it is even a legitimate practice.
The fact remains that he has been identified as the only African American senator. That is not disputed and there is a verifiable source for it. That can be cited and added because it is notable and verifiable. However, to definitively state that he is African American, or Black, or biracial, or multiracial is a step too far considering the loaded discussion surrounding it. I realize that the wording is a little awkward but it is better to be awkward than violate WP policy.
So... if people would like to calmly and logically engage in even minded and civil debate on the issue I am definitely open to it. I think that the current wording is a good consensus compromise for the various schools of thought here. -- Rtrev 01:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully, this version will not be up for too much debate. Shakam 04:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Have commented out [ from this version] the text under discussion pending agreement here on consensus language. -- HailFire 08:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Restoring self-identification+reliable sources view and removing {{disputed}} tag in this version. Let's continue to discuss here, but avoid negatively impacting the article's clarity for readers more interested in biographical content. Harro5, thanks for your patience. I hope that the current text will be reasonably satisfactory to all until such time as we can agree on something better. -- HailFire 14:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
He is "also" (hence the quotes), the only black/white biracial currently serving in the Senate. But that seems to be non-existant; and, it would be superfluous to say African-American and black/white biracial. Shakam 05:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Just to stir the pot, in the USA, which is where the subject resides and serves in the Senate, there is no official legal definition of percentage of ancestry required for a person to refer to themself as "black" or "African-American". At one time in the past, having one-eighth African ancestry qualified you as "black", but that law was long ago repealed. There is currently no mechanism for verifying the race that a person claims to be on any official document. If you check the "black", "asian", or "native american" box on an official form, there is no way for the agency collecting that information to verify that fact. Where does that fit in here? Hell if I know, but to me, he looks black, and he claims to be black, so therefore, he must be black. - Crockspot 17:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if this isn't just as awkward, but I would like to see what others think of this wording. Instead of the current first sentence in the article intro, should it be changed to the following: "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. (born August 4, 1961) is the junior U.S. Senator from Illinois. The Senate identifies Obama as the fifth African-American Senator in U.S. history and the only African-American currently serving in the Senate."? · j e r s y k o talk · 19:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
How about: If race existed (which it doesn't) then Barak Obama could possibly be put under consideration as to what could possibly be an African America Senator, if African Americans actually existed as a viable racial construct (which is certainly debatable)...This was just a thought. We might want to expand upon this and make sure everyone knows that even if African American existed as a viable racial construct(Debatable) that Obama doesn't qualify even though the senate, the near majority of American print media, dictionaries, wikipedia and Obama himself would put him in this category. If there are no objections I will put this in the article. Thanks Jasper23 21:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Thats funny. Saying that I was making false accusations and vandalizing this page and your talk page when you made the personal attack. Then you go and change your attack on this page, to a more neutral tone. You know its still in the page history right? Drop the accusations-drop the personal attacks-stay away from me. Jasper23 22:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the best thing to do at this point would be to simply drop the conversation for a few days, work on other Wikipedia articles, and then come back to it later? · j e r s y k o talk · 23:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Jersyko said, "Perhaps the best thing to do at this point would be to simply drop the conversation for a few days, work on other Wikipedia articles, and then come back to it later? · j e r s y k o talk · 23:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)"
I giggled. Shakam 03:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I have been away from my computer the past few days, but have to say that the compromise version looks good. Incidentally, in looking at the rest of the article, I happened to look here: [3]. I found that some of his ancestors were also black slaves, such as "George Washington Overall, b. Bullitt Co., Ky., 4 July 1820, d. Nelson Co., Ky., 9 Jan. 1871." He is found at no. 110 on the list, being Barack's great-great-great-great grandfather. I thought that was interesting. Just wanted to share, since it came up in the discussion. I too would love to see Obama elected, but also believe that for Wikipedia to be a valuable resource, it has to remain unbiased. Well done on the compromise. Stealthound 16:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I just want to say again, that it is an unfair statement to say he is Black or African American. We can "compromise" cite all the sources we want but the truth is the truth. Mr. Obama is a mixed race individual. We can cite to news papers and website and articles that are also mistaken; can look up definitions; we can try to define race but the fact still stands, him mother is white and is father is black. That means it is equally acceptable to write he is another White senator in the United States. If we are going to construct the African American race as anyone with one drop of African American blood then we would be doing society a great injustice setting our country back 150 years. I do not understand what the problem people have with telling the truth. He is of mixed races THAT IS A FACT, to try to manipulate the words to push an agenda particularly in a forum that puts itself out as a site with factual information is just unconscionable.
