Talk:Barack Obama

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any sections older than 5 days are automatically archived.

Include details of Barack Obama's childhood experience with Islam?

It appears that some Wikipedia editors are removing or downplaying any mention of Obama early childhood Islamic origins and history. This is causing a general misrepresentation of Obama's childhood history by omission of important facts.I have tagged the article appropriately. So far no one has challenged any of the points below. Please so not remove the tag until dispute is resolved.

• Barack was born to a Muslim father and Christian mother..
• Barack's family on his father's side is predominantly Muslim, father( Baracka Obama snr) , grandfather (Hussein Onyango Obama) were Muslims, brother Abongo (Roy) Obama is Muslim.
• Barack Obama 's name is a shortening of Baracka which means the blessed one in Arabic.
• Barack Obana's middle name is Hussein ,an Arabic Muslim name which means "beautiful" or "handsome". It is commonly given to Muslim males after the name of the grandson of the Islamic prophet Muhammad , Ali, the fouth Islamic Caliph in Islamic history.
• Father Baracka Obama died in 1982, Barack described his father Baracka as a non practicing Muslim though he got a Muslim burial at Barack's family's request.
• Stepfather Lolo Soetoro was a Muslim from Indonesia.
• Barack enrolled in Catholic school in Indonesia as a Muslim student.
• When Obama attended 4th grade in 1971 in a Muslim school , Muslim children spent two hours a week studying Islam and Christian children spent those two hours learning about the Christian religion. Barack studied Islam.
• Barack attended at least some friday Mosque prayers with his step father Lolo Soetoro .

--CltFn (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Stop using tags as weapons. Bellwether ^B_C 18:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. You're using the tag to try and force unneeded information into an article. Obama does not even practice this religion anymore. If he was still a practicing Muslim then this argument against would be moot, however he does not. HoosierState 18:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not using the tag as a weapon , I am trying to say that we have a content dispute and this needs to be resolved per Wikipedia policy. Are you saying that there is no content dispute going on here? Why don't you challenge any of the points, which one can you refute? What you are doing is preventing the insertion of this material that you know is true, and why you do this I have no idea. --CltFn (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he never was a practicing Muslim which means that these editing attempts are not merely tendentious, they're in violation of wp:BLP. The whole "Obama used to Muslim" thing has been thoroughly debunked and discussed at length. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well call it what you want , in Islam when a child is born of a Muslim father, he is Muslim. Obama was enrolled in school as Muslim. He went to the Mosque with his step father. So the idea that he never practised Islam is dubious. But I make no judgements here about that , all that is being said are the facts which are listed. Furthermore , the only thing that has been "debunked" are the extreme crazy statements like his step father was a RADICAL Muslim or that Obama attended a radical Madrassa or that today he is a "closet" Muslim. I do not subscribe to such statemenents and that has nothing to do with what the points listed above.--CltFn (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You aren't a muslim by auto-dint of your father's birth. You have to perform several ritual acts before you can be considered a muslim. Read the Islam article including articles of faith and five pillars. People think they can just say whatever they want about Islam and we're all supposed to be prejudiced dopes like them and believe it.Flickharrison (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if the rituals weren't required, your argument is still wrong. Somebody could create a religion that claims all of humanity as members, or perhpas it's ritual for acceptance is the act of breathing. Just because the religion says so doesn't mean that we're all followers of that faith.Balderdash707 (talk) 06:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. It's been an ad nauseum discussion, and I find the continual tagging of these articles, and attempt to shoehorn in discredited information bordering on (if not already there) disruptive behavior. Bellwether ^B_C 19:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The article mentions that his father was a non-practicing Muslim. It also notes that Obama himself is a Christian, and how he came to that decision. I'm not sure why his family's religious practices or the meaning of his name are important facts. Paisan30 (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

