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 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
I tried to link to his sister's article, but for some reason, it took at least three times and someone pulled the link once. Why? What does anyone have against her? Ericl ( talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Considering the current rapid expansion of this section, and the apparent enthusiasm of several editors to add still more, is it time to create Early life and career of Barack Obama? There are enough sources out there to build a good article, and plenty of examples where this has been done for other political figures [2] [3] [4] whose early lives are subjects of close study and popular interest. -- HailFire ( talk) 21:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
72.0.180.2 as you have now made an account on wiki i would take my advise and start using it before you get yourself into trouble. Realist2 ( talk) 22:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Lol fair enough i cant argue with that i suppose but i was only trying to warn you, ill leave you to it. How you can handle 2 accounts is a mistery to me tho, ones hard enough. Realist2 ( talk) 22:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Im sure either way you will be fine, just make it clear to all that you have 2, and never no matter how tempting use them both to get your point across or use them to win edit wars. Realist2 ( talk) 22:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
So now, can we please return the discussion in this talk page section to the original proposal about creating an Early life and career of Barack Obama article? -- HailFire ( talk) 23:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, don't expect many people to read such an article. Using the http://stats.grok.se/en/ page view counter:
In March 2008, so far:
For February 2008:
Anything moved into one of these subarticles, quickly loses about 99% of its readership. Wasted Time R ( talk) 03:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Just did it, improvements needed. -- HailFire ( talk) 07:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
In response to my edit summarized as major edit: revert to version of 2008-02-26 for quick start on summary style; added {{main| Early life and career of Barack Obama}}; linked Sr. & DfMF, Andyvphil reverts and writes: unacceptable to begin with revert. And why is that, Andyvphil? -- HailFire ( talk) 12:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
In the Presidential campaign section, the paragraph beginning:
Needs to be corrected. Barack is not a "her" and "his" husband is not Bill Clinton. Someone has been doing a little too much cut and pasting without looking at what they are doing. 199.125.109.52 ( talk) 21:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Could we include a longer bit about this in Personal Life? I think it would be prudent to get all the three remaining serious candidates' NWs straightened out and included, as I voiced on the Hillary page. The McCain page already has his NW in the infobox and the subject of net worths was of substantial interest in the 2004 presidential campaign, why not now? PulpatineFiction ( talk) 04:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
the Barack means a peach in Hungarian :-)
Oh if only Wikipedia would bring back the 32 kB page limit, or at the very least establish a new hard limit of 64 kB. Here is how this article shows up on Google:
Yes, 520 kB, although 420 kB is from images. The source code is 141 kB, and it hangs up my computer trying to load it. And please, 226 references? Surely some of those references could have been used for two sentences in the article instead of only one. 199.125.109.52 ( talk) 22:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
No pictures on the talk page. It is the pictures that slows down the article. Has nothing to do with popularity. With the photos the article is 460 kilobytes. This talk page is only 183 kilobytes. Both load just as fast for me. SayCheeeeeese ( talk) 20:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Obama has been linked to another Baptist Minister in Chicago. He is James Meeks a part of th Southside Baptist Church. We should add this to the article ASAP.( Rhinostampede ( talk) 21:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC))
I've just reverted the last two edits ( diff) because (a) they restored controversial Rev. Wright stuff against current consensus and (b) they broke some references I'd been painstakingly working on. Please seek consensus! -- Scjessey ( talk) 19:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, an expanded account of the Jeremiah Wright controversy is more suited to Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. The campaign section in this article only needs to be a brief summary, or it will conflict with the ideals of WP:RECENT. Hasn't this already been agreed upon many times? -- Scjessey ( talk) 19:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Obama has faced criticism stemming from a March 2008 ABC News report that highlighted several sermons from Obama's long-time pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. In them, Wright accused the federal government of selling drugs to blacks, creating the HIV virus to infect blacks, [5] and perpetuating racism that led to disproportionate imprisonment of blacks. In one sermon, Wright said that the United State was responsible for the September 11th, 2001 attacks and urged black Americans to ask God to "damn America." [6] Following the story, Obama faced criticism for referring to Wright as his "spiritual advisor", [7] attending the church for 20 years, and maintaining close personal ties to the minister. [8] Obama points to Wright as the inspiration for the title of his book The Audacity of Hope and placed Wright on his campaign's African American Religious Leadership Committee in December 2007. [9] [10] [11] Obama had begun distancing himself from Wright when he withdrew a request that Wright deliver a speech at the announcement of his presidential bid, but when several videos of Wright's sermons appeared on YouTube in the first week of March 2008, [12] [13] Obama released a statement "vehemently disagree[ing with] and strongly condemn[ing] ... inflammatory and appalling remarks Wright made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents." Obama said the remarks had come to his attention at the beginning of his presidential campaign but that because Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of Obama's strong links to the Trinity faith community, he had not thought it "appropriate" to leave the church. [14] After the publicity of March, the campaign announced that Wright has left its African American Religious Leadership Committee. [15]
-- Fovean Author ( talk) 01:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
There is still way too much weight given to the Jeremiah Wright controversy, which is more about Jeremiah Wright than Barack Obama. It should be a brief summary comprising one or two sentences. The details can be more thoroughly explored in the related articles, as I have stated previously. I believe a consensus on this matter has already been reached, but we may as well seek agreement again. What say you, fellow Wikipedians? -- Scjessey ( talk) 00:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Really? Wright was this guy's pastor for 20 years, married him to his wife, baptized his children and inspired his book. He served on his campaign and now Michelle Obama quotes him.
Two sentences for that? Really? -- Fovean Author ( talk) 01:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Bahasa is the national language of Indonesia. Bahasa is the popular synonym of Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian Language). Malaysia never stated Bahasa as their national language, because they have stated that Malay language and English as their national language.
I am strongly suggest to delete the world "Malaysian" in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.95.225 ( talk) 00:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Earlier I replaced an existing citation that had an incorrect use of the word " madrassa" in it's displayed title (see Madrassa#Misuse_of_the_word for the correct use - it means any kind of school in both Arabic and non-misused English).
The misleading citation (now back up) is called "Obama madrassa myth debunked": the actual Chigaco Tribune article's content is fine - it's just the title being displayed on its own that will mislead readers into seeing madrassas as Islamic and/or radical (which is the developed suggestion in the "Insight" story/slur). It is displayed for all to misread at the base of our article! I had previously created a discussion on this particular citation - but it's now been 5-day auto-archived.
I replaced the misleading citation with an already-used citation that covered ALL the points in the preceding sentences that needed referencing. The new citation used the word "madrassa" correctly - ie. it specifically details an "Islamic" madrassa - as oppose to just saying "madrassa" and assuming an Islamic and/or radical form.
Unfortunately, many articles over a period of time (and readily available on the internet) did misuse the word. That does not make it right though - The New York Times has issued a correction over its own incorrect use of "madrassa" - saying "while some are radical, most are not".
