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 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | → | Archive 40 |
Why is WIkipedia, on a macro level, going out of its way to baste up Palin's religious information (i.e. her church with being 'saved', creationism, speaking in tongues) when Obama's core of black liberation theology, and the term "black liberation theology" is left out completely? On a micro level, I understand the common excuse "well thats over THERE, and this is HERE. Thats a different article". But that excuse is PRECISELY THE POINT. When you use excuses like that to stuff wikipedia with bias you have a systemic problem on a macro level. I know many of you are involved in stuffing Palin while protecting Obama. How come the term "black liberation theology" isn't found in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.63.188 ( talk) 17:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The documentation behind the Ayers sourcing is largely rooted in Jerome Corsi's book -- ObamaNation. So the question is, what books did Corsi write that led to any libel lawsuits? Corsi clearly had an impact on the last presidential election, and while exhortations were used to discredit the Swiftboat Vets for Truth, no slander has yet been proved. In fact, it would appear that the true mainstream [the Voter] did agree and still does agree with the Swiftboat Vets for Truth.
Thus, using the last election to 'discredit' Jerome Corsi is empty. He is, as far as I can conclude, time tested. Thus, what footnotes in his heavily footnoted book, ObamaNation, are discredited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Wildfire March ( talk • contribs) 15:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I saw that Barack made it to the Harvard Law Review partly through a writing competition. Does anyone know the titles of his legal writings, or have copies to post? I think it would be interesting to see what he wrote. 140.239.202.130 ( talk) 23:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC) William
He has published no legal scholarship at all according to this Equaaldoors ( talk) 23:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
All this is academic. We write from a historical perspective, and the statement that is was the most watched in history is still factually accurate and reliably sourced. Consider also that it was during the Labor Day weekend, when viewing figures are among the lowest of the year, and it was carried on far less networks than either Palin's or McCain's speech. -- Scjessey ( talk) 19:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
According to the New York Sun, university spokesman Brian Connolly confirmed that Obama graduated in 1983 with a major in political science but without honors. Why do you publish that Obama graduated with honors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.19.184.194 ( talk) 15:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
List of Wikipedia articles of Barack Obama in other languages
Yartett ( talk) 16:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
On Sept 1 the main image in the article was photo manipulated and put in place of the original image, sans the mole on Barack Obama's face. Please see file history. This needs to be reverted back to the original. -- Cioxx ( talk) 02:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Update: it's been resolved by an admin. -- Cioxx ( talk) 03:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
It's been unresolved by another admin again. User:Ellomate reverted it to the photoshopped version. Please revert it back. -- Good Damon 05:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
[sorry if I'm making a posting error here. I normally post in another forum, and this is my first attempt]. I do think that the page needs to make mention of Ayers, Acorn, and the Weather Underground. Further, the description of Barack Obama regarding Rezko should be lessed biased [a scandal not related to him. That is an opinion.] Obama did do political favors that profited Rezko.
As for positive mentions of Obama, he did call for no smearing of Palin, he does make speeches which launches his popularity, and his candidacy is historic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Wildfire March ( talk • contribs) 12:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
On top of that, it has become an issue because Sen. Obama requested James 9:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
"Conventional weapons" is a pretty odd term for small arms. Isn't there anything better? I'm aware that might be the term that the legislation itself uses, but can we afford to take a slight hit on direct accuracy here for the sake of making the article more accessible? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Why does the infobox list his profession as an attorney? Surely not everyone who was once an attorney or who holds a law degree is currently list as being an attorney? Shouldn't it be Senator or politician? LedRush ( talk) 18:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Obama's mother has native american descent. This means the strongest ancestry in his blood is black african. Why is this not mentioned? YVNP ( talk) 10:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
>>> Well, you can say his mother was Native American and so he is not white, but that doesn't make him more black, that makes him less white and more Native American... and... was she? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.5.19 ( talk) 05:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The German media im sure branded Americans as terms similar to scum back during the war does that mean that americans are scum? ( Invertedzero ( talk) 00:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC))
(Incidentally, he had no African-American parent -- he had an African parent and an American parent (which I suppose makes him African-American by national background, if nothing else.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.86.90 ( talk) 19:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
As I read this whole debate about him being half white or half black or half native american. I can only think of the days when if you had a single drop of Jewish or Negro blood, your existance was now contaminated. Nice going folks. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
62.205.246.175 (
talk) 20:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
It's clear that Obama has a black Kenyan father and a white American mother. So the term biracial would be more accurate to use than African-American. He is biracial with a Kenyan father. Kenyan-American? Just because terms are commonly used doesn't make them correct. And Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic in nature. Furthermore, is a White South African moves to the USA African-American? ( Wallamoose ( talk) 00:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC))
Question: Why is that we aren't using the Featured Picture File:Obama Portrait 2006.jpg in this article? We should always be striving to use our featured content. Even if it's not the infobox, we can find room for this photo? Thanks. howcheng { chat} 18:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
leave this image out, no good reason served. intent of inclusion apears to be to demean obama [image tends to look frightening]. Buzzards27 ( talk) 17:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Am I the only one who finds this comment rude? 90.231.2.252 ( talk) 17:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The lead image of Palin is much more flattering than the lead image of Obama. Hers is 3/4 profile and smart-casual clothes outdoors. His is formal, front on, indoors and rather off-putting. Can't we change these so that both are of a kind? Setwisohi ( talk) 09:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
(Sorry, not being clear: my point being that we need to be fair and that the above image of Obama would be much more balanced). Setwisohi ( talk) 09:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
"I actually think the Obama one is much better...Palin's is unflattering and informal...not vice presidential at all. Obama's is nice and stately...it inspires confidence." Just like this place, filled with people that make everything you read on this site biased. Moderators do no good, either. It's always a double standard, on Palin's page vs. Obama's page, there are plenty of issues Obama has gone back on his word on because it might not look favorable to a Presidential Nominee, but you won't read about it here because the only people who edit and have any real say here are supporters of Obama or the Democratic party. You really can't read anything these days without some sort of sick political inspired hidden agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.218.215 ( talk) 12:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Why delete my original submission, I thought this site was for people to edit with constructive points? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.218.215 ( talk) 19:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Philz4555 blanked other people's text and posted his opinion in its place. Look at the difference between his edit and my revert. This cannot be assumed good faith. Who is with me? Duuude007 ( talk) 02:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
On the page it says, "Obama co-sponsored the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act", while drilling into the Act's page it clearly says he did not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.2.218 ( talk) 13:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
It should be noted that there have been no meetings of this subcommittee while Obama has chaired it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlfahl ( talk • contribs) 19:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Should this sentence be removed now that the numbers for the Palin speech have been reported as over 40 million? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.39.44 ( talk) 09:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I think so... [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.39.44 ( talk) 09:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Quick re-read seems to indicate the numbers aren't apples to apples. Less networks for Palin speech, but not broken out in article. Maybe undeterminable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.39.44 ( talk) 09:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
"Audience research body Nielsen estimated that an average of 37.2 million viewers watched Palin give her vice-presidential nomination speech at the Republican national convention across broadcast and cable outlets between 10pm and 11.15pm, east coast US time, on Wednesday night. This compares with the 38.4 million who watched Barack Obama's Democratic presidential nomination acceptance speech at his party's convention last week." - The Guardian
I would contend that the Guardian is a reliable source for a Neilsen rating quote, and even if it isn't I also found that on Neilsen's site, "NeilsenWire" confirmed that Obama had more viewers [4] even though some folks seem to have missed their fact check. Saying it was the most watched convention speech (at least since they started such ratings) still holds true and is an important part of the article, unless the numbers from McCain's acceptance speech turn out to be even more. Heres the Neilsen quote:
"More than 37.2 million people tuned in for coverage of the third night of the 2008 Republican National Convention, which featured Sarah Palin’s much anticipated national debut. Wednesday night’s RNC broadcasts attracted just a 1.1 million fewer viewers than Barack Obama’s record-breaking speech on day four of the Democratic convention." - NeilsenWire
Hope this helps! Natezomby ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Did this on the Palin talked page. Summary : Palin Numbers and Obama Numbers . Obama's numbers still appear to be higher, but only because 4 other networks aired Obama's speech which Nielson's tracked. I think some people are reporting the Palin PBS numbers on top of the Neilson ones unfairly against the Obama Neilson numbers. Addition of PBS numbers puts both of them over 40 million.
