![]() | 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 30 | ← | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | → | Archive 40 |
I just added to the family section the information about George Hussein Onyango Obama, as published yesterday by Vanity Fair Italy. It was removed by User:Speer320. Why? I verified the information and it is correct. -- Dejudicibus ( talk) 12:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so I'll answer the question. We've put all the Obama minor family members in the article Family of Barack Obama. The way they all got there was that some people added them here and they got deleted as being fairly unimportant to Obama's life. They created separate articles for each family member and those got deleted often as being non-notable. Tthe information had to go somewhere (it has lots of sources, and people want to know - it is notable). The best approach, meaning the one that hasn't been deleted, is to put all the family members together in an article. Hope that helps. Wikidemo ( talk) 01:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Answer to: Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 33#Criteria of entries within the Cited works section?
The "Cited works" are book references in the article cited by shortened footnotes ( WP:CITESHORT).
Newross ( talk) 23:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't his religion list him has "Christian - unaffiliated" he has in fact resigned from the united church of christ and is looking for another church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmehrabi ( talk • contribs) 05:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Religion currently listed as Muslim. I think people who purposely vandalise or spread misinformation should be temporarily banned from editing. -- Mcgon ( talk) 17:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
This is an issue that will resolve itself soon, but should he be listed as the (non-presumptive) nominee after he is given the nod from the convention delegates in about 20 min, or tomorrow night when he accepts the nomination? Whatever policy we use here could be seen as a guideline for other articles on Obama's campaign, McCain and his campaign, and the election page in general. Huadpe ( talk) 22:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I will be re-doing the Spoken version of this article and hopefully my Midwestern accent will be more understandable. .:davumaya:. 18:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I shortened the "Political positions" section a bit, mostly by removing information about where Obama said various things, but with some other, minor edits. I also removed this:
The section still has information on his position on the Iraq war, but this part seems outdated and, now, unimportant. Others may disagree. The section is still very long for a summary of another article and should be cut further. Noroton ( talk) 05:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I reorganized it putting all the foreign stuff together and the domestic stuff together and ended it with the voting ranking (liberal or conservative). Goss9900 ( talk) 01:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning that Barack admitted to using cocaine? [3]-- UhOhFeeling ( talk) 04:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
[out] It's not that it isn't noteworthy, it's that this section of the main article has just a summary of the much longer article Early life and career of Barack Obama which does go into his teenage drug use. We are trying to keep the main article to a reasonable size and we have an awful lot to cover, so have to pick which things to include in the summaries. As for his position on decriminalization - if it is a policy he's significantly developed (please provide citations), the proper place would be the subarticle Political positions of Barack Obama, and again a decision would be made as to whether it was significant enough in the range of positions we discuss to include in the summary section here. Thanks for your input. Tvoz/ talk 06:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I think this article has a little room to grow yet, and maybe a mention of Obama's past drug use could fit, but I think anything new in that regard should first be worked into the articles Tvoz mentioned. Obama has said he used cocaine early in life, and that certainly seems like a biographically significant fact, but with a biography written in summary style as this one is, it's helpful to think of the subarticles as simply expanded parts of the main article. -- Good Damon 06:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Not notable enough for main biography. Sentence or two in early life is good coverage. LotLE× talk 09:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
If you look at what is known of Obama's past and the potential ramifications of his cocaine admission. I think it is noteworthy. I think that the fact he used Cocaine is more relevant than other facts in the article because of the powder keg that it is. Here is an article about. it. [4]-- UhOhFeeling ( talk) 19:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Notable. I think it's relevant for this BLP article. He identified it as part of his own greatest moral failing during the previous presidential forum. If he thinks of it as a big deal, who are we to disagree? A short sentence is best. DRJ ( talk) 20:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
This article is here to help readers understand Obama's life. His taking cocaine is a small bit of information that helps understand his life. The topic shouldn't take up more than a small sentence, so I'd call it notable enough for inclusion. -- Noroton ( talk) 01:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I still feel pretty strongly that there should be a mention of Saddleback's forum as it is, so I support including the language above. DRJ ( talk) 05:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I changed the title of the "Books authored" section to "Books by and about Obama" and added a subsection on prominent books about Obama. Here's the text I added:
Very clearly, books about Obama that reach the best-seller list (I think there are a total of only four) are notable features of Obama's life. So I was perplexed by Bobblehead's revert, with the odd edit summary: rv most of the edits by Noroton. Books authored by others is not important to Obama's bio
How can having bestselling books about your life and opinions not be notable? If there were 18 or so, as with, say, Bill Clinton, I could understand not mentioning every one. But there are only four. And we're supposed to have prominent facts about Obama in this article. How could this set of facts not be prominent? I also added a mentionn of the David Mendell book because it's been cited by so many sources that I've seen, although if someone disputes that the Mendell book is that prominent, I won't contest it (I have other things to do).