I'll give it another go - can anyone reverting it please say why here? -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 00:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
These two editors continue to add or edit the article to deliberately distort reality to favor their worldviews. For example, the following paragraph was added in response to A More Perfect Union:
ABC News reported that "buried in his eloquent, highly praised speech on America's racial divide, Sen. Barack Obama contradicted more than a year of denials and spin from him and his staff about his knowledge of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's controversial sermons." [16] Critics have found the response not only contradictory, but inadequate. For example, Mark Steyn, writing in the National Review observed "Obama is not supposed to be the candidate of the America-damners: He’s not the Reverend Al Sharpton or the Reverend Jesse Jackson or the rest of the racial-grievance mongers. Obama is meant to be the man who transcends the divisions of race... Yet since his early twenties [Obama]’s sat week after week listening to the ravings of just another cookie-cutter race huckster... the Reverend Wright['s] appeals to racial bitterness are supposed to be everything President Obama will transcend. Right now, it sounds more like the same-old same-old." [17] In the speech, Obama referred to his white grandmother and later explained that "she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know ... there's a reaction in her that doesn't go away and it comes out in the wrong way." [18]
The overwhelming response to the speech by the mass media has been positive, yet the addition of the paragraph above implies the complete opposite. This is clearly an attempt to manipulate the article to suit a personal agenda. Even if the paragraph was truly representative of the media response, it is far too detailed to be including in this WP:BLP. For too long, the factual integrity of this article has been threatened with POV edits like those performed by these two editors. Even a cursory glance at their editing histories will give an indication of their motivations. -- Scjessey ( talk) 14:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning racially- and politically-charged statements made by Obama's long-time pastor Jeremiah Wright. [19] [20] On March 18th, Obama delivered a speech in response to the controversy titled " A More Perfect Union" at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and while condemning the ill-received remarks Wright had made, he also sought to give them historical context by describing some of the events that have formed Wright's views on race. [21]
I've just reverted another substantial inflation and promotion of the so-called "Wright controversy" that had once again been added despite the established consensus not to. This issues surrounding Rev. Wright are fully explored in the Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 articles and do not need more than the neutrally-worded summary already present in this biography. I urge all editors to view the substantial talk page archive and note the prevailing consensus before adding this kind of inappropriate material. -- Scjessey ( talk) 00:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
It should have more info tho, i dont even think it mentions any of the comments the REV made. The bottom line is that this incident has cost him the whitehouse and the polls are showing it. Looks like Mc Cain is doing very well these days. If this event stops him being president it should be substancially covered. Realist2 ( talk) 14:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
"The bottom line is that this incident has cost him the whitehouse(sic) and the polls are showing it". Do you know when the election is? It's more than seven months away. Do you know that while some polls show McCain slightly ahead of Obama in a head to head, others actually show Obama slightly ahead? Are you aware that your comments show a gross violation of no-point of view? My feeling is that there are Obama haters here who are trying to impose their views. JonErber ( talk) 15:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Here is all that is said about Wright in this article: "In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning racially- and politically-charged statements made by Obama's long-time pastor Jeremiah Wright.[97][98] On March 18th, Obama delivered a speech in response to the controversy titled "A More Perfect Union" at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and while condemning the ill-received remarks Wright had made, he also sought to give them historical context by describing some of the events that have formed Wright's views on race." And you think this warrents a POV tag? Clearly it is you who needs to review the guidelines. There is a very limited amount of detail here because it is covered in much greater detail on both the campaign page, the Wright page, and the controversy page. You're using the POV tag as a weapon simply because you want to put more information in, clearly with your POV included. Adding a POV tag here is disruptive, and will result in reports for such behavior. If you have a problem with the coverage of Wright, take it to the appropriate articles. Grsz 11 16:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Following are Andyvphil’s proposed changes:
According to National Journal, a weekly magazine geared toward "Washington Insiders", in its 27th annual vote ratings, Senator Obama was the most liberal senator in 2007. The candidate shifted further to the left during 2007 prior to the Presidential primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate. Hillary Clinton ranked as the 16th most liberal Senator in 2007, voting differently than Obama on only 10 of the 297 votes considered in calculating the rankings. [22]
On the other hand, the rankings by the Americans for Democratic Action seem to show an opposite trend, with a 100% rating in 2005 declining to 95% in 2006 and 75% in 2007. [23] This is misleading, as the 2007 decline was due entirely to missed votes. In the sixty votes used by the ADA to measure a legislator's political liberalism during Obama's career in the Senate he has voted for the non-"liberal" result only once. [24] [25] [26]
(He proposes titling the following section "Obama, his church, his pastor, and politics")
Obama joined Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988, [27] three years after first coming to Chicago to take a job organizing the political activity of black churches in the city. [28]A megachurch with 10,000 members, Trinity is the largest congregation in the United Church of Christ. [27] The church is more Afrocentric and politically active than most black congregations and Obama began distancing himself from the political views of its dominant figure, recently retired 36-year pastor Jeremiah Wright, when he called Wright the night before the February 10, 2007 announcement of his Presidental candidacy to withdraw his request that Wright deliver an invocation at the event. Wright did however, attend the announcement, prayed with Mr. Obama beforehand, and joined the Obama campaign's African American Religious Leadership Committee. [29]
Obama joined Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988, [27] three years after first coming to Chicago to take a job organizing the political activity of black churches in the city. [30] A megachurch with 10,000 members, Trinity is the largest congregation in the United Church of Christ. [27] The church is more Afrocentric and politically active than most black congregations and Obama began distancing himself from the political views of its dominant figure, recently retired 36-year pastor Jeremiah Wright, when he called Wright the night before the February 10, 2007 announcement of his Presidental candidacy to withdraw his request that Wright deliver an invocation at the event. Wright did however, attend the announcement, prayed with Mr. Obama beforehand, and joined the Obama campaign's African American Religious Leadership Committee. [31]
After Wright's retirement (his last sermon was February 10, 2008) [32] copies of his sermons were offered for sale. News organizations like ABC News bought them and searched them for controversial material. ABC News found "repeated denunciations of the U.S. based on what he described as his reading of the Gospels and the treatment of black Americans." In addition to controversial comments after 9/11 that had been previously publicized ("We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is brought right back in our own front yards.") the site also quoted Wright as saying "No, no, no, not God bless America — God damn America!" [33] [34]
In March 2008 Obama went further then he had before, "vehemently disagree[ing with] and strongly condemn[ing]... inflammatory and appalling remarks Wright made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents." Obama said the remarks had come to his attention at the beginning of his presidential campaign but that because Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of Obama's strong links to the Trinity faith community, he had not thought it "appropriate" to leave the church. [35] The campaign announced at that point that "Rev. Wright is no longer serving on the African American Religious Leadership Committee." [36]
Repeat of Talk Comment in Previously Established 'Wright' Section:
HELLO ALL - I have spent several weeks away from this article, only revisiting to see how the Jeremiah Wright issue was being covered (as I have some historical knowledge of Rev. Wright). I must say that I was expecting a lively debate in the discussion boards, but I was not expecting any references in the article itself (given what I perceived to be an imbalance of passionate Obama supporters that seemed to have heavy editorial influence over the article). I am at least pleased to see the inclusion of certain facts in the article. I think it at least discusses enough to suggest to a reader that there is much below the surface on the Wright issue that requires further research. The reader can then dive deeper. I do, however, disagree with Bellwether...who, if left alone, would likely remove all references in the article other than Obama's claim to Christianity through his membership in that congregation. Rhetorical question: Does anyone on this board go to church on a weekly basis? Those of us that do attend church on a regular basis know how difficult it would become to receive a weekly sermon for 14 years that espouses views that are extremely contrary to one's own views. (Isn't that the time frame that was quoted by Obama as his membership in that church?) As one of the minority owners of a multimedia technology firm that owns diverse Internet TV sites, including StreamingFaith.com which has for years broadcasted the sermons of Rev. Wright, I can tell you that his sermons go way beyond the controversial clips they are showing on mainstream TV today. Networks on the right are going a little further by showing clips of Wright's claim that our government "invented AIDS to infect black people", or his claim that the government is "importing drugs to feed to black people" as part of its "plan to jail black people"...but the unedited sermons of Rev. Wright that have been broadcast over the years can only be described as the preaching of Hate and separatism. Even Obama must believe this to be true as he has distanced himself increasingly as the truth about Rev. Wright has become more widely known. Just to ask the obvious question: At what point during the last 14 years should we have expected a hopeful leader of our nation, one who preaches a message of national unity, to have stood up and walked out of Rev. Wright's separatist church? The big question, as the electorate evaluates this candidate, is "Why did it take so long?" ...As this relates to Wiki, remember, this is an article about a candidate for our highest office. Obama's decade long decision to associate with Rev. Wright cannot be erased with a few quick words of denouncement...and this article on Wiki that purports to be biographical in nature must include the ties to Rev. Wright to maintain its accuracy and completeness. Unlike the dentist analogy, Obama has over the years told us how important Rev. Wright has been to him...Obama made this bed by not walking away on principle earlier. Jtextor ( talk) 15:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[15] BLP does not prohibit us from sceptically examining Obama's claims. Indeed NPOV requires us to give the skeptical POV due weight. Andyvphil ( talk) 08:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Perhaps [Obama] merely used the Trinity United Church of Christ as a political stepping-stone. African-American political life is centered around churches, and his election to the Illinois State Senate with the support of Chicago's black political machine required church membership. Trinity United happens to be Chicago's largest and most politically active black church.
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) See also: Obama (1995), pp. 135–139.
both are very well written, and both should be included (especially Wright). In regards to the National Journal, I think that is appropriate since there is already a few op-ed quotes in Obama's article, one saying something about him being the most likely man to change the world. With such a glowing op-ed quote already in the article, the national review quote adds appropriate balance for NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.46.9.46 ( talk) 16:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Andyvphil wrote: As I keep saying, if you don't like it, change it. I didn't, so I did. -- HailFire ( talk) 17:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Cocaine Long before he ever ran for political office, Obama wrote a book about, well, himself, and his amazing his journey from messed up kid to, um, himself. It was quite an epic, considering he was 34 at the time. In that book, called "Dreams From My Father", he writes that he used marijuana and cocaine ("maybe a little blow".) Oddly enough, he writes that he didn't try heroin because -- wait for it -- he didn't like the pusher who was selling it. (Weren't there any other reasons?) In a later interview, he added "Teenage boys are frequently confused."
I am cross posting this to Obama, and Obama Campaign 08.
Now that Obama has polled ahead of clinton for two days in a row, after being behind her during the time of the wright issue, I would like to advocate that new progress on it has ceased, new first-tier reporting on it has ceased, and it is receding into historical background. So it is time for editors to stop adding material on it, until such time as something new happens in the issue. 72.0.180.2 ( talk) 22:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
If Obama was a Republican this issue would have received its own "controversies" subsection. Lesser issues have generated such sections that deal with Republicans. Blatant POV, systemic and specific. [17] -- Heckler & Koch Talk 23:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
prior to the peak was it ok to add as much material as possible on wright, barack's "uncle" that believes uncle sam made HIV to kill black people, told his congregation "god damn america", talked about the "us of kkk-a", hangs with louie farrakhan, etc here? CarlosRodriguez ( talk) 03:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Barack's full name is not Sadam Hussein Obama, Jr. Maybe I'm wrong, but it certainly doesn't mention the Sadam part anywhere else online. I'm pretty sure theres a hacking going on. Peterrobot ( talk) 00:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
10 people who can change the world, someone might want to check that out i didnt see any mention of obama. I dont think its the right source —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.135.203 ( talk) 01:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Editor of This Page,
I fail to understand why it is inappropriate to include the controversies of Senator Obama. It is as relevant to include controversies as it is to include honors and awards. I see that many other political figures have controversies included on pages about them. Furthermore, Senator Obama has publicly came out and talked about the issues. It is important to give all information in a biography.
Thank you for reading,
Person For Equal Editing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.191.25 ( talk) 23:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Could themes like this be considered so the article is more balanced, even from the perspective of persons who have favourable or neutral positions on Sen. Barack Obama's supporters?
