Welcome!
Hello, Jtextor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
Alientraveller 12:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no need to add more to the infobox when it is already discussed in another section. HoosierState 04:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
What other section? There is only one reference that I fond and that related to his father. I have read the history on the issue of Obama's Muslim ties. I am an independent voter and I like Obama a great deal, but the issue of his Muslim childhood ties is just not going to go away. I proposed a balanced approach in the discussion pages a few minutes ago - basically that a matter of fact approach that includes only the Muslim childhood references that he includes in his biography (or those that his close family openly discusses), followed by a paragraph from his biography that speaks to his multi-cultural upbringing. It's just not reasonable for biased supporters to hawkishly sit on every Muslim-related edit and immediately 'undo'. I do not know you well enough to know where you stand...but you did seem to pounce pretty quickly. What's wrong with a clear reference in the Info box that confirms his Adulthood disposition as differentiated from his childhood practices? Jtextor ( talk) 04:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Mostly it's covered well enough in a sub-article, Barack Obama background whisper campaign and media controversy. Besides it just clutters up the infobox when there are many different things listed. Just for future reference it's proper Wiki ediquette to respond on the other user's talk page. I have watched Barack Obama's wiki page thats the reason I changed it so quickly. HoosierState 04:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Here's an excerpt from the Discussion page that I typed earlier regarding the treatment of a meaningful part of his history in a sub-article:
- Including a significant portion of his life history only in the 'whisper campaign' section seems a clear attempt to discredit the references, even though the facts are derived from his biography and his family. The problem is clear: His supporters are working very hard to suppress his Muslim origins and his detractors are trying very hard to reveal the same. Unfortunately for his supporters, Wikipedia is intended to show the facts...not hide the facts that are inconvenient truths. I am sure Mitt Romney would love to have avoided talking about religion, but that's not possible in American politics. In Obama's case, the Muslim connection is real and its admitted. The only fair approach would be to include the background information in matter-of-fact form...then follow it with something from Obama's biography that speaks to multi-cultural balance. I suspect that even Obama's bio, as would be the case with any politician, should not be considered a trusted source as these biographies are obviously self-serving...but at least the biography reference would alert Wiki readers to digest with caution. I know there's a lot at stake here for his supporters, which is why the article has such a light reference to Muslim connections, but the Wiki rules must prevail...the content cannot be manipulated for political purposes...the Muslim references have to be included...his detractors just need not be greedy and have to be prepared to accept something less than their desires.Jtextor (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
"
- It really seems like a perversion of Wiki to put such a meaningful discussion into a sub-article. I know the anti-Obama zealots would love to go crazy with the Muslim connection, but even the supporters such as yourself have got to agree that it's a part of his past. Do you really think you are going to keep a lid on this history when he gets the nomination? Obama's discussion of his multi-cultural background establishes a nice, balanced tone. That's ultimately going to be necessary for people to hear to get past the issue. Why not start now? Jtextor ( talk) 04:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Jtextor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
Alientraveller 12:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no need to add more to the infobox when it is already discussed in another section. HoosierState 04:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
What other section? There is only one reference that I fond and that related to his father. I have read the history on the issue of Obama's Muslim ties. I am an independent voter and I like Obama a great deal, but the issue of his Muslim childhood ties is just not going to go away. I proposed a balanced approach in the discussion pages a few minutes ago - basically that a matter of fact approach that includes only the Muslim childhood references that he includes in his biography (or those that his close family openly discusses), followed by a paragraph from his biography that speaks to his multi-cultural upbringing. It's just not reasonable for biased supporters to hawkishly sit on every Muslim-related edit and immediately 'undo'. I do not know you well enough to know where you stand...but you did seem to pounce pretty quickly. What's wrong with a clear reference in the Info box that confirms his Adulthood disposition as differentiated from his childhood practices? Jtextor ( talk) 04:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Mostly it's covered well enough in a sub-article, Barack Obama background whisper campaign and media controversy. Besides it just clutters up the infobox when there are many different things listed. Just for future reference it's proper Wiki ediquette to respond on the other user's talk page. I have watched Barack Obama's wiki page thats the reason I changed it so quickly. HoosierState 04:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Here's an excerpt from the Discussion page that I typed earlier regarding the treatment of a meaningful part of his history in a sub-article:
- Including a significant portion of his life history only in the 'whisper campaign' section seems a clear attempt to discredit the references, even though the facts are derived from his biography and his family. The problem is clear: His supporters are working very hard to suppress his Muslim origins and his detractors are trying very hard to reveal the same. Unfortunately for his supporters, Wikipedia is intended to show the facts...not hide the facts that are inconvenient truths. I am sure Mitt Romney would love to have avoided talking about religion, but that's not possible in American politics. In Obama's case, the Muslim connection is real and its admitted. The only fair approach would be to include the background information in matter-of-fact form...then follow it with something from Obama's biography that speaks to multi-cultural balance. I suspect that even Obama's bio, as would be the case with any politician, should not be considered a trusted source as these biographies are obviously self-serving...but at least the biography reference would alert Wiki readers to digest with caution. I know there's a lot at stake here for his supporters, which is why the article has such a light reference to Muslim connections, but the Wiki rules must prevail...the content cannot be manipulated for political purposes...the Muslim references have to be included...his detractors just need not be greedy and have to be prepared to accept something less than their desires.Jtextor (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
"
- It really seems like a perversion of Wiki to put such a meaningful discussion into a sub-article. I know the anti-Obama zealots would love to go crazy with the Muslim connection, but even the supporters such as yourself have got to agree that it's a part of his past. Do you really think you are going to keep a lid on this history when he gets the nomination? Obama's discussion of his multi-cultural background establishes a nice, balanced tone. That's ultimately going to be necessary for people to hear to get past the issue. Why not start now? Jtextor ( talk) 04:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)