Person | NBC | ABC | CBS | FNC | CNN | MSNBC | Totals (In Millions) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Obama | 6.1 | 6.6 | 4.7 | 4.2 | 8.1 | 4.1 | 33.8 |
Palin | 7.7 | 5.9 | 4.9 | 9.2 | 6.2 | 3.4 | 37.3 |
Nielson's also collected numbers from BET, TV One, Univision, and Telemundo [for Obama only]. These networks didn't air the Palin speech. Neilson's total numbers reported for both candidates with all airing networks that they tracked was: Obama at 38.379 and Palin at 37.244 [in millions]. It has also been reported that Obama had about 4.0 and Palin with 3.9 [in millions] viewers from PBS. PBS didn't participate in the Neilson study - nor does C-SPAN (numbers unknown). The Obama entry here should be modified to state it's only true for a Neilson rating that included those 10 networks - otherwise it's argumentative. Theosis4u ( talk) 16:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The news reports I've read state that Obama was shown on more networks, but has less total viewers than McCain for sure and likely less than Palin too. Also, Biden was way less than all three. Looks likee the wunderkind picked the wrng running mate, but the old-fogey picked the right one. 216.153.214.89 ( talk) 19:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Request notation that viewership was equaled or surpassed by McCain speech one week later. Leaving original record is fine; not noting MCain's numbers is at best POV, at worst blatant dishonesty. The "new" record doesn't appear on the McCain page at all, which seems rather strange. Perhaps the community can agree on an identical wording for both articles...maybe in the vein of "Obama's nomination acceptance speech was watched by more viewers than any convention speech in history, a record subsequently matched by McCain's acceptance speech one week later." There, a NPOV statement that can go on both pages. Any objections? -- Textmatters ( talk) 03:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
There needs to be a section on Obama's earmarks requests ($740 million) that he requested in the US Senate from 2005-2007
Also, there ought to be a mention of his "Present" votes in the Senate since this is a key issue in in the presidential campaign. Here is the Washington Post reference sheet.
This article mentions the controversy over Obama's abortion record but does not mention what it was about. Here is a link to his interview with CBN where he calls the National Right To Life Committee liars. And here is a link to the NRTLC's allegations. James 21:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The Jeremiah Wright paragraph is written in a way that strongly implies an inaccurate time-line. It says "In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning Obama's former pastor of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright. After ABC News broadcast clips of his racially and politically charged sermons, Obama responded by condemning Wright's remarks and ending Wright's relationship with the campaign. Obama delivered a speech, during the controversy, entitled "A More Perfect Union" that addressed issues of race. Obama subsequently resigned from Trinity "to avoid the impression that he endorsed the entire range of opinions expressed at that church." But of course, in the More Perfect Union speech (his response to the sermons) he disassociated himself with Wright's comments but refused to denounce Wright or to end his relationship with him. He ended his relationship with Rev. Wright 6 weeks later after an embassing National Press Club appearance. To say Sen Obama "subsequently" resigned Trinity suggests it occurred shortly after ending his relationship with Wright and for the same reason. But of course it occured weeks later after a sermon by the new pastor and by Father Pfleger. Summary style should avoide extensive details, but it should not leave a significantly false impression. James 10:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
We are totally off-point here, and the place we went off-track is Wikidemon's response. The point is that the Jeremiah Wright paragraph is objectively inaccurate. It states and strongly implies things that are simply untrue. Don't care? Okay, then say so. Don't get into a totally irrelevant argument about the whether some things should be included and others not. The comprehensiveness of this post IMO an viable issue, but it is not the issue here. The issue is "accuracy". The Jeremiah Wright paragraph is inaccurate. This is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manawyddan ( talk • contribs) 01:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Please check if this is correct and change if not.
Thanks,
Fredstang ( talk) 16:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Fred
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article mentions that Senator Obama received a BA from Columbia and that he majored in Political Science. It is reasonable to infer that his BA is in Political Science (isn't that usually a BS though? I guess it depends on the conferring institution.). Just wondering if the article could state this more specifically (ex, " a BA in Political Science with a minor in ...."). Also, I am wondering if Senator Obama has any actual EXECUTIVE experience directly relevant to the EXECUTIVE office of President of the United States of America (for example, EXECUTIVE offices such as Mayor or Governor), or is his experience only in Legislative office (senator) and social work? I understand that he has no military service what-so-ever so there is no reason to ask about that subject. Thanks!