In Islam , the meaning of a name are very important. If Obama's father did not consider him Muslim why did he give him a highly symbolic Islamic middle name, which you can read all about by looking at Hussein in wikipedia. Why the name Baracka , meaning blessed in Arabic. I guess this would not resonate if one is not acquainted with Middle eastern culture. But that is what wikipedia is for, to bring knowledge to where it is lacking. Though not everyone agrees with that concept.--CltFn (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt a non-practicing Muslim father really cares how important names are to other Muslims. Further, how many people still care about the original meanings of names. David means beloved yet who actually names their son that for this reason. You might say that its because of the language difference that the name doesn't mean the same thing anymore but everywhere that Barack has lived, Arabic has not been the main language. Basically a name is a name. I doubt Isaac is picked because people want their child to laugh. Gdo01 (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This is laughable. His parents gave him his father's own name, as in Jr You've heard of that construction? His father didn't name him independently of his mother in some kind of secret Muslim symbolic rite. Why did Bill Richardson's parents name him William Blaine Richardson, III - is there some kind of hidden WASP message there, trying to deny his Latino heritage by emphasizing his Mayflower side? Seriously, give it up already. Tvoz |talk 22:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well then let it be included in the article then , since according to you there is nothing to it.--CltFn (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• They're not, which has been the point of those of us who have removed the POINT-y tags. Thanks for weighing in, though, as CltFn (wonder what that name stands for?;) ) has been attempting to push through additions, and in lieu of being able to do that, has been adding tags to the article about "neutrality." The mor editors who oppose such POINT-y additions, the better off the article (currently at featured status) will be. Bellwether ^B_C 19:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not about Obama's current beliefs , its about his religious background and upbringing as a child. The suppresion of information related to Obama's religious background raises serious questions about veracity of this article. If this is were not an issue , then why all the fuss and editorial blockade when simply attempting to include this material in the article, Obama himself is the source for this in his books.--CltFn (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No offense but you're the one that keeps trying to force this into the article. The orginal user that brought this issue to the talk page has already said they have already given up on this issue. I believe this problem is settled, numerous have spoken against including it. This has already been proven false anyway. HoosierState 21:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No offense but i ALSO agree with cltfn this should be added to the article. this artcile is biased badly. --[User:mike71] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.211.157 (talk) 07:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Proven false? , which one has been proven false?? I would be interested to know which one of the points listed above is proven false. By the wasy , as I have said several times before this comes from Obama's own books and writings and interviews. Those points are facts, not rumors.--CltFn (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Even still this info does not belong in the infobox. Only need to list his practicing religion, not past ones. HoosierState 22:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have never suggested that the info goes in the infobox , you are confusing me with another editor.--CltFn (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] HoosierState is right about this being settled here. Repeatedly adding the list of particulars is disruptive. You've made your point, we all understand it, but we don't agree with your view. Please let it go already CLtFn. And by the way - your attempt to "subtly" suggest that you're a "Clinton Fan" with your username isn't going to fly either: I do not think you represent her views, would guess that she'd rather not have your kind of support, and wonder if it's not an attempt to smear two for one. Not that dirty tricks are something that anyone would consider using Wikipedia for. Enough already. Tvoz |talk 22:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing has been settled, the only thing that has happened is a content blockade by a small group of editors.. The letters CltFn have nothing to do with Clinton , and evidently you are not familiar with my edit history. For your info , my main focus is anti-censorship and anti-polical correctness regardless of ideology, or politics.What drew my attention is the censorship of this topic. --CltFn (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering you're the only one who supports these changes it's all but settled. HoosierState 22:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Things are not settled just because you say so. Why do you object to this material being presented in the article? If you want things to be settled then let it be presented in the article and we can move on from there. Are you afraid that there might be stigma attached to this that would not look favorably in the article? Is that it?--CltFn (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Not I think this is absolutely pointless. And I did not say stop this, the large group of people objecting to this did. You are by far in the minority, thus this issue should be over. Putting this info in the article serves no purpose. By the way I see you've been blocked over 20 times for edit warring and look what we have here. Just stop this already. HoosierState 22:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked we are having a civil discussion on the talk page. You say that its pointless, yet it appears to be more that than to you , since you are going out of your way to stop its inclusion.--CltFn (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Things are settled, CltFn. The article is a featured article. The material you want to shoehorn in is spurious. You're apparently hoping that the information has a "stigma attached to it." Otherwise, why would you be pushing so hard to force in discredited information? Bellwether ^B_C 23:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You keep saying things are settled, this is a discussion. I don't see that the matter is settled. You have not made a single convincing argument to prove your point, you have not disproven any of the contentions, you have only participated in a content blockade with 2 other editors. --CltFn (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be different it you had other people supporting you're argument but you don't. The majority don't want it included. HoosierState 23:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