I'm sure Bobblehead has excellent, nonpartisan reasons for thinking that way, but I don't know what they are. Anyone else think it's important enough to add in a Wikipedia biography that instant bestsellers have been published about the subject? Anyone care to explain why this wouldn't be so? Clearly, WP:WEIGHT demands inclusion, doesn't it? -- Noroton ( talk) 01:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
(Resetting indent) Could someone please explain the relevancy of the attack books to Obama's biography? I'm not saying that positive books belong here either, but these attack books hardly seem relevant to the man's entire life, especially considering they -- along with books that have a positive spin, too -- will fade from all memory in a couple months. This seems a rampant case of recentism to me. -- Good Damon 17:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)-- Noroton ( talk) 20:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Rather than pointlessly bickering over what should be in and what should be out, I propose that we remove the "puffery" about the two books that currently exists (they already have their own articles), replacing it with a section entitled "Works" that is more inline with what is done of the BLPs of other politicians:
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Text "coauthors:U.S. Senate" ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Any books about Obama that are not written by (or include writing from) Obama himself should be in a separate section, if at all. -- Scjessey ( talk) 21:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
So, we should omit the short list of books about Obama, including two bestsellers, in favor of adding every single book with any bit by Obama, including simply his name on the "Forward"? Does anybody even think he wrote the foreward to Change We Can Believe In, due out on September 9? Did he write the forward while he was on the campaign trail? Anybody even believe that? And this is more important than David Mendell's book, which is cited massively by reliable sources (books, magazines, newspapers)? I do actually think something more than the titles of both Obama books is worth keeping in the article, and I would do with Obama what we do with most major political figures: Include mention of books that are positive, neutral or negative about them, because that's the best thing we can do for our readers. When the list eventually gets too long, make it a separate list article, as with Hillary Clinton. I think this is a slight improvement. -- Noroton ( talk) 23:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Well put GoodDamon. Apart from the question-begging definition (defining a no vote as BLP) in the second option, I think that's a great summary of the two possible outcomes. I am in favor of the first. DRJ ( talk) 01:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
When I compiled the list, I took the example at Joe Biden#Works as a template and then just listed all the books that I found on Amazon.com in chronological order. I have no idea whether or not this is a complete list, and I was not making any judgment calls over which should be included or not - I simply listed them all. I included the "forward only" books because that seemed to match what had been done at Joe Biden. -- Scjessey ( talk) 14:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Twice I've edited in, that Obama is the Democratic party's presidential nominee (to differentiate from the vice presidential nominee) & both times I was reverted to nominee. What the problem? GoodDay ( talk) 21:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The infobox and lead of the article are supposed to reflect information presented within the article. Because of this, having references for this information in the infobox and lead are superfluous so long as the information in the body of the article is properly sourced. I've moved around references to accommodate this. — X S G 06:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
The name "Barack" means "the blessed one" in Arabic language. I don't see where is this information in the article. -- Onesbrief ( talk) 11:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Whatever the name-origin of "Barack", and whether or not his parents had this origin in mind, it's just trivia to present in a person biography. We've been through this discussion before, FWIW. To my mind, it would resemble putting in his astrological charts in the article: in both cases, both citable, someone might find it interesting (or some would imagine, even determinative of something about his life), but as factual biography it's irrelevant. The only case where such a name origin might be relevant is if a bio subject had deliberately changed their name as an adult to something they found meaningful (which is not the case here). LotLE× talk 17:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
i noted this and it was removed, even though factually accurate and referenced... European American —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invertedzero ( talk • contribs) 13:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
hey, guess what, i don't care whether its been discussed to death already, who exactly are you to determine this? It's factually correct. I didn't state that Obama is European american, i stated that according to wikipedia's own referenced definition, Obama is also European american. Equality my arse! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invertedzero ( talk • contribs) 13:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
the media has also called bill clinton black on many occasion, should we reference him as black in his article :)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invertedzero ( talk • contribs) 13:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Obama IS also European American. Fact. Well at least he's put down as african american, which is more accurate than black... Invertedzero —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC) s( Invertedzero ( talk) 13:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC))
Ok guys this is kind of silly. He self-identifies as an African-American, the vast majority of Americans looking at him would identify him as an African-American, and almost all the media identify him as an African-Amercian. The article makes it clear he had a white mother and a black father. And actually, looking at the article, should the "black" in "Black Kenyan" be capitalized and should the "white" in "White Amemrican" be capitalized. I think black and white in that context are just common adjectives that shouldn't be capitalized. I would change them myself, but given my account name I think I would be quickly reverted. Rreagan007 ( talk) 15:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Howdy. I was wondering if {{reflist|2}} was ever discussed as an option for the article? According to the template's page it is suggested against using 3 columns. Also, it appears that the usage of the {{ WikiProjectBannerShell}} and {{ FAQ}} on this talk page are currently bugged somehow. They don't appear to be collapsing like they should be. I copied the related text over to my sandbox's talk page, and they both collapse fine there.-- Rockfang ( talk) 13:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
{{reflist|2}}
until
this edit yesterday by
Smuckers, and I have no objection to it being reverted. I don't have any experience with the collapsing sections myself. --
Scjessey (
talk) 15:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)The reason I changed it was because it looks nicer, reflist|2 is too crowded since the article is "carefully" referenced, reflist|3 looks cleaner and makes the article shorter. it is important to keep the article short as possible since it's becoming {{toolong}} I have added a {{verylongsection}} to the reference section. Have a nice day
Smuckers
It has to be good 17:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
{{reflist|2}}
per guidelines. The {{verylongsection}}
tag does not apply to references, and the article is nowhere near "too long" according to
WP:LENGTH. "Readable prose" currently stands at 31 kB (5038 words). --
Scjessey (
talk) 18:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Update: I just copied the whole upper section to my Sandbox's talk page, and there, they all properly collapse. Any ideas?-- Rockfang ( talk) 04:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
there are rumours that obama holds kenyan citizenship, for example http://www.politicalgateway.com/main/columns/read.html?col=731
However, he is not, as if someone is born abroad to a kenyan father, they only obtain kenyan citizenship if they were born in or after 1963. Obama was born in 1961. Also, if a Kenyan citizen holds another nationality aswell as kenyan citizenship, he or she automatically loses his/her kenyan citizenship at the age of 23. Since Obama was a US citizen at the age of 23, this is another reason he does not hold Kenyan citizenship. Here is my reference for that statement: http://www.kenyahighcommission.net/passports.html