Contempt? No, just ligitimate questions (although, you are correct, I do not prefer this candidate at this time). Allcaps, I wanted to get your attention to that specific word because it seems that people are either not grasping or intentionally overlooking the logical relevance of executive experience to becoming President (such as mayor, governor, business owner, or executive officer (ex, military: captain, civilian: CEO). I will check out the links you provided and thank you for the assumption of good-faith as I am really being serious (I wouldn't do it here but if I wanted to express political oppinion and spout critisisms and talking points I would be typing alot more than this). I will use the points and links that you both have provided while considering my final choice to vote. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.3.46 ( talk) 21:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
This page is for discussion on improving the article, not for general discussion about the article's subject. Since this seems to be the latter, I am archiving the discussion. As to the unanswered question in the original post, "It is reasonable to infer that his BA is in Political Science (isn't that usually a BS though?" -- Under Wikipedia standards, it is never reasonable to infer anything that can't be properly sourced. More directly to the point, I majored in accounting in college, but my degree is not a BS in accounting, but rather a BS in Business and Economics with a major in Accounting. -- Clubjuggle T/ C 14:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
sorry, but for the life of me i CANNOT understand why foreign language letters would be used to aid in the English pronunciation of Obama's name. the correct English letters should be used to aid in the proper pronunciation of his name. just becuz his name has foreign origins does NOT justify the use of foreign language letters. without knowing these letters i have no idea how they would be pronounced. seems like a rather transparate attempt to imply the type of sterotypes that the new yorker mag. cover noted. i believe that obama's family origins are discussed in the main article and there is no need to add to that with he use of foreign letters that the average person just would not understand or know how to pronounce. PLEASE correct using proper english pronounciation. i found this: Barack Hussein Obama II (pronounced: bah-ROCK hoo-SAIN o-BAH-mah) [1] Buzzards27 ( talk) 15:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
i do note that the style guide says that phonetic pronunciations can be used in addition to the ipa pronunciation. is there a good reason NOT to use the one i suggested? i also wonder why some think this ipa is BETTER than simple phonetic pronunciations. not to start any conspiracy theories but i noticed that the ipa 'standard' seemed to become the standard around the time [sept 2007] obama began running for office. any correlation there? is there a consensus that the phonetic pronunciation be added to this section? Buzzards27 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC).
I think it is absolutely essential that a subtopic be added under this heading to discuss his platform and political views.
I also think an article on his political influences may be useful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.40.211.61 ( talk) 04:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Obama is of african and white european decent. he is not the first "african american" candidate for president because he is bi-racial. some will say that if you "have one drop of black blood you are all black" but where is the logic in that? i am half irish and half australian, mom from ireland, dad from Australia. so obama cannot be considered African American or Black when 50% of his genetic makeup is White European. Valliant1967 ( talk) 22:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
so he is not from two races? both parents are black? and "check out" Obama himself? what does this mean? is he so powerful that he can discount science and common sense? Valliant1967 ( talk) 22:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
well, my eyeballs are pretty reliable, and when your momma is white, you are not black. if obama considered himself an ardvark would you report that?
Valliant1967 (
talk) 22:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
i must say that i agree with lonely marble, it is only fair. Valliant1967 ( talk) 23:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
it does matter what i think Mr Red, i am trying to be a useful member of wikipeida. Valliant1967 ( talk) 23:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Why not climb down and reach a compromise? Just put this up: "He is the first African-American (bi-racial) to be a major...". It's not enough added verbage to congest the sentence, makes everyone here happy <cough>, and gives the reader additional info up front. The man also fits the definition of "bi-racial", arguing about sourcing on this point seems like requiring one to reference that the "world is round". Spiff1959 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
(Outdent)Looking at everyone here who is arguing that he is bi-racial must be included into the outline biography over and over again keeps on reminding me one thing, and that is that they continually forget what Obama thinks. While you yourself may identify as bi-racial, and you may see others as bi-racial, the one person who has the most say in the matter, is the person themselves. This is an outline biography of Barack Obama. This is not a discussion on Barack Obama, social commentary on Obama or the country, not a political commentary, but an outline biography of Barack Obama. He self identifies (I.E. he calls himself) as an African American. It's kind of like a person who has a Christian father and a Jewish mother calling themselves Jewish. It is strictly up to the person themselves and no one else. Added upon that, we have thousands of very reliable sources saying that he calls himself African American, including from the person's own mouth. I would think that people would be respectful of what Obama chooses and not apply labels to him that he chooses not to apply himself. This is like someone up to you and telling you are something else other then what you call yourself. As stated in the FAQ and in the variety of reoccurring arguments about the same thing, Barack Obama self-identifies as an African American and his outline biography reflects that. Brothejr ( talk) 11:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
<undent> Could you put my last comment back where it was beneath your "Sadly..." post? I'm not sure an "Adding on to..." comment is appropriate 14 minutes after I'd already replied? Kinda throws off the continuity of things. If I respond to your new "Adding on to..." then it really pushes my prior comment off into oblivion making it appear a disjointed orphan, and making your "Sadly," comment appear to have gone unrebutted. Thanks ;) Spiff1959 ( talk) 16:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
<outdent> The journalistic top-down style states that the opening paragraph should concisely summarize the main points of the story. There seems consensus at least to admit being born of a caucasian mother and raised by whites is a key point regarding Obama. I have some support now that identifying him mainly as African-American and also biracial does not detract from the fact that he is still African-American. Given that, a one-word addition to the opening sentence seems worthly to impart additional key information. I've laid out my case as best I can. I was trying to act as an intermediary of what I see has been a frequently-recurring debate and come up with the best solution possible. Some might want to save their posts as they may need to use them again with the next person who wants "A-A" removed entirely, and the person after that, and the person after... Take care. Spiff1959 ( talk) 19:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
As I said before Obama is half black while he is about 455 white and 5% native american. His black ancestry is therefore the most prominent. He is black in the same way that Asians are the largest race. Asians make up 45% of the world while every other race is at 20% or 10%. The same goes for Obama's ancestry YVNP ( talk) 03:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Senator Obama is not African American according to U.S. Law. Senator Obama is an Arab-American according to U.S. Law.
Senator Obama’s racial background consists of the following: 50% white (mother, both sides), 43.25% Arabic (father, both sides), and 6.25% African Negro (father, one side, 1 generation removed). 12.5% is the legal threshold one must prove to claim racial status under the law. In addition, Senator Obama cannot make a sociological claim as an African American either. He was not raised as an African American, was not raised by African Americans, and was not raised in an African American neighborhood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dont Igonre Truth ( talk • contribs) 09:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is that Mr Obama's mother is what one would call an American and his father I believe was born in Kenya? Thus he is what one would call African. Therefore by the definition set forth by almost everyone complaining that he is not African American he would be half African and half American. Thus in much the same way as an child of German mother and Arab father would be Arab-German Mr Obama is African-American. Problem solved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by James.robinson ( talk • contribs) 22:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I personally think that wikipedia/a wikipedian should reword or remove some content on the infobox. There has been controvery over whether he is Christian or Muslim. He claims to be Christian, but can we be sure? I personally think that the religion part should be removed until this matter is resolved. If you think I have place this message in error, please inform me. I would like to open this for discussion. I am not online much, so if you like you can also Email me. Thanks and Happy Editing ⊥m93 TALK 16:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I apologize. I had briefly forgotten the verifiability and accuracy part of wiki. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. It won't happen again. And that is true... very reliable news sources do say that he is christian. I had just thought that since there were claims of different religion. But yes. Since this matter HAS already been solved!