Jasev01
16:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that it is not true and at best a misleading lead it. What is the problem with making the lead in factual? Someone can identify with being from Pluto and swear by it but it would not be true. I would think the point of the article is to be factual. The point of the lead in is to give a brief synopsis of what the article is about. Why are people so interested in burying the truth paragraphs down? What is the problem with putting in the lead in paragraph that he is of mixed races unless you don't want people to see it? It’s offensive to reinstate racist policies that we claim were abolished in this country. (if you are a part black then you are all black). And yes I'm sure he is ok with it because it gets him votes but this should not be about that is should be about the truth. Jasev01 17:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your view Jasez01, but I kinda gave that up because I came to realize it wasn't a likely outcome. It's OK now, I suppose. Shakam 03:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Like Shakam, I won't fight it either but I would like to state that it is clearly racist and sets us back to the days of Plessy v. Ferguson where 1/8 of "black blood" made you Black, African America or whatever else there term of the day is. The Supreme Court overturned Plessy and saw the error of some racist thinking but apparently we all have not caught up with the times. I do not see the problem with simply editing it to say the truth that he is a mixed race person but apparently there are higher powers that do not want to see that done so I will leave it as it is. Hopefully when the consensus can join the world in the 21 century and get over the standards set in 1800s the article will change. Jasev01 23:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
There's a difference between the term "black" and the term "African-American". African-American has more in common with other terms like German-American, Chinese-American, etc. The AMOUNT of German heritage, or Chinese heritage, etc. doesn't matter. It's a self-identifier.
I'm half black and half white. I'm frankly offended by the opposition to calling Mr. Obama African-American - and I don't even like the term African-American (like we were tourists who just decided to stay). Underlying the arguments is an implication that calling someone African-American or black is pejorative. Jasev's comments particularly disturb me.
In any event, Mr. Obama identifies HIMSELF as African-American. To call him anything else is a violation of the policy on biographies of living persons.
This whole discussion is so....it's the most difficult RFC that I have responded to. I honestly can't even wrap my brain around it. NinzEliza 09:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I did forget to log in and it was me who made the “mixed" changes sometime yesterday. To be clear my comment was not to insult, defame, or single anyone out. I am African American, to be fair my mother traces her roots back to slaves and my father was born in the Dominican Republic but with African heritage too. I'm not saying someone who is mixed is not African American I'm saying to solely classify him as an American or whatever else is in a way offensive and is an attempt to push home a politic gain and is bias and is a way racist for the same reason stated above(the 1/8 part discussed above which without reading it I though of myself)I personally believe the difference between African American Black American whatever else is pure semantics of the time we all know what we are talking about and we can use whatever term is less offensive. When someone looks at me in general most people say you are black. Around people of Latin origins I sometimes get you look Dominican (as a side bar I get from a lot of people that I look like Carton from the fresh prince who is also Dominican go figure). When I travel to South America I've been called Brazilian. But throughout all of this I will not deny either side of my heritage or place one above the other i.e. in an article about me I would never say I am the first Latin Senator because it would be unfairly prejudicial and not accurate. I'm not accusing anyone but the point I am making is that we all can agree that Mr. Obama grew up with his white family member yet to Google and find a picture of any of them is nearly impossible. He just met his African family and I can Google and the first things that comes up are pictures of him in African kissing and hugging (no offense to anyone) people in traditional African grad, who look like they have stepped out of some movie. Is that to drive home to the black voters he is one of us? I'm just saying to use being African American to political gain is insulting to me and o other African American. To use a racist test developed by slave holders in the 1800, even in a "positive" way is insulting. Like someone else said somewhere in here he can identify as Chinese American but that would not be true and we would not put it here. And like someone else said I don't see what his race need to be in the first paragraph at all. It just looks like someone is going way out of their ay to throw that in upfront and it must e for a reason. I am not kicking Mr. Obama out of any black club I am just asking that he be identified as what he is upfront a mixed individual. I don't car if it says only senator with African American heritage because that is fair and true and ideally I'd like to see:
Mr. Obama is multiracial, however According to the U.S. Senate Historical Office, he is the fifth African American Senator in U.S. history and the only African American now serving in the U.S. Senate.