Is this worthy of inclusion in the article? some feedback would be good Guitar3000 ( talk) 15:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
...or should these go straight to the disambiguation pages? Dalejenkins | 21:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
My druthers is that they both redirect here. DRJ ( talk) 21:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes they should Smuckers It has to be good 22:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Easily the most notable article for either names. -- Good Damon 23:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm with Wikidemon and Dalejenkins here. A DAB page is better. Not all the world is the USA, and the name has other meanings. And extra click required of the lazy isn't so much to demand. LotLE× talk 03:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Currently the description here indicates that Obama would repeal tax cuts for those making over $250,000 which is a bit misleading. It is my understanding that the provisions of EGTRRA and JGTRRA will expire in 2010 and Obama's plan would renew most of the provisions of EGTRRA/JGTRRA expect those impacting the rates for individuals with incomes over $250,000. Perhaps this summary should be a bit more specific (accurate) on this issue? Jogurney ( talk) 04:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Since Obama's church (United Church of christ) strongly favours gay marriage, it would be very interresting to know his position about the subject Mitch1981 ( talk) 20:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Make the references part two columns please.-- 212.175.40.242 ( talk) 12:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
He really has a fancy signature. Where did you get it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.173.72.253 ( talk) 13:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
agian why do i have to keep putting this up here just coz your are so naive the way i've changed it here:- He is considered the first African American (although he is mixed-Race) to be a major political party's nominee for this office
sounds fine he's NOT afican amercian yes people alway call him that as he wants to help his votes, with out his racial backround his campian isn't strong enough he uses that to help him (anyone that says different is ling) by putting that he's afican amercian your inoring his mothers side and help with the naive people out there people, belive it or not people read wikipedia for information and you adding that here is why so many people wrongy think his race is different to what it is, mariah carey is the same race as obama (her dads an non american black man, her moms white-amercian) but if she went around says she afican american people wouldn't belivie her saying shes mixed race instead its unfair to exclude someones race (weather its mariah actually been half black, or obama been half white) read the part above in italic i thinks thats totally fine way to put it it fair on everyone that way. look at other peoples Bios like Lewis Hamilton or Halle Berrys mixed race people that are like obama made history as "the first black person" in something but also like obama is mixed so read theres it might help the way we write this, the only reason so many people don't think hes black is coz wqebsites like this adding one tiny little sentance with ( ) isn't that big of a deal, why do so many people here have a probablem with telling the truth in stead of ling. Veggiegirl ( talk) 18:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Hope that helps. Wikidemon ( talk) 19:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
so what if obama identified himself as mixed race? I've seen other unreferenced articles of people from mixed heritage that state they are biracial or mixed race when there's no tertiary source to justify it... Invertedzero —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Nah it's pretty obvious its all under tight control just for the sake of his campaign. I'm in support of Obama, but disagree with him being described as black, as a large proportion of the mixed race population do, but our views are never respected are they? Bill Clinton has been described as black and african american in the media, should this be taken as that he is? If Obama was to identify as white, would you respect his personal choice of identification then? ( Invertedzero ( talk) 00:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC))
"Obama voted in favor of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and cosponsored the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act.[55] In September 2006, Obama supported a related bill, the Secure Fence Act.[56] Obama introduced two initiatives bearing his name: "Lugar–Obama," which expanded the Nunn–Lugar cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons,[57] and the "Coburn–Obama Transparency Act," which authorized the establishment of www.USAspending.gov, a web search engine.[58]"
Should the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act be included in this list as it was never put into law? All the other acts listed in this paragraph were passed by the Congress and signed by the President. Including the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act in this context may give the reader the impression that it was enacted into law. There are many other pieces of legislature that Senator Obama sponsored that were also not enacted into law. Why are some of them not included or why is this one piece of dead legislature included?
I would like to suggest that the reference to the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act either be removed or earmarked as dead legislation. Throckmorton Guildersleeve ( talk) 13:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Section U.S. Senator, 2005–present reads "the National Journal ranked him as the "most liberal" senator based on an assessment of selected votes during 2007."
That study was selectively bias, and doesn't serve as a neutral summary of Obama's 2007 senate career. Here is an article from Media Matters with more detail (and links to even more detail) explaining the bias of the study;
...as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, the National Journal based its rankings, not on all votes cast by senators in 2007, but on "99 key Senate votes selected by National Journal reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale." In contrast, a study by political science professors Keith Poole and Jeff Lewis, using every non-unanimous vote cast in the Senate in 2007 to determine relative ideology, placed Obama in a tie for the 10th most liberal senator. [4]
National Journal is well known as a source for these types of rankings. However, I would not mind adding a brief mention of Poole & Lewis' study next to the other rankings (subject to proper citation, conciseness, etc). LotLE× talk 17:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Please note that I have created an RfC to discuss the matter of whether, how, and where we should use and cover the designation "terrorist" describe the Weathermen and their former leaders - in which articles an dwhere in those articles. It is located here: Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC. The intent is to decide as a content matter (and not as a behavioral issue regarding the editors involved) how to deal with this question. Thank you. Wikidemon ( talk) 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
In Gov. Palin's page wikipedia talks about her ethics in dismissing the Public Safety Commissioner. But nothing on Obama's page talks about his ethics in office. For example, Obama [5]got a discount on home loans, but I didn't see any mention of that in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.138.162 ( talk) 02:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
True or not, legal or not, if this ever becomes notable we will know it by frequency of coverage in reliable sources. Depending on context it might go in one sub-article or another (e.g. the election article if it were to become an election issue) and this one only if the loan itself or an ensuing scandal becomes a significant biographical event. For now it is one of a hundred or more other rumors and complaints about Obama going around the conservative blogosphere. Here's a blog about the blogs, saying that the actual report is a non-story. [6] It's safe to say that this is far below the threshold of notability here and that it's unlikely to make it into the article given the sourcing that now exists. Having established that, this talk place is not the place for further speculation on political issues or fallout. Wikidemon ( talk) 16:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