I think there should be something included in the article about the people who faint and see him as a near god. It is something that is very unusual in politics and would be valuable information to include, especially if it included some explantions. Crd721 ( talk) 03:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me, I don't know the proper signing etiquette for saying things here, but I would point out that someone fainting in the crowd doesn't indicate anything about Obama himself, as we don't know the situation that person was in health wise. As for looking up at him, well, he is on a stage, its inevitable. And for the hands clasped together, its called 'clapping'. One often stops clapping with ones hands clasped together. I believe I saw it for McCain and Palin to. I think these points are coincidental. While he does have strong support, he is a canidate. They all have strong support, thats why they're canidates. If they have more its generally because they are 'better' canidates (as in better at what they are doing, not as in they would naturally be better as a leader). ~14th September, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.210.102.52 ( talk) 22:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
In regards to 69.210.102.52's response, the health condition of the individual is not likely to be a factor, as if they were willing to stand in an ampitheater in the middle of the summer, they are likely of sound health. Also in regard to 69.210.102.52's comment of the hand clasping phenomenon, one does not clasp one's hands together for more than a few seconds after clapping. On another topic, 69.210.102.52, it would appear that you have a slight democratic bias. This is exactly the bias that Wikipedia is accused of having. It would be best that you keep your bias in the talk pages, no offense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.155.3 ( talk) 21:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}}
racist slander contained in opening line - please remove immediately as it is offensive to blacks and Muslims
Not done No evidence of offensive material in opening line.-- Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
You're trying to start an edit war, Wikidemon. I have inserted neutrally written and impeccably sourced material about recent trends in polling in the presidential campaign. This is not a hagiography. If you want to revert it, gain consensus for your reversion. Curious bystander ( talk) 16:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Last time I checked, the way it works is, when someone adds something to an article, and someone else disagrees and removes it, there is then a discussion on the talk page, and there needs to be consensus on the talk page before re-adding the material. BRD, not BDR, and especially not BDRDRDR.
Without having much of an opinion on whether the section should stay in or stay out, I’ll say that as an uninvolved admin, if I see someone re-add the polling section without a consensus here to do so, I will block them; my first time using article probation, but it seems a very clear cut case to me. And, before I get accused of taking sides, please read my first paragraph again for why it defaults this direction and not the other.
I actually see something of a weak consensus here not to include it, but the night is young, and consensus can change. But don’t re-add it again until and if a consensus in the other direction develops.
Also, a 3RR reminder for everyone involved on both sides; this isn't a BLP thing, it's a content thing, so AFAIK 3RR still applies. -- barneca ( talk) 17:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26625240/
...notes a 4% margin for error. This was also dated on Sept. 9, 2008, well before the post convention polls had stabilized.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/29/palin.republican.vp.candidate/index.html
This is a blog. We all know what their role plays in Wikipedia.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/sep/10/women.uselections2008 is international news talking about US news. How about referencing the source it provides instead of a 3rd party opinion: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_090907.html Duuude007 ( talk) 20:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Polls taken after the Republican convention suggested that Mr. McCain had enjoyed a surge of support — particularly among white women after his selection of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate — but the latest poll indicates "the Palin effect" was, at least so far, a limited burst of interest.
The contest appears to be roughly where it was before the two conventions and before the vice presidential selections: Mr. Obama has the support of 48 percent of registered voters, compared with 43 percent for Mr. McCain, a difference within the poll’s margin of sampling error, and statistically unchanged from the tally in the last New York Times/CBS News Poll in mid-August.
===THE NEUTRALITY OF THIS ARTICLE IS DISPUTED=== inflammatory headline renamed -
Wikidemon (
talk) 23:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
This piece of Obama campaign literature, formerly known as a Featured Article, is not neutral. It is a walking violation of WP:NPOV. Furthermore, it fails another test of Featured Article status: the content is insufficiently stable. I'm submitting it for Featured Article Review. Curious bystander ( talk) 23:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Only problem is you've only been notifying editor's who have been pressing an agenda that you know would come to your rescue. Grsz talk 00:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I see nothing in the article about Obama's time spent on the Board of Directors (and in fact was offered the Chair). The Joyce Foundation is an extreme left wing policy and fund raising organization favoring, among other things, the complete confiscation ban of hand guns.
There is no mention of his winning a Grammy Award, yet he's in a category for winners. Anyone know why that's there?-- Appraiser ( talk) 15:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
What about Obama's alleged ties to Rezko and Bill Ayers? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
65.96.201.111 (
talk •
contribs)
(Comment restored after total brain failure and Twinkle-madness on my part --
Scjessey (
talk) 15:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC))
Barack Obama's personal and professional ties to Bill Ayers and Bill Ayers' radical past are NOT speculative, rather, they are fact just as his 20+ year relationship to Rev Jeremiah Wright is fact. Both of these references should be contained in this article, unless of course, this article is just campaign propaganda, in which case it does not belong here in Wiki Land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.242.19.9 ( talk) 19:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Nothing speculative about the relationships with the terrorist Bill Ayers. I agree that these references should be in the article. To be fair John Mccain's warts are in his article and the same should occur here, unless there is bias? These relationships are some of the only glimpses that people can get into his character. I'm a new contributor so I hope I've followed the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S Scott Yapp ( talk • contribs) 05:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
It seems strange that Obama's well documented 20 year relationships with Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, and Tony Rezko shouldn't be fully covered. ( Wallamoose ( talk) 00:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC))
These are tabloid non issues that have about and much coverage in the article as they deserve, or as much as should be found in any educated venue Cosand ( talk) 17:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you ought raise the same point in other pages where every single tabloid article gets inserted into the page? This page is quite sanitized compared with the Palin and McCain pages. Collect ( talk) 19:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
(Resetting indent). Let's give Curious bystander the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps s/he has discovered several new, reliable sources that indicate Obama is being legally investigated for his connections with Ayers, or perhaps there are several new major nonpartisan journalistic exposés that reveal their relationship was much deeper than has been previously indicated by other news stories. Perhaps there's a new bombshell article out there, revealing Obama has secretly maintained support for Ayers' prior radical behavior, and this article will show it, in Obama's own handwriting. Let's give Curious bystander 24 hours to provide substantive, unbiased citations to that effect. Well, Cb? Up for that challenge? And if you can't, then we close this discussion, and you agree not to reopen it. -- Good Damon 22:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
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 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | → | Archive 40 |
Why is WIkipedia, on a macro level, going out of its way to baste up Palin's religious information (i.e. her church with being 'saved', creationism, speaking in tongues) when Obama's core of black liberation theology, and the term "black liberation theology" is left out completely? On a micro level, I understand the common excuse "well thats over THERE, and this is HERE. Thats a different article". But that excuse is PRECISELY THE POINT. When you use excuses like that to stuff wikipedia with bias you have a systemic problem on a macro level. I know many of you are involved in stuffing Palin while protecting Obama. How come the term "black liberation theology" isn't found in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.63.188 ( talk) 17:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The documentation behind the Ayers sourcing is largely rooted in Jerome Corsi's book -- ObamaNation. So the question is, what books did Corsi write that led to any libel lawsuits? Corsi clearly had an impact on the last presidential election, and while exhortations were used to discredit the Swiftboat Vets for Truth, no slander has yet been proved. In fact, it would appear that the true mainstream [the Voter] did agree and still does agree with the Swiftboat Vets for Truth.