I think that is a fair statement of the facts and what is going on otherwise it looks like someone is trying to hid and bury something for whatever reason Jasev01 11:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
African-American is the ethnic group, black is the race. Only problem is that in the US those two words are considered synonymous. I can read in my school's history books, where it jumps around from calling people African-American to black.
70.144.220.11
21:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
So Jasev, you're blacker than I am? I still get called nigger, and I still can't get a cab in Manhattan.
I'm from Illinois. There is no political gain to be had by being a person of color in Illinois politics, much less calling yourself African-American. There is certainly no political gain to be had being a person of color on the national level.
The 1/8 rule applies to white people identifying people of color (which timelist has done here), not to people of color identifying themselves. Furthermore, the 1/8 rule was used specifically for the purposes of oppresion and discrimination, NOT mere identification. Barack Obama identifies himself as African-American. I suggest that it's racist, particularly for a person of color, to suggest otherwise. NinzEliza 03:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
First before you put words in my mouth I never said anyone is blacker than anyone. I simply said that if we are going to report fact REPORT FACTS. I said to write that he was mixed upfront not that he Black with bells and whistles. In the same way that you headline with he is black, it is equally correct to headline that he is white yet no one would suggest doing that. For what ever reason it is political or the war feeling in someone stomach it makes people feel good to headline with he is black, yet no one would headline is white. Both are equally correct. The clearer more correct statement is he is mixed that’s all I am saying. You can attack me personally you can ignore me but it does not change the fact that I am right and no one has said one thing to attack the merit of what I am saying and I presume that is because what I am saying is correct. There would be little or no harm is removing the statement or changing it to clarify that he is mixed. No matter who makes the 1/8 argument or calls whoever else a nigger or whatever else it is equally harmful. It’s not me being racist; if you read what I said Ninz, "I am not kicking him out the black club...I am simply asking that the truth is told." If speaking the truth makes me a racist then I guess I am. I personally do not want to accept any racist policy even if it affects me positively and just because some ascribes to something does not mean it’s true. I was under the impression we were here to tell the truth not the truth as someone wants it reported. And who ever can't get a cab in Manhattan isn't trying hard enough I was born and raised in NY and never had a problem. Jasev01 00:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm half white half black. I'm African-American. SAY DIRECTLY TO ME that I'm not. NinaEliza 07:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
An amazing (and amazingly long!) discussion. I'm content with what's currently in the article (reporting what the Senate reports is fine with me), but I'd like to point out the obvious: if someone's mother were German and father Irish, I doubt we'd be having arguments over whether he's really German-American or Irish-American, or what he "self-identifies" as. Most likely that person would say "all of the above". Why is this situation any different? I expect Barack himself is more interested in who he is, than who he is not. Just because he self-identifies as African-American doesn't mean he doesn't self-identify as anything else. He was born and spent his formative years mostly in Hawaii, so he coul be described as a Polynesian-American. He spent a lot of time with his maternal grandparents from Kansas, so he's also a Midwesterner. Currently he's a Chicagoan. Few Americans have only one 'identity', and he's no exception. Please stop trying to pigeonhole him, or anyone else. It's not worth the effort, and there aren't enough hyphens to go around anyway. Flatterworld 15:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree whole heartily with Flatterworld and the Gzkn's proposed language(wordy or not)(if it were up to me, it honestly does not affect me one way or another I still wake up eat and carry out my daily life regardless). My point is simply what Flatterworld said there is no need to pigeonhole or identity as one thing particularly if you are equal parts. And as for a person self identifying not I'm not saying the self identifier is racist or lying. I am saying that in a place where were are looking to write complete information leading with a half truth is not far. Maybe its the lawyer in me but omission can be lies in some cases. In the case of a person of mixed races saying I identify with one or the other is not a lie that is them. To report it to the world in a lead in that he is that and thereby inferring that solely is a lie by omission. And as for what is true and Wiki policy, that’s ridiculous, you can find websites that say Borat is the ambassador from Kazakhstan and he identifies as so but we all know its not true. The truth may be relative but just because people choose to ignore it does not make it not so. Jasev01 13:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there any Wikipedia guideline on the torture of innocent sentences that have already suffered enough abuse? -- HailFire 22:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Somebody said something about mixed-race people often choose to identify as one of their races. If you aren't granted equal "passage" on both sides then it kinda is racist. If African-American and black were not viewed as synonymous in the U.S. then I wouldn't have a problem with it saying first African-American, but it just isn't that way in the U.S. (Not that I am suggesting it be changed anymore) Shakam 03:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Just throwing this out there, but it looks as if the one paragraph lead does not follow WP:LEAD for an article of its size. Gzkn 08:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Is anyone going to place a summary about that book on the subsequent page? ---- Bearly541 talk 08:27, Saturday November 4, 2006 (UTC)