It is unclear what his proper name would be. I believe on his birth certificate it says "Barry Soetoro", after his childhood nickname and his step-father's last name. I believe it originally was BHO, then BHO jr., but was changed to BHO II. Can anyone provide a link to confirm what his legal name would be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PonileExpress ( talk • contribs) 18:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
... I kind of like this addition [7] as a way to address the nagging question of this article downplaying the bi-racial aspect. I certainly do understand (and have tried to explain to people new to the article) why we refer to Obama as African-American, but there are a growing number of biracial Americans. Some feel slighted and ignored by the so-called "one-drop" rule, and feel that continuing to use racial terms that imply that everyone has to choose one race or another denies their identity. In other words, there is an implicit question of neutrality when we insist that race has to be described a single way. I would move the statement to the body somewhere, though. Wikidemon ( talk) 20:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
No, if elected McCain will be the oldest "first term" Potus. PonileExpress ( talk) 15:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I hate Obama, but in the interest of having an encyclopedia what's up with the pic?-- 69.40.139.226 ( talk) 19:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
While we are on a similar topic, does anyone else ever have problems with template updates not displaying? Sometimes when I make a change to a template the change does not display on the actual articles. One way for it to display I've noticed is if I make an edit to the article. I bring this up because I checked a different computer and that computer was not showing the vandalism of the picture while the original computer was showing the picture at the same time the other computer was not. LonelyMarble ( talk) 20:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I would love to see some detailed information on Obama's finances, if someone has the time to do some digging. I don't think the 1.3 million net worth figure is still accurate, though I understand that the generally accepted value right now. Icaruspassion ( talk) 15:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Why in the entire article was his middle name left out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.24.6 ( talk) 13:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The NPOV regarding 2008 convention speeches is WAY off kilter. The Obama article now states only this regarding his speech: "The speech, delivered in front of 84,000 supporters, contained pointed criticism of McCain and President Bush, and added details to his stances that were not mentioned in previous campaign speeches.[105][106]" In contrast, the Palin article addresses her speech in this manner: "On September 3, 2008, Palin delivered a 40 minute acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention that was well-received by the crowd and by media analysts.[97][98]". Were one to analyze the two speeches I doubt anyone would disagree that the finding would show a much higher percentage of Palin's speech was spent "on the offensive" than Obama's speech. Yet, we portray Obama's as the "attack" speech. I saw staunch-conservative, former Nixon speechwriter, former Reagan aide and two-time Republican presedential candidate Pat Buchanan state "That was the best acceptance speech I've ever heard". Yet, Obama's article has zero praise about the speech. I witnessed no counterpart to Buchanan extorting Palin's speech, yet it was "well-received by the crowd" and throughout the land it was "well-received by media analysts". It is shocking that millions of readers are being subjected to sourceless statements and outright partisan bias. Spiff1959 ( talk) 17:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Please don't lean on the comparison too much (or very much at all). WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't the right basis to decide how best to characterize Obama's acceptance speech; editors of this article have not necessarily edited (or even read) the article on Palin, McCain, or whomever, but simply worry about making this article as good as possible. If there's some more accurate (but not longer) characterization of Obama's speech, let's talk about that. That said, I took out a rather fluffy bit of praise for Obama's speech that read too much like electioneering. Moreover, it's hard for me to see how bubbly praise for the speech has any significant role in his general biography. The general content of the speech is a little bit notable, though it's hard to give that sense without either being vacuous or devoting undue weight... what we have seems like an OK compromise between those poles. LotLE× talk 18:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Obama accepted his party's nomination on August 28 in a widely acclaimed speech, [8] delivered in front of 84,000 supporters in Invesco Field and watched by over 38 million on television, [9] that elaborated on policy goals that had not been mentioned in previous speeches and criticized McCain's and President Bush's policies and achievements. [10] [11]
I'm doubtful that ascribing any sort of praise to this speech, whether warranted or not, will pass muster when it comes to attaining "consensus". To at least remove the implied "attack speech" falsehood, how about:
Please change the sentence regarding the 2008 Convention speech to the following:
"On August 28, Obama delivered a speech before 84,000 at Invesco Field in Denver. During the speech he accepted his party's nomination and presented details of his policy goals." ?
Spiff1959 (
talk) 02:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The section on his State Senate service says he's from the "13th district", but it links to the Illinois 13th Congressional District in the US House of Representatives, not the Illinois State Senate. Could someone who knows more about IL politics than I do fix that so it's right? \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 02:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me the fact that Obama was first elected to office (Illinois State Senate 13th district) as a result of his challenging the nominating petitions of the incumbent state Sen. Alice Palmer (and others) for the Democratic nomination in a heavily Democratic district; thus having her name (along with the others) removed from the ballot, is relevant here. Seldom is someone elected by removing their competitors from the ballot, especially an incumbent. See this post from the Chicago Sun Times http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/10/sweet_column_clinton_forces_to.html. There's probably an article in the same newspaper during the election in 1996 referencing this fact. This is also mentioned in Alice Palmer's Wikipedia entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Palmer_(Illinois_politician) and is referenced. DB1958 ( talk) 21:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Obviously the Freudian slip by which Obama supposedly admits he is Muslim after all is trivial, and the phrase "it should be noted" is editorializing. One editor inserted it twice [9] [10] and a second has now reverted it once. [11] As disputed content this should stay out of the article until and unless those proposing its inclusion gain consensus, which seems very unlikely to happen. I do not want to do a second revert on any issue, however office so could someone else please take care of it (and of course, if you actually think it belongs in the article, feel free to explain its relevance). Thanks, Wikidemon ( talk) 23:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
![]() | 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 30 | ← | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | → | Archive 40 |
I just added to the family section the information about George Hussein Onyango Obama, as published yesterday by Vanity Fair Italy. It was removed by User:Speer320. Why? I verified the information and it is correct. -- Dejudicibus ( talk) 12:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so I'll answer the question. We've put all the Obama minor family members in the article Family of Barack Obama. The way they all got there was that some people added them here and they got deleted as being fairly unimportant to Obama's life. They created separate articles for each family member and those got deleted often as being non-notable. Tthe information had to go somewhere (it has lots of sources, and people want to know - it is notable). The best approach, meaning the one that hasn't been deleted, is to put all the family members together in an article. Hope that helps. Wikidemo ( talk) 01:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Answer to: Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 33#Criteria of entries within the Cited works section?