Suggested draft of text:
"Barack Obama has distributed a document expressing his appreciation for the endorsement he received from the indicted-Governor of Puerto Rico, Aníbal Acevedo Vilá, charged with 19 counts (reportedly including election fraud and corruption) by the United States Department of Justice. [1] "
My Boxing Ring ( talk) 22:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Q1This needs to be removed from the Political Campaigning section, 3rd paragraph " Clinton, in turn, had support from the poor and the less educated, as well as those who have not paid as much attention to the race: This is bias and alludes to Clinton supporters as being uneducated, poor, and unknowledgeable about the primary race! This is absurd! This is exactly the type of information that hinders people from being able to learn something without other peoples personal opinions! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polyscijunky ( talk • contribs) March 27, 2008 copied from Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ. [18]-- Bobblehead (rants) 00:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
If you want to help McCain win nothing could be better than to bash Clinton's supporters in this article. :-) Borock ( talk) 16:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
The first reference's source is "Inoglo". It is supposed to be "Inogolo"
Σαι (
Talk) 12:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
This should be clarified as it's been brought up that Obama's not an actual professor (he is): http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html
Statement Regarding Professor Barack Obama
The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer."
From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year.
Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching.
Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.
Flatterworld ( talk) 16:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
theres article fails to mention any of the current issues regarding how obama hows to defend the fact hes not muslim. i am not talking about his muslim background but its a big deal when someone has to defend themselves they are not a muslim. www.obamamuslim.com can be used as a great reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.208.7 ( talk) 04:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I notice there is only two sentences on his position for this issue. After watching today's town hall meeting I'm still confused as to his true position as I'm sure others are. Would someone be willing to expand a bit on this? 216.220.15.211 ( talk) 18:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Is not one a lecturer on constitutional law, not of constitutional law? 67.163.141.14 ( talk) 15:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
2. he is a lecturer in French"
synonyms: university teacher, college teacher, tutor, reader, instructor, academic, academician.
Do people think we can unprotect the page now, or would the unresolved issues (categorizing Obama's political history, etc.) bring us another edit war? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 01:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is this page really protected? I'm not buying the "He's a politician currently running for office...blah blah blah" when the other two candidates, McCain and Hillary are unprotected. The argument isn't made. Not to mention Hillary's page has some interesting text at the top that should be removed.
This page is not accurate about his life, past or present and is grossly biased. I thought Wiki was concerned with the truth but it doesn't appear so, at least on this page. All of the information should be made available for all to see, not just part out of ideology. I am quite concerned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiddanger ( talk • contribs) 03:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Despite the fact that Obama's supporters are diligent in removing anything remotely unfavorable on this article, there should be a section for criticisms as they do exist and they are legitimate. Anyone else believe that this is necessary for an unbiased article? Rgwilliams ( talk) 15:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
This article says his efforts to quit smoking were "well-publicized" but an obscure article about him smoking does not make it "well-publicized." The article cited does not say it was "well-publicized." In fact, the article says he is quiting to make himself a more appealing presidential candidate, but that information, which is actually presented, is NOT shown in this article.
The term "well-publicized" makes it look like he is not trying to hide his smoking habit, but the article clearly states that is indeed his motivation for quitting. This description is biased and should be removed. Thegoodlocust ( talk) 05:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
<digression into personal attacks removed by Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 06:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)>
On the topic, I never had a problem with removing the bit about making him a better candidate or however it's worded. But it certainly was "well-publicized". Grsz 11 06:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks like when the header section got "cleaned up" this weekend, the cleanup also broke MiszaBot so that it archived everything to dev/null that was older than 24 hours. I've restored the formatting of the MiszaBot template to the format MiszaBot likes and I think I've re-added all the discussions that MisazBot mistakenly purged. -- Bobblehead (rants) 17:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Why can't we just protect articles of all the poltitical people? because people ALWAYS vandalize it anyway —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.210.244.175 ( talk) 00:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Do voting record-based categorizations and rankings from partisan or nonpartisan sources help improve readers' understanding of Barack Obama's Senate career or his politics? An example of the disputed text is linked here.
According to the National Journal Senator Obama was labeled the most liberal senator in 2007. [2] According to the Americans for Democratic Action In the sixty votes used by the ADA to measure a legislator's political liberalism during Obama's career in the Senate he has voted for the non-"liberal" result only once. [3]
Yahel Guhan 04:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Whatever decision is made regarding the label 'liberal' and Mr. Obama, it seems important to link to his recent disavowal of that label..?....(or is that too partisan coming from him? perhaps partly for political reasons?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.141.14 ( talk) 15:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Sharing this blog entry to help illustrate why some of the editors here (myself included) consider votes-based "political spectrum" categorizations (or characterizations), non-notable at best, or at worst, unnecessarily misleading. Comments welcome. -- HailFire ( talk) 15:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
There's considerably more to MSNBC's analysis of Obama's voting record than your blog suggests. And, of course, the existance of an article on the subject in a RS demonstrates, by definition, the opposite of "non- notability". You don't get to censor the POV, found in multiple RS, that Obama's voting record can be meaningfully analyzed to determine where he stands on the political spectrum merely because you think such analysis is misleading. We are supposed to reflect RS, not overrule them. Andyvphil ( talk) 11:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
how come there is no issue with mccains ranking in the political spectrum. its posted in his article which i'm for btw. i think obama's ranking in the political spectrum should also be posted. i think the issue here is that he is the #1 partisan senator and some of you see that as controversial. well the ranking is the ranking. if he was in the center i'm sure the information would be put in the article, since they were ok with putting mccain's ranking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.90.42 ( talk) 23:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Scjessey admits that only favorable information is allowed on this page.
On his and my talk page, User:scjessey explains that only favorable information belongs on the Barack Obama page. Information about Obama's voting record, information about Obama's yearlong denial of his knowledge of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's sermons does not have "any place in the BLP. That should be on the campaign page, if anywhere." User:Scjessey talk
This of course is a clear admission that the Barrack Obama page violates the NPOV policy. Jwvoiland ( talk) 15:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)jwvoiland
This article has been flagged for violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Jwvoiland ( talk) 16:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed the tag for a second time, as there is no justification for it being there. Controversies regarding the presidential campaign are discussed in the article for the presidential campaign. Blocks will be issued for continued disruptive behavior. Grsz 11 17:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The flag isn't necessary. Anyone who reads it, and compares it to the articles about George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton and John McCain, can easily see tha tit's an NPOV violation. Without criticism, it's a hagiography. Banishing controversial material to other articles that no one will ever read is a whitewash. Let's be neutral about the subject. Kossack4Truth ( talk) 19:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The tag reads "The neutrality of this article is disputed." Hard to disagree, with several having said so in this section. "Please see the discussion on the talk page." That's here. "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." It isn't. Don't. Andyvphil ( talk) 12:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
If there is a true "consensus" as to this page's neutrality, why do several editors keep undoing information that sees Senator Obama in a not so favorable light? A number of editors have included information that a number of others continue to undo, claiming "consensus" against it. The NPOV of this article is clearly challenged. It is not consistent with the NPOV mandate to rule that material about particular controversies must be moved off of this article and into a separate page.
Muls1103 (
talk) 15:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)muls1103
::What is the personal insult "Clearly you aren't the new user you seem to be" supposed to mean ? The editors of this page continue to show their hostility to
NPOV in favor of Obama-spin. (had been logged out, signing now
Muls1103 (
talk) 15:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)muls1103)
12.145.168.6 (
talk) 15:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)muls1103
I'm accused of hostility, while the other side is using sockpuppets! Ha! Grsz 11 16:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone here contend - with an actual argument - that, despite the discussions littering this talk page and archived versions, that the neutrality of this article is somehow not in dispute? I have re-added the NPOV tag to reflect this. -- Davidp ( talk) 01:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course the neutrality of the aricle in currently in dispute. See the FA review], in progress. Andyvphil ( talk) 03:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Considering that factual information is left out of this article when it is a negative (no mention of challenging ballots in illinois, but extensive discussion of his fed senate race) and that an entire block is dedicated to his DNC speech (positive, non-bio) and includes a non-factual statement that it's when most americans were introduced to obama, I find the neutrality of this article to be clearly lacking. --anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.161.234 ( talk) 17:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
This is ridiculous, and reeks of Obama supporters trying to hide any critical information. You don't have to agree that something is "controversial," but it was still a controversy focused by the media, and the public. This article is getting pretty laughable. This isn't going to last long. Before you know it, a million people are going swarm here, and start yet another edit war will ensue. Why not just make a section, and keep it in one place, before a bunch of people start fighting over where to place it, and whether or not they "agree" that something was a big enough story. This isn't suppose to be a fan page. Almost all other politicians, have had a criticism, or controversy portion of their article to get it all out there, and not to have people sliding stuff into the other portions, where others might miss it. This is the easiest solution to move past the "bias" assessment. Things like the "no hand over heart during the national anthem," "won't wear a flag pin," stories, are still notable, whether you find them ridiculous or not. My point is, it's better to agree on these controversies/criticisms now, give them a spot, and move on. This back and forth is getting tiresome. 07:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. This article was definitely written by Obama fans. 138.67.4.87 ( talk) 22:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
There should be some mention of the hate church he has belonged to for the last 20 years in the introduction - what Christopher Hitchens called Obama's "dumb, nasty, ethnic rock 'n' roll racist church" - and the role of hate preacher Jeremiah Wright, Obama's priest. HillaryFan ( talk) 10:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
There should be mention of the controversy concerning Pastor Wright, but to call the church from which it came from a Hate Church is out of line. -- DavidD4scnrt ( talk) 07:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
While we're talking about undue weight, I'm wondering whether the section on the 2004 DNC keynote address could be trimmed a bit. It's true that the speech was most Americans' first exposure to Obama, but does its significance in his biography really merit as much detail as we're giving it? Could we make the same biographical point more succinctly? I wonder whether we need the first two block quotes. It's the red state/blue state bit that seems to have lingered in the public consciousness. (Well, at least it's the bit that I remember from that speech.) — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 20:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
As nobody who thinks the tag belongs can explain why the tag belongs/that the article is POV, it should be removed. It's been argued countless time why it should not be there, and now the editors who keep adding it seem to be adding it just for the heck of it, or because they don't agree with the consensus. Grsz 11 03:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
As I explained, ...A purposely short and vague description of a controversy of fundamental and demonstrated importance to Obama's career, answered solely by Obama's spin, with no other POV on the subject allowed... we also have the enforcement of Obama's POV that such "old politics" characterizations of his record as favorable ADA ratings must be excluded. The POV tag says what it means and means what it says. A dispute about the neutrality of this article is in progress... Andyvphil ( talk) 23:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC) I'm readding the POV tag. Andyvphil ( talk) 13:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
NEW COMMENT: The POV label is good. It alerts the reader that there is a dispute. Then the reader can decide for himself. In America, there are lots of warning. I heard that there's a warning that coffee and tea is hot. Gasoline is poisonous. So, beware of this article is appropriate. There is plenty of debate so the label reflects consensus (that there is debate). Just beause there is a POV label does not mean Obama is bad. Actually, Obama is a good speaker and will be the next American President. I salute him or whoever is the next President. KVSTamilNadu ( talk) 13:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Instead of just wacking in NPOV tags all over the place without comment, kindly explain exactly which bits are POV so that we can try to address them. Give us specifics, rather than simply generalities. -- Scjessey ( talk) 14:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Policy on
article size states that an article over 100KB should "almost certainly" be broken up. This article is at 484. Adding information that is already quite thoroughly covered elsewhere violates the
Manual of Style in this regard.