He does have other people supporting him, I support him, it should be included, this article is biased by not including information that is relevant but could hurt him. It doesnt matter if it could hurt him if its true. This isnt a campaign page. [mike71] 4 Feb 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.211.157 (talk) 07:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It does matter if it hurts him. How can you say it doesn't matter? Is Wikipedia's job to print every "true" fact about a living person's family history? Well, I can tell you I will sue the hell out of Wikipedia if certain very true facts about my father are printed here. And I'd win. Simultaneous (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that the first section of the early life and career be as follows:

• Obama was born on August 4, 1961 at The Queen's Medical Center[9][10] in Honolulu, Hawaii to a Muslim father Baracka Hussein Obama, Sr. (born in Nyanza Province, Kenya, of Luo ethnicity) and Christian mother Ann Dunham (born in Wichita, Kansas).[11--CltFn (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Any objections?--CltFn (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Barack not about his parents. HoosierState 23:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Look at the bios of most other political figure or celebrity and the family religious heritage is nearly always mentioned why not in this bio? --CltFn (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe because neither really cared much for organized religion leaving Barack to find his own spirituality. Gdo01 (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Guys - This is a presidential election. Is there an intellectual among us that would pretend that a candidate's views on religion are not important. Obama talks about his views (and his mother's) in great detail in his biography. He references the Koran and the Bible (among others) as being on the shelf in his home. He is an intellectual himself with a thorough understanding of Islam and Christianity. If it's a big part of his biography, why is it not a part of this one? I only go back to this issue as it seems that his supporters refuse to look at this issue through a neutral perspective. Look at the comments above. People on this board are actually suggesting that a presidential candidate's family and religious influences (including past practices) are not relevant. Be serious. In this country, where censorship is an extremely bad word, the voters get to hear all and decide what's relevant. As one writer said above, I did not 'give up' on this issue....I just decided that the issue of Neutrality was more important. Frankly, unless I don't understand the rules of Wiki (and I'll admit I am new), it really seems obvious that Neutrality is in fact missing in this article. There is just too much missing (the Islam background being one example) for anyone to believe this article to be anything other than a campaign piece. If a POV issue was not raised in the 10 hours....what is a POV issue? Can someone explain?76.108.82.49 (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not there is a presidential campaign in progress is immaterial to Wikipedia and this article and has no bearing on what content should and should not be included. Wikipedia is not a voter's guide and has no obligation to educate voters on a candidate's views. The only obligation Wikipedia has, in the case of biographical articles, is to present a person's history in a manner that is compliant with Wikipedia's policies. There is also a substantial difference between a person's view on religion and claiming that they were raised or influenced by a particular religion when there is no evidence that they were. At best what can be said about Obama's religious upbringing is that his biological father and step-father were raised as Muslims and that his mother was raised by non-religious people, but by the time Barack was born they had either rejected the religion they were raised in (biological father), didn't see a point in religion (step-father), or had not adopted any religion(mother). As far as Islam is concerned, it is a pretty big jump to claim that Obama has a Muslim background, one could claim that he was exposed to Islam thanks to his time in Indonesia and an interest in his biological father, but, yet again, there is no evidence that Barack ever accepted the tenets of Islam or that it has had any influence upon him. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

So the suggestion is that we add all eight paragraphs of information so that the article drives home the point that Obama has Muslim relatives? I vote no. The article clearly states that his father was Muslim. Adding more than that seems pointless. Paisan30 (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

So you are ok that we alter the first sentence of the the early life and career section to as follows?:

Obama was born on August 4, 1961 at The Queen's Medical Center[9][10] in Honolulu, Hawaii to a Muslim father Baracka Hussein Obama, Sr. (born in Nyanza Province, Kenya, of Luo ethnicity) and Christian mother Ann Dunham (born in Wichita, Kansas). --CltFn (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

While it is true Barack Sr. was raised a Muslim, according to Obama's biography, he was an atheist by the time he met his mother. Atheism and Islam are not compatible, so it is difficult to claim he was Muslim. Additionally, it is difficult to claim that Ann Dunham was Christian at the time of Barack's birth. Yet again, according to Obama's biography she was raised by non-religious parents and had not joined an organized religion during his childhood. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not ok that we alter the first sentence in that way - it is misleading, as per Bobblehead's point immediately above. Tvoz |talk 04:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The article already says that his father was a non-practicing Muslim. Paisan30 (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The contradictions that are being thrown around are absurd. If the father was an atheist the why does the article say that he was a non-practicing muslim and why did he give his son an Islamic middle name after the prophet Muhammad's grandson? And why did per Obama, the family give him a Muslim burial ceremony? In any case the statement that his father was Muslim is not contested by anyone in the media nor by Obama, strangely enough the only people who are contesting it are a few editors here in wikipedia. By the way where is the source that says that he was an atheist? There is afterall a difference between a "non practicing" muslim and an atheist, that is actually a huge jump to go from a believer to a non-believer.--CltFn (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably a misstatement by Paisan30. The article says Senior was raised a Muslim, but was a confirmed atheist by the time he met Ann Dunham. I'm going to go on a limb here and say that Hussein is Obama's middle name because his parents named him after his father, nothing more, nothing less. My middle name is the name of a Catholic saint, that doesn't mean that I was named after the saint and it doesn't mean my parents were Catholic. As far as Senior's burial... Senior was dead at the time, it's not like he was involved in the planning of his funeral. Senior's family was Muslim, so it's not surprising that they would have the funeral reflect their religion. You're using some very tortured logic here. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

OK while we are on the topic , would you explain why Obama said that he was enrolled in school as a Muslim because it was his birth father's religion?--CltFn (talk) 12:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It was based on his step-father's religion, not on his biological father's religion, who was a non-practicing Muslim. I notice that you are focusing on him being registered as a Muslim for 2 years while attending one of the best secular public schools in Indonesia, why are you ignoring the fact that he also attended 2 years of Catholic school and was registered as Catholic while there... Just because his school's required that he register as a religion, it does not mean that he actually was that religion. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