The "Cited works" are book references in the article cited by shortened footnotes ( WP:CITESHORT).
Newross ( talk) 23:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't his religion list him has "Christian - unaffiliated" he has in fact resigned from the united church of christ and is looking for another church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmehrabi ( talk • contribs) 05:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Religion currently listed as Muslim. I think people who purposely vandalise or spread misinformation should be temporarily banned from editing. -- Mcgon ( talk) 17:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
This is an issue that will resolve itself soon, but should he be listed as the (non-presumptive) nominee after he is given the nod from the convention delegates in about 20 min, or tomorrow night when he accepts the nomination? Whatever policy we use here could be seen as a guideline for other articles on Obama's campaign, McCain and his campaign, and the election page in general. Huadpe ( talk) 22:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I will be re-doing the Spoken version of this article and hopefully my Midwestern accent will be more understandable. .:davumaya:. 18:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I shortened the "Political positions" section a bit, mostly by removing information about where Obama said various things, but with some other, minor edits. I also removed this:
The section still has information on his position on the Iraq war, but this part seems outdated and, now, unimportant. Others may disagree. The section is still very long for a summary of another article and should be cut further. Noroton ( talk) 05:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I reorganized it putting all the foreign stuff together and the domestic stuff together and ended it with the voting ranking (liberal or conservative). Goss9900 ( talk) 01:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning that Barack admitted to using cocaine? [3]-- UhOhFeeling ( talk) 04:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
[out] It's not that it isn't noteworthy, it's that this section of the main article has just a summary of the much longer article Early life and career of Barack Obama which does go into his teenage drug use. We are trying to keep the main article to a reasonable size and we have an awful lot to cover, so have to pick which things to include in the summaries. As for his position on decriminalization - if it is a policy he's significantly developed (please provide citations), the proper place would be the subarticle Political positions of Barack Obama, and again a decision would be made as to whether it was significant enough in the range of positions we discuss to include in the summary section here. Thanks for your input. Tvoz/ talk 06:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I think this article has a little room to grow yet, and maybe a mention of Obama's past drug use could fit, but I think anything new in that regard should first be worked into the articles Tvoz mentioned. Obama has said he used cocaine early in life, and that certainly seems like a biographically significant fact, but with a biography written in summary style as this one is, it's helpful to think of the subarticles as simply expanded parts of the main article. -- Good Damon 06:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Not notable enough for main biography. Sentence or two in early life is good coverage. LotLE× talk 09:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
If you look at what is known of Obama's past and the potential ramifications of his cocaine admission. I think it is noteworthy. I think that the fact he used Cocaine is more relevant than other facts in the article because of the powder keg that it is. Here is an article about. it. [4]-- UhOhFeeling ( talk) 19:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Notable. I think it's relevant for this BLP article. He identified it as part of his own greatest moral failing during the previous presidential forum. If he thinks of it as a big deal, who are we to disagree? A short sentence is best. DRJ ( talk) 20:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
This article is here to help readers understand Obama's life. His taking cocaine is a small bit of information that helps understand his life. The topic shouldn't take up more than a small sentence, so I'd call it notable enough for inclusion. -- Noroton ( talk) 01:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I still feel pretty strongly that there should be a mention of Saddleback's forum as it is, so I support including the language above. DRJ ( talk) 05:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I changed the title of the "Books authored" section to "Books by and about Obama" and added a subsection on prominent books about Obama. Here's the text I added:
Very clearly, books about Obama that reach the best-seller list (I think there are a total of only four) are notable features of Obama's life. So I was perplexed by Bobblehead's revert, with the odd edit summary: rv most of the edits by Noroton. Books authored by others is not important to Obama's bio
How can having bestselling books about your life and opinions not be notable? If there were 18 or so, as with, say, Bill Clinton, I could understand not mentioning every one. But there are only four. And we're supposed to have prominent facts about Obama in this article. How could this set of facts not be prominent? I also added a mentionn of the David Mendell book because it's been cited by so many sources that I've seen, although if someone disputes that the Mendell book is that prominent, I won't contest it (I have other things to do).