Thus, using the last election to 'discredit' Jerome Corsi is empty. He is, as far as I can conclude, time tested. Thus, what footnotes in his heavily footnoted book, ObamaNation, are discredited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Wildfire March ( talk • contribs) 15:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I saw that Barack made it to the Harvard Law Review partly through a writing competition. Does anyone know the titles of his legal writings, or have copies to post? I think it would be interesting to see what he wrote. 140.239.202.130 ( talk) 23:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC) William
He has published no legal scholarship at all according to this Equaaldoors ( talk) 23:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
All this is academic. We write from a historical perspective, and the statement that is was the most watched in history is still factually accurate and reliably sourced. Consider also that it was during the Labor Day weekend, when viewing figures are among the lowest of the year, and it was carried on far less networks than either Palin's or McCain's speech. -- Scjessey ( talk) 19:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
According to the New York Sun, university spokesman Brian Connolly confirmed that Obama graduated in 1983 with a major in political science but without honors. Why do you publish that Obama graduated with honors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.19.184.194 ( talk) 15:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
List of Wikipedia articles of Barack Obama in other languages
Yartett ( talk) 16:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
On Sept 1 the main image in the article was photo manipulated and put in place of the original image, sans the mole on Barack Obama's face. Please see file history. This needs to be reverted back to the original. -- Cioxx ( talk) 02:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Update: it's been resolved by an admin. -- Cioxx ( talk) 03:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
It's been unresolved by another admin again. User:Ellomate reverted it to the photoshopped version. Please revert it back. -- Good Damon 05:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
[sorry if I'm making a posting error here. I normally post in another forum, and this is my first attempt]. I do think that the page needs to make mention of Ayers, Acorn, and the Weather Underground. Further, the description of Barack Obama regarding Rezko should be lessed biased [a scandal not related to him. That is an opinion.] Obama did do political favors that profited Rezko.
As for positive mentions of Obama, he did call for no smearing of Palin, he does make speeches which launches his popularity, and his candidacy is historic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Wildfire March ( talk • contribs) 12:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
On top of that, it has become an issue because Sen. Obama requested James 9:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
"Conventional weapons" is a pretty odd term for small arms. Isn't there anything better? I'm aware that might be the term that the legislation itself uses, but can we afford to take a slight hit on direct accuracy here for the sake of making the article more accessible? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Why does the infobox list his profession as an attorney? Surely not everyone who was once an attorney or who holds a law degree is currently list as being an attorney? Shouldn't it be Senator or politician? LedRush ( talk) 18:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Obama's mother has native american descent. This means the strongest ancestry in his blood is black african. Why is this not mentioned? YVNP ( talk) 10:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
>>> Well, you can say his mother was Native American and so he is not white, but that doesn't make him more black, that makes him less white and more Native American... and... was she? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.5.19 ( talk) 05:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The German media im sure branded Americans as terms similar to scum back during the war does that mean that americans are scum? ( Invertedzero ( talk) 00:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC))
(Incidentally, he had no African-American parent -- he had an African parent and an American parent (which I suppose makes him African-American by national background, if nothing else.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.86.90 ( talk) 19:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
As I read this whole debate about him being half white or half black or half native american. I can only think of the days when if you had a single drop of Jewish or Negro blood, your existance was now contaminated. Nice going folks. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
62.205.246.175 (
talk) 20:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
It's clear that Obama has a black Kenyan father and a white American mother. So the term biracial would be more accurate to use than African-American. He is biracial with a Kenyan father. Kenyan-American? Just because terms are commonly used doesn't make them correct. And Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic in nature. Furthermore, is a White South African moves to the USA African-American? ( Wallamoose ( talk) 00:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC))
Question: Why is that we aren't using the Featured Picture File:Obama Portrait 2006.jpg in this article? We should always be striving to use our featured content. Even if it's not the infobox, we can find room for this photo? Thanks. howcheng { chat} 18:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
leave this image out, no good reason served. intent of inclusion apears to be to demean obama [image tends to look frightening]. Buzzards27 ( talk) 17:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Am I the only one who finds this comment rude? 90.231.2.252 ( talk) 17:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The lead image of Palin is much more flattering than the lead image of Obama. Hers is 3/4 profile and smart-casual clothes outdoors. His is formal, front on, indoors and rather off-putting. Can't we change these so that both are of a kind? Setwisohi ( talk) 09:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
(Sorry, not being clear: my point being that we need to be fair and that the above image of Obama would be much more balanced). Setwisohi ( talk) 09:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
"I actually think the Obama one is much better...Palin's is unflattering and informal...not vice presidential at all. Obama's is nice and stately...it inspires confidence." Just like this place, filled with people that make everything you read on this site biased. Moderators do no good, either. It's always a double standard, on Palin's page vs. Obama's page, there are plenty of issues Obama has gone back on his word on because it might not look favorable to a Presidential Nominee, but you won't read about it here because the only people who edit and have any real say here are supporters of Obama or the Democratic party. You really can't read anything these days without some sort of sick political inspired hidden agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.218.215 ( talk) 12:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Why delete my original submission, I thought this site was for people to edit with constructive points? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.218.215 ( talk) 19:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Philz4555 blanked other people's text and posted his opinion in its place. Look at the difference between his edit and my revert. This cannot be assumed good faith. Who is with me? Duuude007 ( talk) 02:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
On the page it says, "Obama co-sponsored the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act", while drilling into the Act's page it clearly says he did not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.2.218 ( talk) 13:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
It should be noted that there have been no meetings of this subcommittee while Obama has chaired it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlfahl ( talk • contribs) 19:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Should this sentence be removed now that the numbers for the Palin speech have been reported as over 40 million? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.39.44 ( talk) 09:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I think so... [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.39.44 ( talk) 09:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Quick re-read seems to indicate the numbers aren't apples to apples. Less networks for Palin speech, but not broken out in article. Maybe undeterminable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.39.44 ( talk) 09:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
"Audience research body Nielsen estimated that an average of 37.2 million viewers watched Palin give her vice-presidential nomination speech at the Republican national convention across broadcast and cable outlets between 10pm and 11.15pm, east coast US time, on Wednesday night. This compares with the 38.4 million who watched Barack Obama's Democratic presidential nomination acceptance speech at his party's convention last week." - The Guardian
I would contend that the Guardian is a reliable source for a Neilsen rating quote, and even if it isn't I also found that on Neilsen's site, "NeilsenWire" confirmed that Obama had more viewers [4] even though some folks seem to have missed their fact check. Saying it was the most watched convention speech (at least since they started such ratings) still holds true and is an important part of the article, unless the numbers from McCain's acceptance speech turn out to be even more. Heres the Neilsen quote:
"More than 37.2 million people tuned in for coverage of the third night of the 2008 Republican National Convention, which featured Sarah Palin’s much anticipated national debut. Wednesday night’s RNC broadcasts attracted just a 1.1 million fewer viewers than Barack Obama’s record-breaking speech on day four of the Democratic convention." - NeilsenWire
Hope this helps! Natezomby ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Did this on the Palin talked page. Summary : Palin Numbers and Obama Numbers . Obama's numbers still appear to be higher, but only because 4 other networks aired Obama's speech which Nielson's tracked. I think some people are reporting the Palin PBS numbers on top of the Neilson ones unfairly against the Obama Neilson numbers. Addition of PBS numbers puts both of them over 40 million.