errata: BO was registered in the Catholic school as a Muslim, solely because his stepfather (head of family) was Muslim. Both BO (per his comment in one of his memoirs about peeking during Christian prayer -- mandatory for children of all faiths attending the Catholic school -- and not seeing any angels) and his mother (per Obama's memoir, a declared secularist with only an anthropologist's interest in religion; per Obama's sister, an "agnostic"(mother, not sister); per her best friend in college, an "outspoken atheist") seem to have been sceptics at the time. Though BO has fibbed about this, saying he was always a Christian because he was raised by his mother, a "Christian from Kansas" ("coffee shop" interview during SC primary -- MSNBC, I think). RS available for all this. I'm not watching this page, so drop me a line if you want cites. Andyvphil (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry-- the article says that his father was RAISED Muslim, but did not practice the faith. To me, that says that he's a non-practicing Muslim... but I guess the article doesn't say it in those words. My parents are devout Catholics and gave me the middle name "Paul". I assume they had Paul the Apostle in mind when they named me, but I am 100% atheistic in my religious beliefs. In fact, I don't even consider the possibility that Paul the Apostle was actually inspired by a supernatural Being. Point being, I don't think that the names one is given by one's parents should be dissected in a biography piece. Paisan30 (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, CltFn, the "few editors" in fact represent a pretty widely held consensus. In any event, what you're looking for is Undue Weight. People have pointed out that some of the "facts" you cite are not exactly right (as discussed at length above). But we don't even have to reach that issue - the basic, verifiable information under discussion here is already in the article. The question is whether it is something that should be emphasized in the (in my view misleading) way that you suggest. The answer is no. The consensus view of most editors is that doing so would introduce WP:POV into the article - that the only reason to do as you suggest is to make some political point. We could argue about the validity of the point you'd like to make, but we don't have to - Wikipedia isn't the place to make a point. --TheOtherBob 05:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors can always find reasons why content that is unpalatable to their POV should not be included in Wikipedia, it does not change the basic facts about Obama's childhood. He was born of a Muslim father, given a Muslim name , he was enrolled as a Muslim in school in Indonesia, studied the Koran while Christian kids studied the bible and prayed at the Mosque with his step father, as a Muslim boy. Those facts cannot be changed by omitting them from the article.--CltFn (talk) 12:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• And you can attempt to force in your POV about how things should look in this article all you want. It's not happening. Too many good-faith editors (both Republican and Democrat) will not let it stand. This article did not get to FA status by people letting their POVs dictate the content, as you accuse. It received that status because of good-faith editors from accross the political spectrum worked together to make certain it was both well-written, and complied with BLP. You can continue your bad-faith accusations against the multiple editors who have opposed your POV changes, but it will not change the consensus. The sooner you deal with that fact, the better off we'll all be. -- Bellwether ^B_C 13:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying to force a POV. I am simply trying to present all the facts , not just the ones that may appeal you or other like minded editors. The article would be much better served if we had a unfettered presentation of sourced information. At some point you will have to come to terms with this. You simply cannot block the presentation of information just because you have the support of a small group fellow travellers. --CltFn (talk) 04:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that those are not true statements. Many people are exposed to different religions as children. However, that is irrelevant, as Obama is a Christian and was never a Muslim. oncePaisan30 (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well here again , its a matter of point of view, in Islam for instance if Obama's father was Muslim , then he is Muslim. If Obama prayed at a Mosque, then he is Muslim, and if he ever recited the Muslim declaration of faith in Allah at the Mosque, and I suspect he would have, then he is Muslim. I suspect that in Muslim schools or Catholic school if Obama was enrolled as a Muslim student then the staff might just have considered Obama to be a Muslim. None of this means that today he is a Muslim , it just means that during his childhood period he was raised a Muslim, born of a Muslim father. Technically in Islam Obama would be considered a Murtad Fitri, a Muslim born apostate who has abandoned Islam in favor of another faith. That is the Islamic POV. Now its quite probable that in today's highly charged American political campaigns , that an association with Islam is not perceived as the greatest asset for a candidate , thus there may be an effort to distance Obama's basic life story line from anything to do with Islam. But whatever the conclusions people make , the points I listed at the top of this section are simple facts. It would make an interesting article to include all this stuff in it , but it appears that some are not quite ready to digest such inconvenient facts.--CltFn (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you're referring to, but I am certainly not a supporter of Obama's presidential candidacy. I simply don't think that his family's religious activity during his childhood - or lack thereof - is relevant to his bio. I doubt you've gone to such lengths to document Hillary Clinton's record of attendance at Methodist services as a child, or give more than a cursory mention to John McCain's decision to attend Baptist services rather than Episcopalian (as an adult). Paisan30 (talk) 05:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, according to the Wikipedia article Shahadah, reciting it without internal acceptance would not make Obama a Muslim. Wouldn't be surprised if it was some sort of crime under Sharia, but it wouldn't be apostasy. And there's some business about having to be 15 years old... Anyway, this is a subject for a spinout article on Obama's religion, its representation and misrepresentation, and its affect on his candidacy, etc., rather than much treatment here. But the kernel for that article got deleted as a POVFORK, twice, I think. Andyvphil (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'll make this simple: what you "suspect" doesn't matter in the context of this article. Your POV doesn't matter in the context of this article. This article has reached featured status. Had it included your suggestions, it would not be so. -- Bellwether ^B_C 05:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well.. I'm saying most of those are not true statements, but I'm not saying CltFn is lying, because I'm quite sure he believes what he's saying, he's just misinformed. Barack Obama Sr. was not Muslim, he was atheist. Whether or not the name has "Muslim" origins means about as much as mine having French origins (That would be it means nothing). Obama was named after his biological father and that's as far as it goes. Obama never attended a Muslim school. He attended a public school for two years where most of the children attending the school were Muslim. You can't call that a Muslim school unless you start calling public schools in the US Christian schools. There isn't any evidence that Obama went to the mosque with his step-father. The only evidence that he even entered a mosque is a childhood friend saying Obama went to Friday prayers at a mosque near his home a couple of times because the other kids in the neighborhood went and Obama wanted to play with them. The friend does not mention Obama going with his step-father. The only mention of Obama going into the mosque with his step-father was to attend community events. Attending a bingo night (or the equivalent) in a church does not make one Christian, so why would going into a Mosque to attend a community event make one Muslim. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Later, the source of the "Obama went to the Mosque" statement (Zulfin Adi) said in a Chicago Tribune article that 1. He only knew Obama for a few months and 2. He "wasn't certain" whether he ever saw Obama go to the Mosque. johnpseudo 16:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The Barker piece is pretty bad jounalism. He says Adi "has been cited in news reports as saying Obama regularly attended Friday prayers with Soetoro" (a apparent falsehood - I can't find any instance of Adi being quoted saying that) then "told the Tribune he was not certain about that when pressed about his recollections".(emphasis added, both times) This is regularly cited as Adi impeaching his testimony that he had prayed with Obama and seen him go to the mosque with his father,[1] but it is nothing of the sort: It's Adi saying he can't support an assertion ("regularly") he's never made. And his sister didn't say Lolo only went for the bingo. The quote is "My father never went to prayer services except for big communal events. I am absolutely certain that he did not go to services every Friday."[2] Andyvphil (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well Barack's sister said that he did go to the mosque but only for rare communal events.If you parse that correctly it means that he did go to the Mosque does it not? Or does that really mean that he was really going there to be baptised perhaps--CltFn (talk) 03:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• You've really shown your true colors with this post. Perhaps if one has to "parse that correctly" to ascertain some hidden meaning, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article. Please stop now. -- Bellwether ^B _C 04:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that this article should ask whether he was going in to get baptised? No evidence has been produced to support such a claim, so speculating on it is pointless and not appropriate for Wikipedia. Paisan30 (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No I was suggesting that Barack's sister seems to have made the point in a circuituous way that he did go the Mosque and I was wondering was sort of rebuttal would be offered to this.--CltFn (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC).