I'm sure Bobblehead has excellent, nonpartisan reasons for thinking that way, but I don't know what they are. Anyone else think it's important enough to add in a Wikipedia biography that instant bestsellers have been published about the subject? Anyone care to explain why this wouldn't be so? Clearly, WP:WEIGHT demands inclusion, doesn't it? -- Noroton ( talk) 01:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
(Resetting indent) Could someone please explain the relevancy of the attack books to Obama's biography? I'm not saying that positive books belong here either, but these attack books hardly seem relevant to the man's entire life, especially considering they -- along with books that have a positive spin, too -- will fade from all memory in a couple months. This seems a rampant case of recentism to me. -- Good Damon 17:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)-- Noroton ( talk) 20:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Rather than pointlessly bickering over what should be in and what should be out, I propose that we remove the "puffery" about the two books that currently exists (they already have their own articles), replacing it with a section entitled "Works" that is more inline with what is done of the BLPs of other politicians:
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Text "coauthors:U.S. Senate" ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Any books about Obama that are not written by (or include writing from) Obama himself should be in a separate section, if at all. -- Scjessey ( talk) 21:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
So, we should omit the short list of books about Obama, including two bestsellers, in favor of adding every single book with any bit by Obama, including simply his name on the "Forward"? Does anybody even think he wrote the foreward to Change We Can Believe In, due out on September 9? Did he write the forward while he was on the campaign trail? Anybody even believe that? And this is more important than David Mendell's book, which is cited massively by reliable sources (books, magazines, newspapers)? I do actually think something more than the titles of both Obama books is worth keeping in the article, and I would do with Obama what we do with most major political figures: Include mention of books that are positive, neutral or negative about them, because that's the best thing we can do for our readers. When the list eventually gets too long, make it a separate list article, as with Hillary Clinton. I think this is a slight improvement. -- Noroton ( talk) 23:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Well put GoodDamon. Apart from the question-begging definition (defining a no vote as BLP) in the second option, I think that's a great summary of the two possible outcomes. I am in favor of the first. DRJ ( talk) 01:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
When I compiled the list, I took the example at Joe Biden#Works as a template and then just listed all the books that I found on Amazon.com in chronological order. I have no idea whether or not this is a complete list, and I was not making any judgment calls over which should be included or not - I simply listed them all. I included the "forward only" books because that seemed to match what had been done at Joe Biden. -- Scjessey ( talk) 14:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Twice I've edited in, that Obama is the Democratic party's presidential nominee (to differentiate from the vice presidential nominee) & both times I was reverted to nominee. What the problem? GoodDay ( talk) 21:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The infobox and lead of the article are supposed to reflect information presented within the article. Because of this, having references for this information in the infobox and lead are superfluous so long as the information in the body of the article is properly sourced. I've moved around references to accommodate this. — X S G 06:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
The name "Barack" means "the blessed one" in Arabic language. I don't see where is this information in the article. -- Onesbrief ( talk) 11:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Whatever the name-origin of "Barack", and whether or not his parents had this origin in mind, it's just trivia to present in a person biography. We've been through this discussion before, FWIW. To my mind, it would resemble putting in his astrological charts in the article: in both cases, both citable, someone might find it interesting (or some would imagine, even determinative of something about his life), but as factual biography it's irrelevant. The only case where such a name origin might be relevant is if a bio subject had deliberately changed their name as an adult to something they found meaningful (which is not the case here). LotLE× talk 17:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
i noted this and it was removed, even though factually accurate and referenced... European American —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invertedzero ( talk • contribs) 13:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
hey, guess what, i don't care whether its been discussed to death already, who exactly are you to determine this? It's factually correct. I didn't state that Obama is European american, i stated that according to wikipedia's own referenced definition, Obama is also European american. Equality my arse! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invertedzero ( talk • contribs) 13:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
the media has also called bill clinton black on many occasion, should we reference him as black in his article :)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invertedzero ( talk • contribs) 13:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Obama IS also European American. Fact. Well at least he's put down as african american, which is more accurate than black... Invertedzero —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC) s( Invertedzero ( talk) 13:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC))
Ok guys this is kind of silly. He self-identifies as an African-American, the vast majority of Americans looking at him would identify him as an African-American, and almost all the media identify him as an African-Amercian. The article makes it clear he had a white mother and a black father. And actually, looking at the article, should the "black" in "Black Kenyan" be capitalized and should the "white" in "White Amemrican" be capitalized. I think black and white in that context are just common adjectives that shouldn't be capitalized. I would change them myself, but given my account name I think I would be quickly reverted. Rreagan007 ( talk) 15:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Howdy. I was wondering if {{reflist|2}} was ever discussed as an option for the article? According to the template's page it is suggested against using 3 columns. Also, it appears that the usage of the {{ WikiProjectBannerShell}} and {{ FAQ}} on this talk page are currently bugged somehow. They don't appear to be collapsing like they should be. I copied the related text over to my sandbox's talk page, and they both collapse fine there.-- Rockfang ( talk) 13:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
{{reflist|2}}
until
this edit yesterday by
Smuckers, and I have no objection to it being reverted. I don't have any experience with the collapsing sections myself. --
Scjessey (
talk) 15:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)The reason I changed it was because it looks nicer, reflist|2 is too crowded since the article is "carefully" referenced, reflist|3 looks cleaner and makes the article shorter. it is important to keep the article short as possible since it's becoming {{toolong}} I have added a {{verylongsection}} to the reference section. Have a nice day
Smuckers
It has to be good 17:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
{{reflist|2}}
per guidelines. The {{verylongsection}}
tag does not apply to references, and the article is nowhere near "too long" according to
WP:LENGTH. "Readable prose" currently stands at 31 kB (5038 words). --
Scjessey (
talk) 18:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Update: I just copied the whole upper section to my Sandbox's talk page, and there, they all properly collapse. Any ideas?-- Rockfang ( talk) 04:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
there are rumours that obama holds kenyan citizenship, for example http://www.politicalgateway.com/main/columns/read.html?col=731