Barack Obama is NOT running for re-election, and has anyone thought to archive the talk page? ---- Bearly541 talk 08:30, Saturday November 4, 2006 (UTC)
This section violates NPOV by just throwing in minor criticisms from various columnists. If there are any significant controversies for which Obama has drawn criticism, that should certainly be included. But this is just a bunch of cherry-picked quotes dissing Obama. I'm not aware of any other political article that has such a section. It's just not encyclopedic. Can you imagine what the article for President Bush would look like if we included every criticism from a newspaper columnist? It's got to be a notable criticism or controversy, not just something said by one person. Maximusveritas 22:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
So when the most highly regarded political commentator in Illinois criticizes the Illinois Senator for real estate deal with an indicted swindler who may be about to bring down the governor of Illinois...how can it not be notable? Would it be more notable after the next shoe drops and Gov Blago is indicted? How about when the leading news magazine in the world identifies Obama's tendency to waffle, while the rest of media thinks he is some kind of benighted leader? Is that significant? It seems from MV and J23 that entry that disagrees with Obamas PR is not significant. -- Jbpo 02:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
GZ, ok, but anyone can edit wiki. Feel free to jump in with more content.-- Jbpo 13:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
That second quote from The Economist, "something about him fills a gap in American politics..." is not criticism even though it appears in the criticism section. Perhaps it can be moved elsewhere? 128.9.216.214 22:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The John Kass point should be removed. An opinion column is not a reliable source. — goethean ॐ 22:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0611090010nov09,1,6819020.story http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-0611050397nov05,1,750738.story http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0611030337nov03,1,7736524.story http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-0611010273nov01,1,2852476.story Rezko's motive was that anything he built on the side lot would be worth a whole lot more when Obama ran for President in (fill in the year). That also explains why he paid the full asking price, as he wouldn't be the only real estate speculator in Chicago who could figure that out. Barack's motive (or more likely that of his wife) was that the nominal sideyards needed to be equal in order to give a symmetrical effect. That meant they had to buy a 10-foot strip of land. Why didn't the original owner do that in the first place? I haven't seen a plat, photo or anything similar, but I expect that had something to do with the official survey which would have included the (probably) 10-foot parkway on the other side. Parkways may have public sidewalks, so any hedge or fence would be on the owner's lot beyond that line. As general information, these sorts of buybacks are common when a large piece of property with a house is subdivided by the original owner. The only problem that I can see is that Rezko is the speculator who happened to buy the land. The Obamas would have been better off to buy both pieces of land, resurvey and sell off the smaller piece. However, because of the parkway issue, I doubt they realized they had a problem at the time they bought the house. If this is the biggest 'scandal' Obama gets involved in, I think the world will remain safe for democracy. :-) Flatterworld 23:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Reading between the lines a little I picked up the idea that his wife is probably African American. If so this would be a major piece of information concerning his own identity as an African American, or his identification with the African American community if you want to say it that way.
Is there a way that this, if true that is, could be mentioned in the article? Steve Dufour 05:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I've seen his wife on Oprah many times and she does appear to be black. She probably has some white in her, but the majority of her ancestors appear to have lived in Africa so she's black. His kids are also black. Yes they have one white grand parent, but they have 3 black grand parents, so most of their ancestors are from Africa so they're black. So his wife is the only black person married to a senator, and his dad is the only black person with a senator son, and his kids are the only blacks with a senator parent, but is Obama himself black? He has 50% of his ancestors from Africa, and some would argue that 50 is a passing grade. But definitions state that you need MOST of your ancestors from Africa to be black, and most means greater than 50%. Perhaps his mother has a tiny amount of black ancestry, as there was a lot of race mixing in the South. If we can find evidence of this we can push him over the 50% mark and into the black category. Timelist 14:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I added the information that his wife is African American after reading it in this article [4]. It says "black" and her WP article says she was born in the USA. Steve Dufour 16:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, what is the point of including his wife's race at all? Would you include Laura Bush in the article on her husband as "Laura Bush, a European-American"? Is there some undercurrent of reason for including it here? CMacMillan 01:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Hope this satisfies. -- HailFire 07:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
"Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. (born August 4, 1961) is the junior U.S. Senator from Illinois. According to the U.S. Senate Historical Office, he is the fifth African-American Senator in U.S. history and the only African-American currently serving in the Senate."