CltFn, what's your point? He's entered a mosque before. Whooptie-freaking-do. I've been in the places of worship of many religions, it doesn't mean I converted to those religions upon entry. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)I'm sorry to say this CltFn, but that statement is a little absurd. It doesn't matter if you're Republican, Democrat, or Moonie - you cannot use Wikipedia to push any point of view. You're resorting now to the argument that NPOV doesn't exist, or that the concept of "rules" is just unworkable. Sorry, no go. We have rules, and NPOV is one of them (perhaps the most important of them). You should respect that, and stop trying to push your point of view through Wikipedia. --TheOtherBob 16:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with everything said above. There isn't much more I can add to the argument against this. HoosierState 18:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

CltFn makes many excellent points. The present article is clearly a highly POV article carefully guarded as an election promo-piece for Obama. The present article is an embarrassment to otherwise high standards of balance on Wikipedia. This is a case where there are many zealous supporters of Obama, who outnumber those who simply want to air all the sourced data. What is wrong with saying that Obama chose the Islam study in his youth, if that has a reliable source? It seems like a fact that many readers would be interested in, and not a negative fact at all. Decoratrix (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Attention: Regarding the above section

The user who made the above section has an extremely long history of violations of Wikipedia policy (See Block Log). We as Wikipedians do not have to tolerate people using out site to spread out political smears (See WP:SOAP and WP:BATTLE). Having taken into account the long-term abuse by this user which dates back to 2005 I as an administrator have indefinitely blocked his editing privileges. I ask all users who regularly contribute to this article to leave me a note if such activity continues on this or related articles so that the proper action can be taken. Thank you and good day.--Jersey Devil (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