However, he is not, as if someone is born abroad to a kenyan father, they only obtain kenyan citizenship if they were born in or after 1963. Obama was born in 1961. Also, if a Kenyan citizen holds another nationality aswell as kenyan citizenship, he or she automatically loses his/her kenyan citizenship at the age of 23. Since Obama was a US citizen at the age of 23, this is another reason he does not hold Kenyan citizenship. Here is my reference for that statement: http://www.kenyahighcommission.net/passports.html
Is this worthy of inclusion in the article? some feedback would be good Guitar3000 ( talk) 15:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
...or should these go straight to the disambiguation pages? Dalejenkins | 21:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
My druthers is that they both redirect here. DRJ ( talk) 21:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes they should Smuckers It has to be good 22:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Easily the most notable article for either names. -- Good Damon 23:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm with Wikidemon and Dalejenkins here. A DAB page is better. Not all the world is the USA, and the name has other meanings. And extra click required of the lazy isn't so much to demand. LotLE× talk 03:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Currently the description here indicates that Obama would repeal tax cuts for those making over $250,000 which is a bit misleading. It is my understanding that the provisions of EGTRRA and JGTRRA will expire in 2010 and Obama's plan would renew most of the provisions of EGTRRA/JGTRRA expect those impacting the rates for individuals with incomes over $250,000. Perhaps this summary should be a bit more specific (accurate) on this issue? Jogurney ( talk) 04:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Since Obama's church (United Church of christ) strongly favours gay marriage, it would be very interresting to know his position about the subject Mitch1981 ( talk) 20:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Make the references part two columns please.-- 212.175.40.242 ( talk) 12:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
He really has a fancy signature. Where did you get it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.173.72.253 ( talk) 13:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
agian why do i have to keep putting this up here just coz your are so naive the way i've changed it here:- He is considered the first African American (although he is mixed-Race) to be a major political party's nominee for this office
sounds fine he's NOT afican amercian yes people alway call him that as he wants to help his votes, with out his racial backround his campian isn't strong enough he uses that to help him (anyone that says different is ling) by putting that he's afican amercian your inoring his mothers side and help with the naive people out there people, belive it or not people read wikipedia for information and you adding that here is why so many people wrongy think his race is different to what it is, mariah carey is the same race as obama (her dads an non american black man, her moms white-amercian) but if she went around says she afican american people wouldn't belivie her saying shes mixed race instead its unfair to exclude someones race (weather its mariah actually been half black, or obama been half white) read the part above in italic i thinks thats totally fine way to put it it fair on everyone that way. look at other peoples Bios like Lewis Hamilton or Halle Berrys mixed race people that are like obama made history as "the first black person" in something but also like obama is mixed so read theres it might help the way we write this, the only reason so many people don't think hes black is coz wqebsites like this adding one tiny little sentance with ( ) isn't that big of a deal, why do so many people here have a probablem with telling the truth in stead of ling. Veggiegirl ( talk) 18:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Hope that helps. Wikidemon ( talk) 19:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
so what if obama identified himself as mixed race? I've seen other unreferenced articles of people from mixed heritage that state they are biracial or mixed race when there's no tertiary source to justify it... Invertedzero —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Nah it's pretty obvious its all under tight control just for the sake of his campaign. I'm in support of Obama, but disagree with him being described as black, as a large proportion of the mixed race population do, but our views are never respected are they? Bill Clinton has been described as black and african american in the media, should this be taken as that he is? If Obama was to identify as white, would you respect his personal choice of identification then? ( Invertedzero ( talk) 00:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC))
"Obama voted in favor of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and cosponsored the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act.[55] In September 2006, Obama supported a related bill, the Secure Fence Act.[56] Obama introduced two initiatives bearing his name: "Lugar–Obama," which expanded the Nunn–Lugar cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons,[57] and the "Coburn–Obama Transparency Act," which authorized the establishment of www.USAspending.gov, a web search engine.[58]"
Should the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act be included in this list as it was never put into law? All the other acts listed in this paragraph were passed by the Congress and signed by the President. Including the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act in this context may give the reader the impression that it was enacted into law. There are many other pieces of legislature that Senator Obama sponsored that were also not enacted into law. Why are some of them not included or why is this one piece of dead legislature included?
I would like to suggest that the reference to the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act either be removed or earmarked as dead legislation. Throckmorton Guildersleeve ( talk) 13:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Section U.S. Senator, 2005–present reads "the National Journal ranked him as the "most liberal" senator based on an assessment of selected votes during 2007."
That study was selectively bias, and doesn't serve as a neutral summary of Obama's 2007 senate career. Here is an article from Media Matters with more detail (and links to even more detail) explaining the bias of the study;
...as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, the National Journal based its rankings, not on all votes cast by senators in 2007, but on "99 key Senate votes selected by National Journal reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale." In contrast, a study by political science professors Keith Poole and Jeff Lewis, using every non-unanimous vote cast in the Senate in 2007 to determine relative ideology, placed Obama in a tie for the 10th most liberal senator. [4]
National Journal is well known as a source for these types of rankings. However, I would not mind adding a brief mention of Poole & Lewis' study next to the other rankings (subject to proper citation, conciseness, etc). LotLE× talk 17:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Please note that I have created an RfC to discuss the matter of whether, how, and where we should use and cover the designation "terrorist" describe the Weathermen and their former leaders - in which articles an dwhere in those articles. It is located here: Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC. The intent is to decide as a content matter (and not as a behavioral issue regarding the editors involved) how to deal with this question. Thank you. Wikidemon ( talk) 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
In Gov. Palin's page wikipedia talks about her ethics in dismissing the Public Safety Commissioner. But nothing on Obama's page talks about his ethics in office. For example, Obama [5]got a discount on home loans, but I didn't see any mention of that in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.138.162 ( talk) 02:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