Person | NBC | ABC | CBS | FNC | CNN | MSNBC | Totals (In Millions) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Obama | 6.1 | 6.6 | 4.7 | 4.2 | 8.1 | 4.1 | 33.8 |
Palin | 7.7 | 5.9 | 4.9 | 9.2 | 6.2 | 3.4 | 37.3 |
Nielson's also collected numbers from BET, TV One, Univision, and Telemundo [for Obama only]. These networks didn't air the Palin speech. Neilson's total numbers reported for both candidates with all airing networks that they tracked was: Obama at 38.379 and Palin at 37.244 [in millions]. It has also been reported that Obama had about 4.0 and Palin with 3.9 [in millions] viewers from PBS. PBS didn't participate in the Neilson study - nor does C-SPAN (numbers unknown). The Obama entry here should be modified to state it's only true for a Neilson rating that included those 10 networks - otherwise it's argumentative. Theosis4u ( talk) 16:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The news reports I've read state that Obama was shown on more networks, but has less total viewers than McCain for sure and likely less than Palin too. Also, Biden was way less than all three. Looks likee the wunderkind picked the wrng running mate, but the old-fogey picked the right one. 216.153.214.89 ( talk) 19:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Request notation that viewership was equaled or surpassed by McCain speech one week later. Leaving original record is fine; not noting MCain's numbers is at best POV, at worst blatant dishonesty. The "new" record doesn't appear on the McCain page at all, which seems rather strange. Perhaps the community can agree on an identical wording for both articles...maybe in the vein of "Obama's nomination acceptance speech was watched by more viewers than any convention speech in history, a record subsequently matched by McCain's acceptance speech one week later." There, a NPOV statement that can go on both pages. Any objections? -- Textmatters ( talk) 03:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
There needs to be a section on Obama's earmarks requests ($740 million) that he requested in the US Senate from 2005-2007
Also, there ought to be a mention of his "Present" votes in the Senate since this is a key issue in in the presidential campaign. Here is the Washington Post reference sheet.
This article mentions the controversy over Obama's abortion record but does not mention what it was about. Here is a link to his interview with CBN where he calls the National Right To Life Committee liars. And here is a link to the NRTLC's allegations. James 21:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The Jeremiah Wright paragraph is written in a way that strongly implies an inaccurate time-line. It says "In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning Obama's former pastor of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright. After ABC News broadcast clips of his racially and politically charged sermons, Obama responded by condemning Wright's remarks and ending Wright's relationship with the campaign. Obama delivered a speech, during the controversy, entitled "A More Perfect Union" that addressed issues of race. Obama subsequently resigned from Trinity "to avoid the impression that he endorsed the entire range of opinions expressed at that church." But of course, in the More Perfect Union speech (his response to the sermons) he disassociated himself with Wright's comments but refused to denounce Wright or to end his relationship with him. He ended his relationship with Rev. Wright 6 weeks later after an embassing National Press Club appearance. To say Sen Obama "subsequently" resigned Trinity suggests it occurred shortly after ending his relationship with Wright and for the same reason. But of course it occured weeks later after a sermon by the new pastor and by Father Pfleger. Summary style should avoide extensive details, but it should not leave a significantly false impression. James 10:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
We are totally off-point here, and the place we went off-track is Wikidemon's response. The point is that the Jeremiah Wright paragraph is objectively inaccurate. It states and strongly implies things that are simply untrue. Don't care? Okay, then say so. Don't get into a totally irrelevant argument about the whether some things should be included and others not. The comprehensiveness of this post IMO an viable issue, but it is not the issue here. The issue is "accuracy". The Jeremiah Wright paragraph is inaccurate. This is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manawyddan ( talk • contribs) 01:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Please check if this is correct and change if not.
Thanks,
Fredstang ( talk) 16:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Fred
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article mentions that Senator Obama received a BA from Columbia and that he majored in Political Science. It is reasonable to infer that his BA is in Political Science (isn't that usually a BS though? I guess it depends on the conferring institution.). Just wondering if the article could state this more specifically (ex, " a BA in Political Science with a minor in ...."). Also, I am wondering if Senator Obama has any actual EXECUTIVE experience directly relevant to the EXECUTIVE office of President of the United States of America (for example, EXECUTIVE offices such as Mayor or Governor), or is his experience only in Legislative office (senator) and social work? I understand that he has no military service what-so-ever so there is no reason to ask about that subject. Thanks!