Grsz
11 19:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to throw an idea out there:
Just throwing that out there as a start. -- Bobblehead (rants) 00:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning racially- and politically-charged statements made by Obama's long-time pastor Jeremiah Wright. [4] [5] In them, Wright accused the federal government of selling drugs to blacks, creating the HIV virus to infect blacks, [6] and perpetuating racism that led to disproportionate imprisonment of blacks. In one sermon, Wright said that the United States was responsible for the September 11th, 2001 attacks and urged black Americans to ask God to "damn America." [7] Following the story, Obama faced criticism for referring to Wright as his "spiritual advisor," [8] attending the church for 20 years, and maintaining close personal ties to the minister. [9] Wright presided over Obama's wedding and baptized both of his daughters; Obama points to Wright as the inspiration for the title of his book The Audacity of Hope and placed Wright on his campaign's African American Religious Leadership Committee in December 2007. [10] [11] [12]
Obama had begun distancing himself from Wright when he withdrew a request that Wright deliver a speech at the announcement of his presidential bid in February 2008, but when several videos of Wright's sermons appeared on YouTube in the first week of March 2008, [13] [14] Obama released a statement "vehemently disagree[ing with] and strongly condemn[ing] ... inflammatory and appalling remarks Wright made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents." Obama said the remarks had come to his attention at the beginning of his presidential campaign but that because Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of Obama's strong links to the Trinity faith community, he had not thought it "appropriate" to leave the church. [15] After the publicity of March, the campaign announced that Wright has left its African American Religious Leadership Committee. [16] On March 18th, Obama delivered a speech in response to the controversy titled " A More Perfect Union" at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and while condemning the ill-received remarks Wright had made, he also sought to give them historical context by describing some of the events that have formed Wright's views on race. [17]
In the speech, Obama referred to his white grandmother and later explained that "she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know ... there's a reaction in her that doesn't go away and it comes out in the wrong way." [18] ABC News reported that "buried in his eloquent, highly praised speech on America's racial divide, Sen. Barack Obama contradicted more than a year of denials and spin from him and his staff about his knowledge of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's controversial sermons." [19] Critics have found the response not only contradictory, but inadequate. For example, Mark Steyn, writing in the National Review observed,
"Obama is not supposed to be the candidate of the America-damners: He’s not the Reverend Al Sharpton or the Reverend Jesse Jackson or the rest of the racial-grievance mongers. Obama is meant to be the man who transcends the divisions of race ... Yet since his early twenties [Obama]’s sat week after week listening to the ravings of just another cookie-cutter race huckster ... the Reverend Wright['s] appeals to racial bitterness are supposed to be everything President Obama will transcend. Right now, it sounds more like the same-old same-old." [20]
Comments about the three-paragraph version down here please. Kossack4Truth ( talk) 01:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's my attempt at a compromise. This is a combination of some ideas from User:Bobblehead and the original text from 72.0.180.2:
I believe this satisfies the need for brevity, yet still manages to include more of the negative aspects that are desired by some. The references are intact if a wholesale copy/paste is needed. -- Scjessey ( talk) 02:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
It's awesome! --
Scjessey (
talk) 02:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC) </sarcasm>
Paisan30 makes a good point about what would or wouldn't have "definitively ended" the controversy. I do think it's worth noting that Obama rejected Wright's offensive statements while refusing to repudiate the man. How's this variant on Scjessey's theme? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 23:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
[out] I'm fine with Josiah's rework of Scjessey's attempt. Tvoz | talk 20:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, with Josiah's modified version of Scjessey's proposal in the article does this close the edit war about how much content should be included about the Wright controversy in the main article for now? Obviously if new developments occur in the future more content will need to be discussed/added, but for now, is everyone at least willing to not edit war over the content in the Wright paragraph? There is another point of contention to discuss (his voting record). -- Bobblehead (rants) 01:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning racially and politically charged sermons made by Obama's longtime pastor and religious mentor, Jeremiah Wright. [34] [35] Following significant negative media coverage, Obama responded to the controversy by delivering a speech entitled " A More Perfect Union" at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [36] In the speech, Obama rejected Wright's offensive comments, but declined to disown the man himself. [30] Although the speech was generally well-received for its attempt to explain and contextualize Wright's comments, [30] [37] some critics continued to press the question of Obama's long-standing relationship with Wright. [38] [33]
In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning Obama's 23-year relationship with his former pastor and religious mentor, Jeremiah Wright. [39] [40] Videos surfaced of some of Wright's sermons (in which he claimed, for example, "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color" and attributed the 9/11 attacks to American faults ranging from taking the country from the Indian tribes by terror, bombing Grenada, Panama, Libya, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, and supporting state terrorism against the Palestinians and South Africa) [41] [42] and Obama responded by condemning some of Wright's remarks and cutting Wright's connections to his Presidential campaign. He also delivered a speech devoted to the subject, which he sought to put it in the context of racial and other political divides in America. [43] [30] Although the speech was generally well-received, [30] [44] critics continued to question the implications of Obama's long and close relationship with Wright. [45] [33]
I think that the current version of the Wright paragraph of the "presidential campaign" section gives the matter about as much weight and detail as the section can take. I specifically reject the suggestion that the details of Wright's 9/11 sermon or HIV conspiracy claims are important enough to the life story of Barack Obama to merit inclusion in his biography. Obama wasn't even in the congregation when the 9/11 sermon was made, and the suggestion that he's responsible for a specific statement that his minister said when he wasn't even there is on the face of it absurd.
However, there is a larger argument which has slightly more validity, which is that the offensive statements seen in the Wright clips were representative of an anti-American strain in the theological tradition to which Obama chose to ally himself. I don't happen to think that that strain is terribly important to Obama's life, but it's clear that Trinity United Church of Christ was important in his personal and political development, and any treatment of that should indicate (succinctly!) that the church is controversial.
Therefore, let me suggest another way to incorporate more context for the Wright controversy into the article: Either we add a sentence or two about Obama's religious journey to the "Early life and career" section, or expand the discussion of religion under "Personal life", possibly into a section of its own. The idea would be to succinctly indicate the role that Wright and Trinity played in Obama's journey to Christianity, and while doing so identify their controversial association with black theology. I'm sure that with a little research we could find a reliable source criticizing Obama and Trinity in these terms. That, together with the sections from Dreams from My Father in which Obama talks about Trinity, and this excerpt from The Audacity of Hope, could form the backbone of a (short!) section on Obama's religious views and the way they've intersected with issues of race. If we can sketch the contours of Obama's relationship with Trinity and Wright in that context, perhaps that would give enough of an indication of why some commentators are still objecting to the fact that Obama didn't end his longstanding religious affiliation.