   Thus truth was silenced because no one wanted to here her.(208.61.109.241 (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

Poisoning the well fallacy-- the above section merits inclusion into the article. What are you trying to protect about Obama? State the facts of his upbringing, just the facts...of which you want to keep hidden. So much for "NPOV" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 05:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Paisan30 (talk) 05:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree as well. The "facts" as you call them are only your spin on the actual facts. The facts of Obama's life are out there. Nothing is hidden. It's just not spun in a way that some would like it to be. -- Bellwether ^B_C 06:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the fallacy you're looking for is ad hominem - "poisoning the well" is a special case of argument ad hominem that occurs prior to the remainder of the conversation, such as "before I let Joe get up to speak, I'd like to remind you that he's a convicted felon and shouldn't be trusted." In any event, this is neither - it's a notification to those editing here that they no longer have to deal with a repeated tendentious editor and POV-warrior. No one cares what his (or your) point of view may be...this just isn't the place to express it. (And, yes, we know that you just want to add *cough* "facts"...carefully laid out to express your point of view... Come on, man, we've been through this - you can read the whole thing above.) --TheOtherBob 06:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong again Bob, it was a poisoning the well fallacy. And wrong again Bob, I want facts, not point of view. And wrong again Bob...(ad infinitum)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk • contribs)

The actual facts do deserve to be mentioned though:
He went to a public school in Indonesia rumored but proven not to be a madrassa. Then he said that politicians owe America better.
Without the first part it would be:
Then he said that politicians owe America better.
Anynobody 06:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• No, per undue weight. Wikipedia is not a rumor depository. Just because someone claimed something doesn't mean it belongs in an article. Especially with the weasely wording "rumored but not proven." -- Bellwether ^B_C 06:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There aren't any facts to include, just a smear all around. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 07:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• You know there's a Wikipedia article on the poisoning the well fallacy, right?...that it's possible to look it up? When you do, you'll note a temporal aspect - that it has to occur prior to the opinion expressed. Here the alleged *cough* "ad hominem" occurred after. So, well, sorry, but you're just flat wrong. (Oh, I know that's all totally irrelevant, and I may be violating WP:DBAD by noting your error, but we can at least be accurate.) To the rest - no, you want POV. You can call it "facts" and ignore Undue Weight, like your...counterpart...CltFn did ad infinitum above - it's still your POV that you want to add, and that's not permitted here. Sorry. --TheOtherBob 22:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Bellwether, respectfully undue weight would be mentioning the Insight article without including the CNN/NY Times articles proving it wrong. So obviously that particular rule is not in jeopardy of being violated. You also said: weasely wording "rumored but not proven." This is incorrect, I said The rumors proved false and cited NY Times and CNN sources saying so.

Bobblehead There are facts to report:

• It is a fact that Insight wrote an article the day after he announced looking into starting a campaign talking about a "madrassa" he supposedly attended as a kid. (It turned out there info was based on rumor rather than fact)
• It is a fact that the allegations made in the article were proven wrong, NY Times, CNN

TheOtherBob I'm actually not like many editors who are unwilling to discuss their errors. In this case though I fail to see an error on my part, using reliable sources, (which are verifiable by the links I've included) only the facts are discussed. Anynobody 22:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(PS this wasn't part of my post) Anynobody 22:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out - from the way the comments flowed I took you to be the same person as the anon above. (I thought you had just not signed in before). It actually makes a pretty big difference, because the edits you're proposing are narrower in scope and less POV than those the earlier anon (and CltFn) seemed to propose. I originally took your edits to be part of their POV exercise, but they seem to be something much different. My apologies. So to the edit you propose? Well, I'm not sure we need to dignify the whole madrassa thing by including it here, because I'm not sure if it was a notable enough event - but I'd be open to the type of brief mention you propose if other editors were. I wonder, though, if we need to put it into some sort of context - any thoughts on that? --TheOtherBob 22:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