It's been a day now since I last posted about this and there have been no comments against this compromise version. I'm assuming the silence means people accept this compromise. If not, please post! I'll let this sit for another day for people to respond to with requests for changes. If there are no objections by then, I will be bold and put this into the article. Gzkn 14:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Un-indenting (undenting?) Looks like Hailfire beat me to the punch in adding the compromise version. Gzkn 13:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
"The actual Swahili word for "Blessings" is "Baraka". In Kenya, where Obama's birth farther was born, several men go by the name Barrack and it is not a Swahili word at all"
It could very well be true though, so I kept it here in case anyone wants to investigate. Gzkn 13:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I could see this to be quite problematic in the future, as more and more random links get thrown in there by passersby. I would rather not see those two just become endless lists. :( Any suggestions as to what might be done to limit the two sections? Or maybe this may not be as a big of a problem as I think it is, in which case, feel free to state so :). Gzkn 03:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
There are only 5 or 6 items. If a person is not interested it's easy to skip over. If no one objects I will remove the tag, which itself takes up room and is a distraction Steve Dufour 02:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Following up on the suggestion by goethean... no more trivia in this version. -- HailFire 17:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I've just added more details about Obama's father's birthplace, on the grounds that a) Nyangoma is unlikely to warrant its own article any time soon, so we can't just make that a link, and b) it's easy to look up Wichita, but people not familiar with Kenyan geography would have trouble finding Nyangoma. Given that Obama travelled there, and spoke about it in his autobiography, I feel it's relevant. The town is now in Bondo District, but appears in a map [5] of Siaya District (linked from both articles) which was made before the boundary was redrawn, and is clearly south of the dividing line (latitude 0° 18’ north). mvc 09:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Here it is. I was wondering if we could change the title of the section to Criticism and Controversy to be more comprehensive. Comments/suggestions welcome.
Note: you'll probably have to edit the section to see the refs.
Also, after reading both the Economist and David Sirota articles, my view is that they should not be included in the criticism section. First, placing the Economist article under the Criticism section wrongly characterizes it. Two sentences from an Economist article that is more describing who Obama is than criticizing him does not make for notable criticism even if it is the Economist. If the Economist writes an entire editorial criticizing Obama (which a previous version of the criticism section seemed to infer), that'd be another matter. The Sirota criticisms, if you read the article, are actually from blog posts. Once again, the inclusion of this source under the criticisms section gives readers the wrong impression about the actual article. Also, Sirota's position on Obama (he's actually a self-described fan of him) is certainly more nuanced than the current criticism section suggests.
I realize, of course, that this may not be the consensus. If not, I was hoping that the above could at least replace the current one sentence on the Rezko deal. Looking forward to all of your comments. For the most part, the debates have been civil and enlightening so far, and I hope they stay that way. =) Gzkn 06:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the good ideas, Gzkn. I've borrowed substantially from your draft and entered a more condensed paragraph in this version. -- HailFire 17:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
A new bill was added and deleted two edits later - can someone check its validity?• Le on 22:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Modified text and re-added in this version. -- HailFire 13:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The Jr. should be dropped, as both of Barack's parents are deceased. It's only used to differentiate the two Barack Obamas (and their wives, when referred to as Mrs. Barack Obama - although that disappeared when she remarried - and Mrs. Barack Obama, Jr.). Source: any etiquette book. Flatterworld 14:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Just as a curiosty in this discussion, my son is a jr. and i am listed as the sr. Now legally my name is not such and such, sr. because it does not appear that way on my birth certificate, however, my sons legal name is such and such, jr. legally because that is how it appears on his birth certificate. Would the legality of his name have any bearing on how it is represented here? I am only asking as a point of reference because i dont even know if his name was recorded as a jr. or not on the birth certificate. Thanks Jmsseal 03:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I think his stance towards Wal-Mart is a very crucial one. He's a very influential politician, teaming up with another very influential political, against the largest retailer in the world. Taking a firm stance against the health care and wages being put out by the largest retailer in the world, is noteworthy in my opinion. Especially if you're being critiqued on economic policy. Bleu`dove 22:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
User:Jbpo added: "Despite his November 3, 2006 campaign statements against voting along color lines in Maryland, when the Republican candidate happened to be African American [6], on November 5, 2006, Obama campaigned for fellow Democrat and African American Harold Ford in a historically black Church in Tennessee, stating that "I'm feeling lonely in Washington, I need my dear friend to join me." [7]."