Do we think this might be a way forward? Quoting Wright directly is simply outside the purview of a brief biography of Barack Obama. But a thumbnail sketch of Obama's religious journey, including his association with a church based on black theology, isn't. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 19:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Quoth Andyvphil:
Please name one. I've just looked through all the quotes in the article. Every quotation is either something Obama himself said, or (in a very few cases) a quotation of a notable commentator speaking or writing about Obama. Wright's sermons were not about Obama, and Obama was not present when the most offensive snippets were uttered. In the context of the campaign, the details of what Wright said are important. But since there is no evidence that Barack Obama believes that the CIA developed the AIDS virus, or 9/11 represented America's chickens coming home to roost, the Wright comments are irrelevant to the biography of Barack Obama. As I suggested at the top of this section, an argument can be made for a balanced portrait of Barack Obama's religious life and the theology of his chosen church. (By the way, I don't know where you get the idea that anyone was trying to distinguish between Wright and Trinity UCC.) But there is no reason to include the details of Jeremiah Wright's jeremiads in Obama's biographical article, any more than there's a reason to include "it depends what the meaning of 'is' is" in Hillary Clinton's. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 01:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
I tried to link to his sister's article, but for some reason, it took at least three times and someone pulled the link once. Why? What does anyone have against her? Ericl ( talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Considering the current rapid expansion of this section, and the apparent enthusiasm of several editors to add still more, is it time to create Early life and career of Barack Obama? There are enough sources out there to build a good article, and plenty of examples where this has been done for other political figures [2] [3] [4] whose early lives are subjects of close study and popular interest. -- HailFire ( talk) 21:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
72.0.180.2 as you have now made an account on wiki i would take my advise and start using it before you get yourself into trouble. Realist2 ( talk) 22:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Lol fair enough i cant argue with that i suppose but i was only trying to warn you, ill leave you to it. How you can handle 2 accounts is a mistery to me tho, ones hard enough. Realist2 ( talk) 22:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Im sure either way you will be fine, just make it clear to all that you have 2, and never no matter how tempting use them both to get your point across or use them to win edit wars. Realist2 ( talk) 22:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
So now, can we please return the discussion in this talk page section to the original proposal about creating an Early life and career of Barack Obama article? -- HailFire ( talk) 23:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, don't expect many people to read such an article. Using the http://stats.grok.se/en/ page view counter:
In March 2008, so far:
For February 2008:
Anything moved into one of these subarticles, quickly loses about 99% of its readership. Wasted Time R ( talk) 03:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Just did it, improvements needed. -- HailFire ( talk) 07:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
In response to my edit summarized as major edit: revert to version of 2008-02-26 for quick start on summary style; added {{main| Early life and career of Barack Obama}}; linked Sr. & DfMF, Andyvphil reverts and writes: unacceptable to begin with revert. And why is that, Andyvphil? -- HailFire ( talk) 12:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
In the Presidential campaign section, the paragraph beginning:
Needs to be corrected. Barack is not a "her" and "his" husband is not Bill Clinton. Someone has been doing a little too much cut and pasting without looking at what they are doing. 199.125.109.52 ( talk) 21:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Could we include a longer bit about this in Personal Life? I think it would be prudent to get all the three remaining serious candidates' NWs straightened out and included, as I voiced on the Hillary page. The McCain page already has his NW in the infobox and the subject of net worths was of substantial interest in the 2004 presidential campaign, why not now? PulpatineFiction ( talk) 04:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
the Barack means a peach in Hungarian :-)
Oh if only Wikipedia would bring back the 32 kB page limit, or at the very least establish a new hard limit of 64 kB. Here is how this article shows up on Google:
Yes, 520 kB, although 420 kB is from images. The source code is 141 kB, and it hangs up my computer trying to load it. And please, 226 references? Surely some of those references could have been used for two sentences in the article instead of only one. 199.125.109.52 ( talk) 22:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
No pictures on the talk page. It is the pictures that slows down the article. Has nothing to do with popularity. With the photos the article is 460 kilobytes. This talk page is only 183 kilobytes. Both load just as fast for me. SayCheeeeeese ( talk) 20:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Obama has been linked to another Baptist Minister in Chicago. He is James Meeks a part of th Southside Baptist Church. We should add this to the article ASAP.( Rhinostampede ( talk) 21:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC))
I've just reverted the last two edits ( diff) because (a) they restored controversial Rev. Wright stuff against current consensus and (b) they broke some references I'd been painstakingly working on. Please seek consensus! -- Scjessey ( talk) 19:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, an expanded account of the Jeremiah Wright controversy is more suited to Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. The campaign section in this article only needs to be a brief summary, or it will conflict with the ideals of WP:RECENT. Hasn't this already been agreed upon many times? -- Scjessey ( talk) 19:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Obama has faced criticism stemming from a March 2008 ABC News report that highlighted several sermons from Obama's long-time pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. In them, Wright accused the federal government of selling drugs to blacks, creating the HIV virus to infect blacks, [5] and perpetuating racism that led to disproportionate imprisonment of blacks. In one sermon, Wright said that the United State was responsible for the September 11th, 2001 attacks and urged black Americans to ask God to "damn America." [6] Following the story, Obama faced criticism for referring to Wright as his "spiritual advisor", [7] attending the church for 20 years, and maintaining close personal ties to the minister. [8] Obama points to Wright as the inspiration for the title of his book The Audacity of Hope and placed Wright on his campaign's African American Religious Leadership Committee in December 2007. [9] [10] [11] Obama had begun distancing himself from Wright when he withdrew a request that Wright deliver a speech at the announcement of his presidential bid, but when several videos of Wright's sermons appeared on YouTube in the first week of March 2008, [12] [13] Obama released a statement "vehemently disagree[ing with] and strongly condemn[ing] ... inflammatory and appalling remarks Wright made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents." Obama said the remarks had come to his attention at the beginning of his presidential campaign but that because Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of Obama's strong links to the Trinity faith community, he had not thought it "appropriate" to leave the church. [14] After the publicity of March, the campaign announced that Wright has left its African American Religious Leadership Committee. [15]
-- Fovean Author ( talk) 01:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
There is still way too much weight given to the Jeremiah Wright controversy, which is more about Jeremiah Wright than Barack Obama. It should be a brief summary comprising one or two sentences. The details can be more thoroughly explored in the related articles, as I have stated previously. I believe a consensus on this matter has already been reached, but we may as well seek agreement again. What say you, fellow Wikipedians? -- Scjessey ( talk) 00:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Really? Wright was this guy's pastor for 20 years, married him to his wife, baptized his children and inspired his book. He served on his campaign and now Michelle Obama quotes him.
Two sentences for that? Really? -- Fovean Author ( talk) 01:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Bahasa is the national language of Indonesia. Bahasa is the popular synonym of Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian Language). Malaysia never stated Bahasa as their national language, because they have stated that Malay language and English as their national language.
I am strongly suggest to delete the world "Malaysian" in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.95.225 ( talk) 00:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Earlier I replaced an existing citation that had an incorrect use of the word " madrassa" in it's displayed title (see Madrassa#Misuse_of_the_word for the correct use - it means any kind of school in both Arabic and non-misused English).
The misleading citation (now back up) is called "Obama madrassa myth debunked": the actual Chigaco Tribune article's content is fine - it's just the title being displayed on its own that will mislead readers into seeing madrassas as Islamic and/or radical (which is the developed suggestion in the "Insight" story/slur). It is displayed for all to misread at the base of our article! I had previously created a discussion on this particular citation - but it's now been 5-day auto-archived.
I replaced the misleading citation with an already-used citation that covered ALL the points in the preceding sentences that needed referencing. The new citation used the word "madrassa" correctly - ie. it specifically details an "Islamic" madrassa - as oppose to just saying "madrassa" and assuming an Islamic and/or radical form.
Unfortunately, many articles over a period of time (and readily available on the internet) did misuse the word. That does not make it right though - The New York Times has issued a correction over its own incorrect use of "madrassa" - saying "while some are radical, most are not".