Contempt? No, just ligitimate questions (although, you are correct, I do not prefer this candidate at this time). Allcaps, I wanted to get your attention to that specific word because it seems that people are either not grasping or intentionally overlooking the logical relevance of executive experience to becoming President (such as mayor, governor, business owner, or executive officer (ex, military: captain, civilian: CEO). I will check out the links you provided and thank you for the assumption of good-faith as I am really being serious (I wouldn't do it here but if I wanted to express political oppinion and spout critisisms and talking points I would be typing alot more than this). I will use the points and links that you both have provided while considering my final choice to vote. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.3.46 ( talk) 21:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
This page is for discussion on improving the article, not for general discussion about the article's subject. Since this seems to be the latter, I am archiving the discussion. As to the unanswered question in the original post, "It is reasonable to infer that his BA is in Political Science (isn't that usually a BS though?" -- Under Wikipedia standards, it is never reasonable to infer anything that can't be properly sourced. More directly to the point, I majored in accounting in college, but my degree is not a BS in accounting, but rather a BS in Business and Economics with a major in Accounting. -- Clubjuggle T/ C 14:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
sorry, but for the life of me i CANNOT understand why foreign language letters would be used to aid in the English pronunciation of Obama's name. the correct English letters should be used to aid in the proper pronunciation of his name. just becuz his name has foreign origins does NOT justify the use of foreign language letters. without knowing these letters i have no idea how they would be pronounced. seems like a rather transparate attempt to imply the type of sterotypes that the new yorker mag. cover noted. i believe that obama's family origins are discussed in the main article and there is no need to add to that with he use of foreign letters that the average person just would not understand or know how to pronounce. PLEASE correct using proper english pronounciation. i found this: Barack Hussein Obama II (pronounced: bah-ROCK hoo-SAIN o-BAH-mah) [1] Buzzards27 ( talk) 15:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
i do note that the style guide says that phonetic pronunciations can be used in addition to the ipa pronunciation. is there a good reason NOT to use the one i suggested? i also wonder why some think this ipa is BETTER than simple phonetic pronunciations. not to start any conspiracy theories but i noticed that the ipa 'standard' seemed to become the standard around the time [sept 2007] obama began running for office. any correlation there? is there a consensus that the phonetic pronunciation be added to this section? Buzzards27 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC).
I think it is absolutely essential that a subtopic be added under this heading to discuss his platform and political views.
I also think an article on his political influences may be useful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.40.211.61 ( talk) 04:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Obama is of african and white european decent. he is not the first "african american" candidate for president because he is bi-racial. some will say that if you "have one drop of black blood you are all black" but where is the logic in that? i am half irish and half australian, mom from ireland, dad from Australia. so obama cannot be considered African American or Black when 50% of his genetic makeup is White European. Valliant1967 ( talk) 22:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
so he is not from two races? both parents are black? and "check out" Obama himself? what does this mean? is he so powerful that he can discount science and common sense? Valliant1967 ( talk) 22:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
well, my eyeballs are pretty reliable, and when your momma is white, you are not black. if obama considered himself an ardvark would you report that?
Valliant1967 (
talk) 22:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
i must say that i agree with lonely marble, it is only fair. Valliant1967 ( talk) 23:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
it does matter what i think Mr Red, i am trying to be a useful member of wikipeida. Valliant1967 ( talk) 23:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Why not climb down and reach a compromise? Just put this up: "He is the first African-American (bi-racial) to be a major...". It's not enough added verbage to congest the sentence, makes everyone here happy <cough>, and gives the reader additional info up front. The man also fits the definition of "bi-racial", arguing about sourcing on this point seems like requiring one to reference that the "world is round". Spiff1959 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
(Outdent)Looking at everyone here who is arguing that he is bi-racial must be included into the outline biography over and over again keeps on reminding me one thing, and that is that they continually forget what Obama thinks. While you yourself may identify as bi-racial, and you may see others as bi-racial, the one person who has the most say in the matter, is the person themselves. This is an outline biography of Barack Obama. This is not a discussion on Barack Obama, social commentary on Obama or the country, not a political commentary, but an outline biography of Barack Obama. He self identifies (I.E. he calls himself) as an African American. It's kind of like a person who has a Christian father and a Jewish mother calling themselves Jewish. It is strictly up to the person themselves and no one else. Added upon that, we have thousands of very reliable sources saying that he calls himself African American, including from the person's own mouth. I would think that people would be respectful of what Obama chooses and not apply labels to him that he chooses not to apply himself. This is like someone up to you and telling you are something else other then what you call yourself. As stated in the FAQ and in the variety of reoccurring arguments about the same thing, Barack Obama self-identifies as an African American and his outline biography reflects that. Brothejr ( talk) 11:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
<undent> Could you put my last comment back where it was beneath your "Sadly..." post? I'm not sure an "Adding on to..." comment is appropriate 14 minutes after I'd already replied? Kinda throws off the continuity of things. If I respond to your new "Adding on to..." then it really pushes my prior comment off into oblivion making it appear a disjointed orphan, and making your "Sadly," comment appear to have gone unrebutted. Thanks ;) Spiff1959 ( talk) 16:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
<outdent> The journalistic top-down style states that the opening paragraph should concisely summarize the main points of the story. There seems consensus at least to admit being born of a caucasian mother and raised by whites is a key point regarding Obama. I have some support now that identifying him mainly as African-American and also biracial does not detract from the fact that he is still African-American. Given that, a one-word addition to the opening sentence seems worthly to impart additional key information. I've laid out my case as best I can. I was trying to act as an intermediary of what I see has been a frequently-recurring debate and come up with the best solution possible. Some might want to save their posts as they may need to use them again with the next person who wants "A-A" removed entirely, and the person after that, and the person after... Take care. Spiff1959 ( talk) 19:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
As I said before Obama is half black while he is about 455 white and 5% native american. His black ancestry is therefore the most prominent. He is black in the same way that Asians are the largest race. Asians make up 45% of the world while every other race is at 20% or 10%. The same goes for Obama's ancestry YVNP ( talk) 03:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Senator Obama is not African American according to U.S. Law. Senator Obama is an Arab-American according to U.S. Law.
Senator Obama’s racial background consists of the following: 50% white (mother, both sides), 43.25% Arabic (father, both sides), and 6.25% African Negro (father, one side, 1 generation removed). 12.5% is the legal threshold one must prove to claim racial status under the law. In addition, Senator Obama cannot make a sociological claim as an African American either. He was not raised as an African American, was not raised by African Americans, and was not raised in an African American neighborhood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dont Igonre Truth ( talk • contribs) 09:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is that Mr Obama's mother is what one would call an American and his father I believe was born in Kenya? Thus he is what one would call African. Therefore by the definition set forth by almost everyone complaining that he is not African American he would be half African and half American. Thus in much the same way as an child of German mother and Arab father would be Arab-German Mr Obama is African-American. Problem solved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by James.robinson ( talk • contribs) 22:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I personally think that wikipedia/a wikipedian should reword or remove some content on the infobox. There has been controvery over whether he is Christian or Muslim. He claims to be Christian, but can we be sure? I personally think that the religion part should be removed until this matter is resolved. If you think I have place this message in error, please inform me. I would like to open this for discussion. I am not online much, so if you like you can also Email me. Thanks and Happy Editing ⊥m93 TALK 16:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I apologize. I had briefly forgotten the verifiability and accuracy part of wiki. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. It won't happen again. And that is true... very reliable news sources do say that he is christian. I had just thought that since there were claims of different religion. But yes. Since this matter HAS already been solved!