Forgetting the fact that it uses the wrong citation form, I fail to see how this is notable controversy. The sources don't cite any controversy that arose from this. The addition smells like original research to me. Gzkn 14:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
An Associated Press story is hardly original research. There are about 32,700 results on Google showing the audacity of Obama's comment, and a heavy amount of discussion on Blogs and newspaper columns about Obama's playing the race card when it could aid his party, and claiming to be a racial unifier when race plays against his party. Here is a good column [8] by a Chicago newspaper columnist. I am putting this entry back in. I really get tired of the censorship on this entry. How about:
1) Do at least a cursory Google Search before you decide to delete an entry 2) If your viewpoint is contradicted by an entry, try a second Google Search before you censor.
It is pretty much a waste of time to edit this entry with anything other than PR for Obama, which pretty much makes the entry useless except for people wanting to read pleasantries about the Senator. Please do 30 seconds of research and quit censoring this entry.-- Jbpo 03:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
So let me get this straight Jko...any opinion that is different than yours is "ultra conservative" and not to be included. There is major difference between a challenge and censoring an entry. You continue to censor any information that does not read as PR for Senator Obama (where did the entry for Obama's support for the Bridge to Nowhere go btw?). Is it considered civil to censor all that may oppose your POV? About a month ago I noted that this article reads like PR for Obama, and that any entries that do not read like PR are removed. Though there was a lot of support for improving the article, the censors continue to lurk here, cleaning up Obama's image.-- Jbpo 15:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I started an Rfc on this "controversy", fyi to everyone. · j e r s y k o talk · 04:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Since when does citing AP sources qualify as original research. Rather than the opinion of one person, which this definitely is not, how about 32,000 others, as noted by a Google Search and cited. You can discount the opinions of opinionated journalists if you like, but if the controversy section is supposed to describe controversy, I suggest we show some analysis other than that of Obama's PR staff in this entry.-- Jbpo 15:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
So Bobblehead and JRSP..since a Chicago newspaper columnist published this controversy..doesn't that reduce the NOR claim? Someone somewhere has to do original analysis. Since this was in a published and much repeated citation, wouldn't that qualify as NOR? How could there ever be a controversy if no one ever did analysis of a candidates claims? -- Jbpo 21:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
In response to the RFC, I agree that lacking sources, this would be OR. IF one considers Bates' column to be a reliable source, that might negate the OR claim, but then you have another potential problem: WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. Given the reams the media has printed about Obama, I think including such a small criticism would be undue weight.-- Kchase T 19:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
An IP added this, which I removed because it was unsourced: On May 4, 2006, in his weekly Podcast, Obama stated that "we have to recognize that if we are going to uphold the traditions of this country as a nation of immigrants then we have to deal with this issue in a way that reflects common sense and compassion," disagreeing with actions the House of Representatives have taken to cut down on undocumented workers in the United States. He also pushed for creation of a "pathway to earned citizenship for the 11-12 million people that are already here." Obama continued later to say, "It's hard to imagine that we want to live in a country where we have police and immigration officials coming into peoples homes and taking away the father of the family...leaving a mother and child behind." Gzkn 00:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I was reading his description of his Grandfather Onyango in "Dreams of My Father" and was struct by how his behavior exactly match someone with AS, like myself. For example, he was very particular about how things are arranged, had an intense interest in Western farming techniques, and was physically clumsy. The description certainly seemed to indicate he was considered "quite odd" by Luo standards. 4.225.114.184 12:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)!
May well be. I know a couple people with AS and it seems to fit. Could also be just plain old OCD. However, I don't know if you want to add this or are simply commenting. You should read the Wikipedia's guidelines on original research before anything else. -- Rtrev 02:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I feel I should ask, purely to see the discussion on the talk page: Is Obama Muslim?