I'll give it another go - can anyone reverting it please say why here? -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 00:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
These two editors continue to add or edit the article to deliberately distort reality to favor their worldviews. For example, the following paragraph was added in response to A More Perfect Union:
ABC News reported that "buried in his eloquent, highly praised speech on America's racial divide, Sen. Barack Obama contradicted more than a year of denials and spin from him and his staff about his knowledge of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's controversial sermons." [16] Critics have found the response not only contradictory, but inadequate. For example, Mark Steyn, writing in the National Review observed "Obama is not supposed to be the candidate of the America-damners: He’s not the Reverend Al Sharpton or the Reverend Jesse Jackson or the rest of the racial-grievance mongers. Obama is meant to be the man who transcends the divisions of race... Yet since his early twenties [Obama]’s sat week after week listening to the ravings of just another cookie-cutter race huckster... the Reverend Wright['s] appeals to racial bitterness are supposed to be everything President Obama will transcend. Right now, it sounds more like the same-old same-old." [17] In the speech, Obama referred to his white grandmother and later explained that "she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know ... there's a reaction in her that doesn't go away and it comes out in the wrong way." [18]
The overwhelming response to the speech by the mass media has been positive, yet the addition of the paragraph above implies the complete opposite. This is clearly an attempt to manipulate the article to suit a personal agenda. Even if the paragraph was truly representative of the media response, it is far too detailed to be including in this WP:BLP. For too long, the factual integrity of this article has been threatened with POV edits like those performed by these two editors. Even a cursory glance at their editing histories will give an indication of their motivations. -- Scjessey ( talk) 14:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning racially- and politically-charged statements made by Obama's long-time pastor Jeremiah Wright. [19] [20] On March 18th, Obama delivered a speech in response to the controversy titled " A More Perfect Union" at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and while condemning the ill-received remarks Wright had made, he also sought to give them historical context by describing some of the events that have formed Wright's views on race. [21]
I've just reverted another substantial inflation and promotion of the so-called "Wright controversy" that had once again been added despite the established consensus not to. This issues surrounding Rev. Wright are fully explored in the Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 articles and do not need more than the neutrally-worded summary already present in this biography. I urge all editors to view the substantial talk page archive and note the prevailing consensus before adding this kind of inappropriate material. -- Scjessey ( talk) 00:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
It should have more info tho, i dont even think it mentions any of the comments the REV made. The bottom line is that this incident has cost him the whitehouse and the polls are showing it. Looks like Mc Cain is doing very well these days. If this event stops him being president it should be substancially covered. Realist2 ( talk) 14:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
"The bottom line is that this incident has cost him the whitehouse(sic) and the polls are showing it". Do you know when the election is? It's more than seven months away. Do you know that while some polls show McCain slightly ahead of Obama in a head to head, others actually show Obama slightly ahead? Are you aware that your comments show a gross violation of no-point of view? My feeling is that there are Obama haters here who are trying to impose their views. JonErber ( talk) 15:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Here is all that is said about Wright in this article: "In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning racially- and politically-charged statements made by Obama's long-time pastor Jeremiah Wright.[97][98] On March 18th, Obama delivered a speech in response to the controversy titled "A More Perfect Union" at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and while condemning the ill-received remarks Wright had made, he also sought to give them historical context by describing some of the events that have formed Wright's views on race." And you think this warrents a POV tag? Clearly it is you who needs to review the guidelines. There is a very limited amount of detail here because it is covered in much greater detail on both the campaign page, the Wright page, and the controversy page. You're using the POV tag as a weapon simply because you want to put more information in, clearly with your POV included. Adding a POV tag here is disruptive, and will result in reports for such behavior. If you have a problem with the coverage of Wright, take it to the appropriate articles. Grsz 11 16:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Following are Andyvphil’s proposed changes:
According to National Journal, a weekly magazine geared toward "Washington Insiders", in its 27th annual vote ratings, Senator Obama was the most liberal senator in 2007. The candidate shifted further to the left during 2007 prior to the Presidential primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate. Hillary Clinton ranked as the 16th most liberal Senator in 2007, voting differently than Obama on only 10 of the 297 votes considered in calculating the rankings. [22]
On the other hand, the rankings by the Americans for Democratic Action seem to show an opposite trend, with a 100% rating in 2005 declining to 95% in 2006 and 75% in 2007. [23] This is misleading, as the 2007 decline was due entirely to missed votes. In the sixty votes used by the ADA to measure a legislator's political liberalism during Obama's career in the Senate he has voted for the non-"liberal" result only once. [24] [25] [26]
(He proposes titling the following section "Obama, his church, his pastor, and politics")
Obama joined Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988, [27] three years after first coming to Chicago to take a job organizing the political activity of black churches in the city. [28]A megachurch with 10,000 members, Trinity is the largest congregation in the United Church of Christ. [27] The church is more Afrocentric and politically active than most black congregations and Obama began distancing himself from the political views of its dominant figure, recently retired 36-year pastor Jeremiah Wright, when he called Wright the night before the February 10, 2007 announcement of his Presidental candidacy to withdraw his request that Wright deliver an invocation at the event. Wright did however, attend the announcement, prayed with Mr. Obama beforehand, and joined the Obama campaign's African American Religious Leadership Committee. [29]
Obama joined Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988, [27] three years after first coming to Chicago to take a job organizing the political activity of black churches in the city. [30] A megachurch with 10,000 members, Trinity is the largest congregation in the United Church of Christ. [27] The church is more Afrocentric and politically active than most black congregations and Obama began distancing himself from the political views of its dominant figure, recently retired 36-year pastor Jeremiah Wright, when he called Wright the night before the February 10, 2007 announcement of his Presidental candidacy to withdraw his request that Wright deliver an invocation at the event. Wright did however, attend the announcement, prayed with Mr. Obama beforehand, and joined the Obama campaign's African American Religious Leadership Committee. [31]
After Wright's retirement (his last sermon was February 10, 2008) [32] copies of his sermons were offered for sale. News organizations like ABC News bought them and searched them for controversial material. ABC News found "repeated denunciations of the U.S. based on what he described as his reading of the Gospels and the treatment of black Americans." In addition to controversial comments after 9/11 that had been previously publicized ("We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is brought right back in our own front yards.") the site also quoted Wright as saying "No, no, no, not God bless America — God damn America!" [33] [34]
In March 2008 Obama went further then he had before, "vehemently disagree[ing with] and strongly condemn[ing]... inflammatory and appalling remarks Wright made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents." Obama said the remarks had come to his attention at the beginning of his presidential campaign but that because Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of Obama's strong links to the Trinity faith community, he had not thought it "appropriate" to leave the church. [35] The campaign announced at that point that "Rev. Wright is no longer serving on the African American Religious Leadership Committee." [36]
Repeat of Talk Comment in Previously Established 'Wright' Section:
HELLO ALL - I have spent several weeks away from this article, only revisiting to see how the Jeremiah Wright issue was being covered (as I have some historical knowledge of Rev. Wright). I must say that I was expecting a lively debate in the discussion boards, but I was not expecting any references in the article itself (given what I perceived to be an imbalance of passionate Obama supporters that seemed to have heavy editorial influence over the article). I am at least pleased to see the inclusion of certain facts in the article. I think it at least discusses enough to suggest to a reader that there is much below the surface on the Wright issue that requires further research. The reader can then dive deeper. I do, however, disagree with Bellwether...who, if left alone, would likely remove all references in the article other than Obama's claim to Christianity through his membership in that congregation. Rhetorical question: Does anyone on this board go to church on a weekly basis? Those of us that do attend church on a regular basis know how difficult it would become to receive a weekly sermon for 14 years that espouses views that are extremely contrary to one's own views. (Isn't that the time frame that was quoted by Obama as his membership in that church?) As one of the minority owners of a multimedia technology firm that owns diverse Internet TV sites, including StreamingFaith.com which has for years broadcasted the sermons of Rev. Wright, I can tell you that his sermons go way beyond the controversial clips they are showing on mainstream TV today. Networks on the right are going a little further by showing clips of Wright's claim that our government "invented AIDS to infect black people", or his claim that the government is "importing drugs to feed to black people" as part of its "plan to jail black people"...but the unedited sermons of Rev. Wright that have been broadcast over the years can only be described as the preaching of Hate and separatism. Even Obama must believe this to be true as he has distanced himself increasingly as the truth about Rev. Wright has become more widely known. Just to ask the obvious question: At what point during the last 14 years should we have expected a hopeful leader of our nation, one who preaches a message of national unity, to have stood up and walked out of Rev. Wright's separatist church? The big question, as the electorate evaluates this candidate, is "Why did it take so long?" ...As this relates to Wiki, remember, this is an article about a candidate for our highest office. Obama's decade long decision to associate with Rev. Wright cannot be erased with a few quick words of denouncement...and this article on Wiki that purports to be biographical in nature must include the ties to Rev. Wright to maintain its accuracy and completeness. Unlike the dentist analogy, Obama has over the years told us how important Rev. Wright has been to him...Obama made this bed by not walking away on principle earlier. Jtextor ( talk) 15:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[15] BLP does not prohibit us from sceptically examining Obama's claims. Indeed NPOV requires us to give the skeptical POV due weight. Andyvphil ( talk) 08:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Perhaps [Obama] merely used the Trinity United Church of Christ as a political stepping-stone. African-American political life is centered around churches, and his election to the Illinois State Senate with the support of Chicago's black political machine required church membership. Trinity United happens to be Chicago's largest and most politically active black church.
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) See also: Obama (1995), pp. 135–139.
both are very well written, and both should be included (especially Wright). In regards to the National Journal, I think that is appropriate since there is already a few op-ed quotes in Obama's article, one saying something about him being the most likely man to change the world. With such a glowing op-ed quote already in the article, the national review quote adds appropriate balance for NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.46.9.46 ( talk) 16:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Andyvphil wrote: As I keep saying, if you don't like it, change it. I didn't, so I did. -- HailFire ( talk) 17:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Cocaine Long before he ever ran for political office, Obama wrote a book about, well, himself, and his amazing his journey from messed up kid to, um, himself. It was quite an epic, considering he was 34 at the time. In that book, called "Dreams From My Father", he writes that he used marijuana and cocaine ("maybe a little blow".) Oddly enough, he writes that he didn't try heroin because -- wait for it -- he didn't like the pusher who was selling it. (Weren't there any other reasons?) In a later interview, he added "Teenage boys are frequently confused."
I am cross posting this to Obama, and Obama Campaign 08.
Now that Obama has polled ahead of clinton for two days in a row, after being behind her during the time of the wright issue, I would like to advocate that new progress on it has ceased, new first-tier reporting on it has ceased, and it is receding into historical background. So it is time for editors to stop adding material on it, until such time as something new happens in the issue. 72.0.180.2 ( talk) 22:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
If Obama was a Republican this issue would have received its own "controversies" subsection. Lesser issues have generated such sections that deal with Republicans. Blatant POV, systemic and specific. [17] -- Heckler & Koch Talk 23:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
prior to the peak was it ok to add as much material as possible on wright, barack's "uncle" that believes uncle sam made HIV to kill black people, told his congregation "god damn america", talked about the "us of kkk-a", hangs with louie farrakhan, etc here? CarlosRodriguez ( talk) 03:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Barack's full name is not Sadam Hussein Obama, Jr. Maybe I'm wrong, but it certainly doesn't mention the Sadam part anywhere else online. I'm pretty sure theres a hacking going on. Peterrobot ( talk) 00:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
10 people who can change the world, someone might want to check that out i didnt see any mention of obama. I dont think its the right source —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.135.203 ( talk) 01:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Editor of This Page,
I fail to understand why it is inappropriate to include the controversies of Senator Obama. It is as relevant to include controversies as it is to include honors and awards. I see that many other political figures have controversies included on pages about them. Furthermore, Senator Obama has publicly came out and talked about the issues. It is important to give all information in a biography.
Thank you for reading,
Person For Equal Editing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.191.25 ( talk) 23:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Could themes like this be considered so the article is more balanced, even from the perspective of persons who have favourable or neutral positions on Sen. Barack Obama's supporters?