True or not, legal or not, if this ever becomes notable we will know it by frequency of coverage in reliable sources. Depending on context it might go in one sub-article or another (e.g. the election article if it were to become an election issue) and this one only if the loan itself or an ensuing scandal becomes a significant biographical event. For now it is one of a hundred or more other rumors and complaints about Obama going around the conservative blogosphere. Here's a blog about the blogs, saying that the actual report is a non-story. [6] It's safe to say that this is far below the threshold of notability here and that it's unlikely to make it into the article given the sourcing that now exists. Having established that, this talk place is not the place for further speculation on political issues or fallout. Wikidemon ( talk) 16:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
It is unclear what his proper name would be. I believe on his birth certificate it says "Barry Soetoro", after his childhood nickname and his step-father's last name. I believe it originally was BHO, then BHO jr., but was changed to BHO II. Can anyone provide a link to confirm what his legal name would be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PonileExpress ( talk • contribs) 18:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
... I kind of like this addition [7] as a way to address the nagging question of this article downplaying the bi-racial aspect. I certainly do understand (and have tried to explain to people new to the article) why we refer to Obama as African-American, but there are a growing number of biracial Americans. Some feel slighted and ignored by the so-called "one-drop" rule, and feel that continuing to use racial terms that imply that everyone has to choose one race or another denies their identity. In other words, there is an implicit question of neutrality when we insist that race has to be described a single way. I would move the statement to the body somewhere, though. Wikidemon ( talk) 20:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
No, if elected McCain will be the oldest "first term" Potus. PonileExpress ( talk) 15:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I hate Obama, but in the interest of having an encyclopedia what's up with the pic?-- 69.40.139.226 ( talk) 19:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
While we are on a similar topic, does anyone else ever have problems with template updates not displaying? Sometimes when I make a change to a template the change does not display on the actual articles. One way for it to display I've noticed is if I make an edit to the article. I bring this up because I checked a different computer and that computer was not showing the vandalism of the picture while the original computer was showing the picture at the same time the other computer was not. LonelyMarble ( talk) 20:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I would love to see some detailed information on Obama's finances, if someone has the time to do some digging. I don't think the 1.3 million net worth figure is still accurate, though I understand that the generally accepted value right now. Icaruspassion ( talk) 15:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Why in the entire article was his middle name left out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.24.6 ( talk) 13:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The NPOV regarding 2008 convention speeches is WAY off kilter. The Obama article now states only this regarding his speech: "The speech, delivered in front of 84,000 supporters, contained pointed criticism of McCain and President Bush, and added details to his stances that were not mentioned in previous campaign speeches.[105][106]" In contrast, the Palin article addresses her speech in this manner: "On September 3, 2008, Palin delivered a 40 minute acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention that was well-received by the crowd and by media analysts.[97][98]". Were one to analyze the two speeches I doubt anyone would disagree that the finding would show a much higher percentage of Palin's speech was spent "on the offensive" than Obama's speech. Yet, we portray Obama's as the "attack" speech. I saw staunch-conservative, former Nixon speechwriter, former Reagan aide and two-time Republican presedential candidate Pat Buchanan state "That was the best acceptance speech I've ever heard". Yet, Obama's article has zero praise about the speech. I witnessed no counterpart to Buchanan extorting Palin's speech, yet it was "well-received by the crowd" and throughout the land it was "well-received by media analysts". It is shocking that millions of readers are being subjected to sourceless statements and outright partisan bias. Spiff1959 ( talk) 17:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Please don't lean on the comparison too much (or very much at all). WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't the right basis to decide how best to characterize Obama's acceptance speech; editors of this article have not necessarily edited (or even read) the article on Palin, McCain, or whomever, but simply worry about making this article as good as possible. If there's some more accurate (but not longer) characterization of Obama's speech, let's talk about that. That said, I took out a rather fluffy bit of praise for Obama's speech that read too much like electioneering. Moreover, it's hard for me to see how bubbly praise for the speech has any significant role in his general biography. The general content of the speech is a little bit notable, though it's hard to give that sense without either being vacuous or devoting undue weight... what we have seems like an OK compromise between those poles. LotLE× talk 18:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Obama accepted his party's nomination on August 28 in a widely acclaimed speech, [8] delivered in front of 84,000 supporters in Invesco Field and watched by over 38 million on television, [9] that elaborated on policy goals that had not been mentioned in previous speeches and criticized McCain's and President Bush's policies and achievements. [10] [11]
I'm doubtful that ascribing any sort of praise to this speech, whether warranted or not, will pass muster when it comes to attaining "consensus". To at least remove the implied "attack speech" falsehood, how about:
Please change the sentence regarding the 2008 Convention speech to the following:
"On August 28, Obama delivered a speech before 84,000 at Invesco Field in Denver. During the speech he accepted his party's nomination and presented details of his policy goals." ?
Spiff1959 (
talk) 02:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The section on his State Senate service says he's from the "13th district", but it links to the Illinois 13th Congressional District in the US House of Representatives, not the Illinois State Senate. Could someone who knows more about IL politics than I do fix that so it's right? \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 02:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me the fact that Obama was first elected to office (Illinois State Senate 13th district) as a result of his challenging the nominating petitions of the incumbent state Sen. Alice Palmer (and others) for the Democratic nomination in a heavily Democratic district; thus having her name (along with the others) removed from the ballot, is relevant here. Seldom is someone elected by removing their competitors from the ballot, especially an incumbent. See this post from the Chicago Sun Times http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/10/sweet_column_clinton_forces_to.html. There's probably an article in the same newspaper during the election in 1996 referencing this fact. This is also mentioned in Alice Palmer's Wikipedia entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Palmer_(Illinois_politician) and is referenced. DB1958 ( talk) 21:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Obviously the Freudian slip by which Obama supposedly admits he is Muslim after all is trivial, and the phrase "it should be noted" is editorializing. One editor inserted it twice [9] [10] and a second has now reverted it once. [11] As disputed content this should stay out of the article until and unless those proposing its inclusion gain consensus, which seems very unlikely to happen. I do not want to do a second revert on any issue, however office so could someone else please take care of it (and of course, if you actually think it belongs in the article, feel free to explain its relevance). Thanks, Wikidemon ( talk) 23:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)