I think there should be something included in the article about the people who faint and see him as a near god. It is something that is very unusual in politics and would be valuable information to include, especially if it included some explantions. Crd721 ( talk) 03:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me, I don't know the proper signing etiquette for saying things here, but I would point out that someone fainting in the crowd doesn't indicate anything about Obama himself, as we don't know the situation that person was in health wise. As for looking up at him, well, he is on a stage, its inevitable. And for the hands clasped together, its called 'clapping'. One often stops clapping with ones hands clasped together. I believe I saw it for McCain and Palin to. I think these points are coincidental. While he does have strong support, he is a canidate. They all have strong support, thats why they're canidates. If they have more its generally because they are 'better' canidates (as in better at what they are doing, not as in they would naturally be better as a leader). ~14th September, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.210.102.52 ( talk) 22:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
In regards to 69.210.102.52's response, the health condition of the individual is not likely to be a factor, as if they were willing to stand in an ampitheater in the middle of the summer, they are likely of sound health. Also in regard to 69.210.102.52's comment of the hand clasping phenomenon, one does not clasp one's hands together for more than a few seconds after clapping. On another topic, 69.210.102.52, it would appear that you have a slight democratic bias. This is exactly the bias that Wikipedia is accused of having. It would be best that you keep your bias in the talk pages, no offense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.155.3 ( talk) 21:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}}
racist slander contained in opening line - please remove immediately as it is offensive to blacks and Muslims
Not done No evidence of offensive material in opening line.-- Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
You're trying to start an edit war, Wikidemon. I have inserted neutrally written and impeccably sourced material about recent trends in polling in the presidential campaign. This is not a hagiography. If you want to revert it, gain consensus for your reversion. Curious bystander ( talk) 16:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Last time I checked, the way it works is, when someone adds something to an article, and someone else disagrees and removes it, there is then a discussion on the talk page, and there needs to be consensus on the talk page before re-adding the material. BRD, not BDR, and especially not BDRDRDR.
Without having much of an opinion on whether the section should stay in or stay out, I’ll say that as an uninvolved admin, if I see someone re-add the polling section without a consensus here to do so, I will block them; my first time using article probation, but it seems a very clear cut case to me. And, before I get accused of taking sides, please read my first paragraph again for why it defaults this direction and not the other.
I actually see something of a weak consensus here not to include it, but the night is young, and consensus can change. But don’t re-add it again until and if a consensus in the other direction develops.
Also, a 3RR reminder for everyone involved on both sides; this isn't a BLP thing, it's a content thing, so AFAIK 3RR still applies. -- barneca ( talk) 17:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26625240/
...notes a 4% margin for error. This was also dated on Sept. 9, 2008, well before the post convention polls had stabilized.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/29/palin.republican.vp.candidate/index.html
This is a blog. We all know what their role plays in Wikipedia.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/sep/10/women.uselections2008 is international news talking about US news. How about referencing the source it provides instead of a 3rd party opinion: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_090907.html Duuude007 ( talk) 20:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Polls taken after the Republican convention suggested that Mr. McCain had enjoyed a surge of support — particularly among white women after his selection of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate — but the latest poll indicates "the Palin effect" was, at least so far, a limited burst of interest.
The contest appears to be roughly where it was before the two conventions and before the vice presidential selections: Mr. Obama has the support of 48 percent of registered voters, compared with 43 percent for Mr. McCain, a difference within the poll’s margin of sampling error, and statistically unchanged from the tally in the last New York Times/CBS News Poll in mid-August.
===THE NEUTRALITY OF THIS ARTICLE IS DISPUTED=== inflammatory headline renamed -
Wikidemon (
talk) 23:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
This piece of Obama campaign literature, formerly known as a Featured Article, is not neutral. It is a walking violation of WP:NPOV. Furthermore, it fails another test of Featured Article status: the content is insufficiently stable. I'm submitting it for Featured Article Review. Curious bystander ( talk) 23:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Only problem is you've only been notifying editor's who have been pressing an agenda that you know would come to your rescue. Grsz talk 00:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I see nothing in the article about Obama's time spent on the Board of Directors (and in fact was offered the Chair). The Joyce Foundation is an extreme left wing policy and fund raising organization favoring, among other things, the complete confiscation ban of hand guns.
There is no mention of his winning a Grammy Award, yet he's in a category for winners. Anyone know why that's there?-- Appraiser ( talk) 15:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
What about Obama's alleged ties to Rezko and Bill Ayers? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
65.96.201.111 (
talk •
contribs)
(Comment restored after total brain failure and Twinkle-madness on my part --
Scjessey (
talk) 15:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC))
Barack Obama's personal and professional ties to Bill Ayers and Bill Ayers' radical past are NOT speculative, rather, they are fact just as his 20+ year relationship to Rev Jeremiah Wright is fact. Both of these references should be contained in this article, unless of course, this article is just campaign propaganda, in which case it does not belong here in Wiki Land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.242.19.9 ( talk) 19:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Nothing speculative about the relationships with the terrorist Bill Ayers. I agree that these references should be in the article. To be fair John Mccain's warts are in his article and the same should occur here, unless there is bias? These relationships are some of the only glimpses that people can get into his character. I'm a new contributor so I hope I've followed the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S Scott Yapp ( talk • contribs) 05:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
It seems strange that Obama's well documented 20 year relationships with Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, and Tony Rezko shouldn't be fully covered. ( Wallamoose ( talk) 00:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC))
These are tabloid non issues that have about and much coverage in the article as they deserve, or as much as should be found in any educated venue Cosand ( talk) 17:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you ought raise the same point in other pages where every single tabloid article gets inserted into the page? This page is quite sanitized compared with the Palin and McCain pages. Collect ( talk) 19:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
(Resetting indent). Let's give Curious bystander the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps s/he has discovered several new, reliable sources that indicate Obama is being legally investigated for his connections with Ayers, or perhaps there are several new major nonpartisan journalistic exposés that reveal their relationship was much deeper than has been previously indicated by other news stories. Perhaps there's a new bombshell article out there, revealing Obama has secretly maintained support for Ayers' prior radical behavior, and this article will show it, in Obama's own handwriting. Let's give Curious bystander 24 hours to provide substantive, unbiased citations to that effect. Well, Cb? Up for that challenge? And if you can't, then we close this discussion, and you agree not to reopen it. -- Good Damon 22:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)