Suggested draft of text:
"Barack Obama has distributed a document expressing his appreciation for the endorsement he received from the indicted-Governor of Puerto Rico, Aníbal Acevedo Vilá, charged with 19 counts (reportedly including election fraud and corruption) by the United States Department of Justice. [1] "
My Boxing Ring ( talk) 22:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Q1This needs to be removed from the Political Campaigning section, 3rd paragraph " Clinton, in turn, had support from the poor and the less educated, as well as those who have not paid as much attention to the race: This is bias and alludes to Clinton supporters as being uneducated, poor, and unknowledgeable about the primary race! This is absurd! This is exactly the type of information that hinders people from being able to learn something without other peoples personal opinions! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polyscijunky ( talk • contribs) March 27, 2008 copied from Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ. [18]-- Bobblehead (rants) 00:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
If you want to help McCain win nothing could be better than to bash Clinton's supporters in this article. :-) Borock ( talk) 16:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
The first reference's source is "Inoglo". It is supposed to be "Inogolo"
Σαι (
Talk) 12:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
This should be clarified as it's been brought up that Obama's not an actual professor (he is): http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html
Statement Regarding Professor Barack Obama
The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer."
From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year.
Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching.
Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.
Flatterworld ( talk) 16:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
theres article fails to mention any of the current issues regarding how obama hows to defend the fact hes not muslim. i am not talking about his muslim background but its a big deal when someone has to defend themselves they are not a muslim. www.obamamuslim.com can be used as a great reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.208.7 ( talk) 04:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I notice there is only two sentences on his position for this issue. After watching today's town hall meeting I'm still confused as to his true position as I'm sure others are. Would someone be willing to expand a bit on this? 216.220.15.211 ( talk) 18:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Is not one a lecturer on constitutional law, not of constitutional law? 67.163.141.14 ( talk) 15:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
2. he is a lecturer in French"
synonyms: university teacher, college teacher, tutor, reader, instructor, academic, academician.
Do people think we can unprotect the page now, or would the unresolved issues (categorizing Obama's political history, etc.) bring us another edit war? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 01:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is this page really protected? I'm not buying the "He's a politician currently running for office...blah blah blah" when the other two candidates, McCain and Hillary are unprotected. The argument isn't made. Not to mention Hillary's page has some interesting text at the top that should be removed.
This page is not accurate about his life, past or present and is grossly biased. I thought Wiki was concerned with the truth but it doesn't appear so, at least on this page. All of the information should be made available for all to see, not just part out of ideology. I am quite concerned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiddanger ( talk • contribs) 03:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Despite the fact that Obama's supporters are diligent in removing anything remotely unfavorable on this article, there should be a section for criticisms as they do exist and they are legitimate. Anyone else believe that this is necessary for an unbiased article? Rgwilliams ( talk) 15:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
This article says his efforts to quit smoking were "well-publicized" but an obscure article about him smoking does not make it "well-publicized." The article cited does not say it was "well-publicized." In fact, the article says he is quiting to make himself a more appealing presidential candidate, but that information, which is actually presented, is NOT shown in this article.
The term "well-publicized" makes it look like he is not trying to hide his smoking habit, but the article clearly states that is indeed his motivation for quitting. This description is biased and should be removed. Thegoodlocust ( talk) 05:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
<digression into personal attacks removed by Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 06:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)>
On the topic, I never had a problem with removing the bit about making him a better candidate or however it's worded. But it certainly was "well-publicized". Grsz 11 06:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks like when the header section got "cleaned up" this weekend, the cleanup also broke MiszaBot so that it archived everything to dev/null that was older than 24 hours. I've restored the formatting of the MiszaBot template to the format MiszaBot likes and I think I've re-added all the discussions that MisazBot mistakenly purged. -- Bobblehead (rants) 17:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Why can't we just protect articles of all the poltitical people? because people ALWAYS vandalize it anyway —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.210.244.175 ( talk) 00:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Do voting record-based categorizations and rankings from partisan or nonpartisan sources help improve readers' understanding of Barack Obama's Senate career or his politics? An example of the disputed text is linked here.
According to the National Journal Senator Obama was labeled the most liberal senator in 2007. [2] According to the Americans for Democratic Action In the sixty votes used by the ADA to measure a legislator's political liberalism during Obama's career in the Senate he has voted for the non-"liberal" result only once. [3]
Yahel Guhan 04:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Whatever decision is made regarding the label 'liberal' and Mr. Obama, it seems important to link to his recent disavowal of that label..?....(or is that too partisan coming from him? perhaps partly for political reasons?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.141.14 ( talk) 15:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Sharing this blog entry to help illustrate why some of the editors here (myself included) consider votes-based "political spectrum" categorizations (or characterizations), non-notable at best, or at worst, unnecessarily misleading. Comments welcome. -- HailFire ( talk) 15:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
There's considerably more to MSNBC's analysis of Obama's voting record than your blog suggests. And, of course, the existance of an article on the subject in a RS demonstrates, by definition, the opposite of "non- notability". You don't get to censor the POV, found in multiple RS, that Obama's voting record can be meaningfully analyzed to determine where he stands on the political spectrum merely because you think such analysis is misleading. We are supposed to reflect RS, not overrule them. Andyvphil ( talk) 11:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
how come there is no issue with mccains ranking in the political spectrum. its posted in his article which i'm for btw. i think obama's ranking in the political spectrum should also be posted. i think the issue here is that he is the #1 partisan senator and some of you see that as controversial. well the ranking is the ranking. if he was in the center i'm sure the information would be put in the article, since they were ok with putting mccain's ranking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.90.42 ( talk) 23:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Scjessey admits that only favorable information is allowed on this page.
On his and my talk page, User:scjessey explains that only favorable information belongs on the Barack Obama page. Information about Obama's voting record, information about Obama's yearlong denial of his knowledge of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's sermons does not have "any place in the BLP. That should be on the campaign page, if anywhere." User:Scjessey talk
This of course is a clear admission that the Barrack Obama page violates the NPOV policy. Jwvoiland ( talk) 15:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)jwvoiland
This article has been flagged for violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Jwvoiland ( talk) 16:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed the tag for a second time, as there is no justification for it being there. Controversies regarding the presidential campaign are discussed in the article for the presidential campaign. Blocks will be issued for continued disruptive behavior. Grsz 11 17:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The flag isn't necessary. Anyone who reads it, and compares it to the articles about George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton and John McCain, can easily see tha tit's an NPOV violation. Without criticism, it's a hagiography. Banishing controversial material to other articles that no one will ever read is a whitewash. Let's be neutral about the subject. Kossack4Truth ( talk) 19:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The tag reads "The neutrality of this article is disputed." Hard to disagree, with several having said so in this section. "Please see the discussion on the talk page." That's here. "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." It isn't. Don't. Andyvphil ( talk) 12:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
If there is a true "consensus" as to this page's neutrality, why do several editors keep undoing information that sees Senator Obama in a not so favorable light? A number of editors have included information that a number of others continue to undo, claiming "consensus" against it. The NPOV of this article is clearly challenged. It is not consistent with the NPOV mandate to rule that material about particular controversies must be moved off of this article and into a separate page.
Muls1103 (
talk) 15:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)muls1103
::What is the personal insult "Clearly you aren't the new user you seem to be" supposed to mean ? The editors of this page continue to show their hostility to
NPOV in favor of Obama-spin. (had been logged out, signing now
Muls1103 (
talk) 15:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)muls1103)
12.145.168.6 (
talk) 15:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)muls1103
I'm accused of hostility, while the other side is using sockpuppets! Ha! Grsz 11 16:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone here contend - with an actual argument - that, despite the discussions littering this talk page and archived versions, that the neutrality of this article is somehow not in dispute? I have re-added the NPOV tag to reflect this. -- Davidp ( talk) 01:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course the neutrality of the aricle in currently in dispute. See the FA review], in progress. Andyvphil ( talk) 03:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Considering that factual information is left out of this article when it is a negative (no mention of challenging ballots in illinois, but extensive discussion of his fed senate race) and that an entire block is dedicated to his DNC speech (positive, non-bio) and includes a non-factual statement that it's when most americans were introduced to obama, I find the neutrality of this article to be clearly lacking. --anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.161.234 ( talk) 17:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
This is ridiculous, and reeks of Obama supporters trying to hide any critical information. You don't have to agree that something is "controversial," but it was still a controversy focused by the media, and the public. This article is getting pretty laughable. This isn't going to last long. Before you know it, a million people are going swarm here, and start yet another edit war will ensue. Why not just make a section, and keep it in one place, before a bunch of people start fighting over where to place it, and whether or not they "agree" that something was a big enough story. This isn't suppose to be a fan page. Almost all other politicians, have had a criticism, or controversy portion of their article to get it all out there, and not to have people sliding stuff into the other portions, where others might miss it. This is the easiest solution to move past the "bias" assessment. Things like the "no hand over heart during the national anthem," "won't wear a flag pin," stories, are still notable, whether you find them ridiculous or not. My point is, it's better to agree on these controversies/criticisms now, give them a spot, and move on. This back and forth is getting tiresome. 07:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. This article was definitely written by Obama fans. 138.67.4.87 ( talk) 22:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
There should be some mention of the hate church he has belonged to for the last 20 years in the introduction - what Christopher Hitchens called Obama's "dumb, nasty, ethnic rock 'n' roll racist church" - and the role of hate preacher Jeremiah Wright, Obama's priest. HillaryFan ( talk) 10:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
There should be mention of the controversy concerning Pastor Wright, but to call the church from which it came from a Hate Church is out of line. -- DavidD4scnrt ( talk) 07:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
While we're talking about undue weight, I'm wondering whether the section on the 2004 DNC keynote address could be trimmed a bit. It's true that the speech was most Americans' first exposure to Obama, but does its significance in his biography really merit as much detail as we're giving it? Could we make the same biographical point more succinctly? I wonder whether we need the first two block quotes. It's the red state/blue state bit that seems to have lingered in the public consciousness. (Well, at least it's the bit that I remember from that speech.) — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 20:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
As nobody who thinks the tag belongs can explain why the tag belongs/that the article is POV, it should be removed. It's been argued countless time why it should not be there, and now the editors who keep adding it seem to be adding it just for the heck of it, or because they don't agree with the consensus. Grsz 11 03:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
As I explained, ...A purposely short and vague description of a controversy of fundamental and demonstrated importance to Obama's career, answered solely by Obama's spin, with no other POV on the subject allowed... we also have the enforcement of Obama's POV that such "old politics" characterizations of his record as favorable ADA ratings must be excluded. The POV tag says what it means and means what it says. A dispute about the neutrality of this article is in progress... Andyvphil ( talk) 23:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC) I'm readding the POV tag. Andyvphil ( talk) 13:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
NEW COMMENT: The POV label is good. It alerts the reader that there is a dispute. Then the reader can decide for himself. In America, there are lots of warning. I heard that there's a warning that coffee and tea is hot. Gasoline is poisonous. So, beware of this article is appropriate. There is plenty of debate so the label reflects consensus (that there is debate). Just beause there is a POV label does not mean Obama is bad. Actually, Obama is a good speaker and will be the next American President. I salute him or whoever is the next President. KVSTamilNadu ( talk) 13:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Instead of just wacking in NPOV tags all over the place without comment, kindly explain exactly which bits are POV so that we can try to address them. Give us specifics, rather than simply generalities. -- Scjessey ( talk) 14:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Policy on
article size states that an article over 100KB should "almost certainly" be broken up. This article is at 484. Adding information that is already quite thoroughly covered elsewhere violates the
Manual of Style in this regard.
Grsz
11 19:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to throw an idea out there:
Just throwing that out there as a start. -- Bobblehead (rants) 00:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning racially- and politically-charged statements made by Obama's long-time pastor Jeremiah Wright. [4] [5] In them, Wright accused the federal government of selling drugs to blacks, creating the HIV virus to infect blacks, [6] and perpetuating racism that led to disproportionate imprisonment of blacks. In one sermon, Wright said that the United States was responsible for the September 11th, 2001 attacks and urged black Americans to ask God to "damn America." [7] Following the story, Obama faced criticism for referring to Wright as his "spiritual advisor," [8] attending the church for 20 years, and maintaining close personal ties to the minister. [9] Wright presided over Obama's wedding and baptized both of his daughters; Obama points to Wright as the inspiration for the title of his book The Audacity of Hope and placed Wright on his campaign's African American Religious Leadership Committee in December 2007. [10] [11] [12]
Obama had begun distancing himself from Wright when he withdrew a request that Wright deliver a speech at the announcement of his presidential bid in February 2008, but when several videos of Wright's sermons appeared on YouTube in the first week of March 2008, [13] [14] Obama released a statement "vehemently disagree[ing with] and strongly condemn[ing] ... inflammatory and appalling remarks Wright made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents." Obama said the remarks had come to his attention at the beginning of his presidential campaign but that because Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of Obama's strong links to the Trinity faith community, he had not thought it "appropriate" to leave the church. [15] After the publicity of March, the campaign announced that Wright has left its African American Religious Leadership Committee. [16] On March 18th, Obama delivered a speech in response to the controversy titled " A More Perfect Union" at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and while condemning the ill-received remarks Wright had made, he also sought to give them historical context by describing some of the events that have formed Wright's views on race. [17]
In the speech, Obama referred to his white grandmother and later explained that "she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know ... there's a reaction in her that doesn't go away and it comes out in the wrong way." [18] ABC News reported that "buried in his eloquent, highly praised speech on America's racial divide, Sen. Barack Obama contradicted more than a year of denials and spin from him and his staff about his knowledge of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's controversial sermons." [19] Critics have found the response not only contradictory, but inadequate. For example, Mark Steyn, writing in the National Review observed,
"Obama is not supposed to be the candidate of the America-damners: He’s not the Reverend Al Sharpton or the Reverend Jesse Jackson or the rest of the racial-grievance mongers. Obama is meant to be the man who transcends the divisions of race ... Yet since his early twenties [Obama]’s sat week after week listening to the ravings of just another cookie-cutter race huckster ... the Reverend Wright['s] appeals to racial bitterness are supposed to be everything President Obama will transcend. Right now, it sounds more like the same-old same-old." [20]
Comments about the three-paragraph version down here please. Kossack4Truth ( talk) 01:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's my attempt at a compromise. This is a combination of some ideas from User:Bobblehead and the original text from 72.0.180.2:
I believe this satisfies the need for brevity, yet still manages to include more of the negative aspects that are desired by some. The references are intact if a wholesale copy/paste is needed. -- Scjessey ( talk) 02:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
It's awesome! --
Scjessey (
talk) 02:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC) </sarcasm>
Paisan30 makes a good point about what would or wouldn't have "definitively ended" the controversy. I do think it's worth noting that Obama rejected Wright's offensive statements while refusing to repudiate the man. How's this variant on Scjessey's theme? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 23:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
[out] I'm fine with Josiah's rework of Scjessey's attempt. Tvoz | talk 20:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, with Josiah's modified version of Scjessey's proposal in the article does this close the edit war about how much content should be included about the Wright controversy in the main article for now? Obviously if new developments occur in the future more content will need to be discussed/added, but for now, is everyone at least willing to not edit war over the content in the Wright paragraph? There is another point of contention to discuss (his voting record). -- Bobblehead (rants) 01:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning racially and politically charged sermons made by Obama's longtime pastor and religious mentor, Jeremiah Wright. [34] [35] Following significant negative media coverage, Obama responded to the controversy by delivering a speech entitled " A More Perfect Union" at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [36] In the speech, Obama rejected Wright's offensive comments, but declined to disown the man himself. [30] Although the speech was generally well-received for its attempt to explain and contextualize Wright's comments, [30] [37] some critics continued to press the question of Obama's long-standing relationship with Wright. [38] [33]
In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning Obama's 23-year relationship with his former pastor and religious mentor, Jeremiah Wright. [39] [40] Videos surfaced of some of Wright's sermons (in which he claimed, for example, "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color" and attributed the 9/11 attacks to American faults ranging from taking the country from the Indian tribes by terror, bombing Grenada, Panama, Libya, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, and supporting state terrorism against the Palestinians and South Africa) [41] [42] and Obama responded by condemning some of Wright's remarks and cutting Wright's connections to his Presidential campaign. He also delivered a speech devoted to the subject, which he sought to put it in the context of racial and other political divides in America. [43] [30] Although the speech was generally well-received, [30] [44] critics continued to question the implications of Obama's long and close relationship with Wright. [45] [33]
I think that the current version of the Wright paragraph of the "presidential campaign" section gives the matter about as much weight and detail as the section can take. I specifically reject the suggestion that the details of Wright's 9/11 sermon or HIV conspiracy claims are important enough to the life story of Barack Obama to merit inclusion in his biography. Obama wasn't even in the congregation when the 9/11 sermon was made, and the suggestion that he's responsible for a specific statement that his minister said when he wasn't even there is on the face of it absurd.
However, there is a larger argument which has slightly more validity, which is that the offensive statements seen in the Wright clips were representative of an anti-American strain in the theological tradition to which Obama chose to ally himself. I don't happen to think that that strain is terribly important to Obama's life, but it's clear that Trinity United Church of Christ was important in his personal and political development, and any treatment of that should indicate (succinctly!) that the church is controversial.
Therefore, let me suggest another way to incorporate more context for the Wright controversy into the article: Either we add a sentence or two about Obama's religious journey to the "Early life and career" section, or expand the discussion of religion under "Personal life", possibly into a section of its own. The idea would be to succinctly indicate the role that Wright and Trinity played in Obama's journey to Christianity, and while doing so identify their controversial association with black theology. I'm sure that with a little research we could find a reliable source criticizing Obama and Trinity in these terms. That, together with the sections from Dreams from My Father in which Obama talks about Trinity, and this excerpt from The Audacity of Hope, could form the backbone of a (short!) section on Obama's religious views and the way they've intersected with issues of race. If we can sketch the contours of Obama's relationship with Trinity and Wright in that context, perhaps that would give enough of an indication of why some commentators are still objecting to the fact that Obama didn't end his longstanding religious affiliation.
Do we think this might be a way forward? Quoting Wright directly is simply outside the purview of a brief biography of Barack Obama. But a thumbnail sketch of Obama's religious journey, including his association with a church based on black theology, isn't. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 19:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Quoth Andyvphil:
Please name one. I've just looked through all the quotes in the article. Every quotation is either something Obama himself said, or (in a very few cases) a quotation of a notable commentator speaking or writing about Obama. Wright's sermons were not about Obama, and Obama was not present when the most offensive snippets were uttered. In the context of the campaign, the details of what Wright said are important. But since there is no evidence that Barack Obama believes that the CIA developed the AIDS virus, or 9/11 represented America's chickens coming home to roost, the Wright comments are irrelevant to the biography of Barack Obama. As I suggested at the top of this section, an argument can be made for a balanced portrait of Barack Obama's religious life and the theology of his chosen church. (By the way, I don't know where you get the idea that anyone was trying to distinguish between Wright and Trinity UCC.) But there is no reason to include the details of Jeremiah Wright's jeremiads in Obama's biographical article, any more than there's a reason to include "it depends what the meaning of 'is' is" in Hillary Clinton's. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 01:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)