In the Early life and career section I think the school should be identified as an Indonesia public school and that Indonesia should be identified as a majority Muslim nation.Nathanael101 (talk) 08:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Should every story about a person educated in American public schools mention that the United States is a majority Christian nation? Paisan30 (talk) 08:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Clearly not. That the comparison isn't very apt should be obvious. If Obama was named Joe Smith and had went to school in Kansas and was running for president in Indonesia and this was an Indonesian website and if most Indonesians couldn't locate the United States on a map, then yes, I would mention that the United States is a majority Christian nation. The main point is that Barack Obama has had more personal exposure to Islam than the average American or than the other candidates. This can be read positively or negatively. It shouldn't be the editors place to assume a negative reading and so omit the information. I don't think my suggestion is the best solution but the two oblique references to his "atheist" father and non-religious step-father seem to skirt the issue. The very fact that it is such a sensitive topic should be acknowledged in some way in the article without giving it that dread undue weight.Nathanael101 (talk) 06:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• (Note that Nathanael101's only edits have been in a sandbox and entering into dispute at this talkpage.) Now, following your hypothetical, then, how in the world would noting that the U.S. is a "majority Christian nation" be relevant at all to "Joe Smith's" Indonesian Wikipedia article? Answer: it wouldn't. Neither does the fact that Indonesia is a "majority Muslim nation" have any place in this article either. It's designed only to inflame anti-Islam passions. Nothing more, nothing less. -- Bellwether ^B_C 06:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

TheOtherBob don't worry about the misunderstanding, were I in your shoes it's likely I'd of made the same mistake. (I don't make a habit of double checking people's posts.)

Back to the madrassa bullshit, that's what it is IMHO but it's become extremely notable by virtue of the media response. Feeding Frenzy For a Big Story, Even if It's False discusses the especially notable aspect of the whole thing, the fact that big news like Fox messed up and went ahead to report incorrect information. (Kinda like Rathergate and CBS in 2004). As long as the message is complete the only people who look bad are the ones who reported a rumor, certainly not Obama. (Also the Clinton angle is worth mentioning, given the dismissal of those two aides for essentially perpetuating the original story.) Anynobody 03:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I could get on board with that approach. I think there's another article currently being considered for deletion that covers some of this material, though - how much we include here might depend on the outcome of that, of course. --TheOtherBob 04:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Nota bene. --HailFire (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with TheOtherBob what is discussed will depend on the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama media controversy. My last version was based on the continued existence of said article.

HailFire, if I understand your argument it's based on two premises. The first being that stuff from before Feb 2007 should be excluded, the second that we should hold off because there will be more to report in the future. My counterpoint to the first is that we really should use the subject as a boundary rather than a set timeframe. The media perceived that Insight's article was timed for and meant to affect Obama's decision to run, meaning that it does fit under the subject of his candidacy. The second premise is actually a sort of false dilemma, you may not be aware of it but we're actually not bound by such concerns for several reasons. Primarily because it's understood that information could change at anytime and if it does there is room to accommodate the new as well as old. I expect that you're right, and there will be more to discuss before the campaign ends, however there is no limit to the amount of notable information that can be included. (It turns into more of an organization problem than one of size, by organizing extremely detailed info into spin off articles. Anynobody 00:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Barack Obama's name. In general Muslims do not name a child the exact name of the parent. It is considered a form of ancestral worship forbidden by the Qu’ran. You rarely if ever find a “senior,” “junior,” designation in Muslim nomenclature.

Most often children will be given their own first name. Some Muslim communities go so far as to dictate that no other living relative may carry that same first name. Thus allowing for a kind of individual ownership of the name within the family. The middle name most often will be first name of the child’s father, even if the child is a girl. This identifies them as the child of so and so, through male lineage. The last name of course is the family surname (which according to Muslim tradition girls may keep when they marry).

So if the person is named Fatimah Abdullah Shaikh, you will know that her father is Abdullah. Likewise, Muhammad Mustafa Khan, indicates that his fathers is named Mustafa.

The fact that Barack Hussein Obama carries the exact same name, in the same order as his father strongly suggests that the father was not a practicing Muslim at the time of the junior Obama’s birth. It further suggests that his father was very westernized and just adopted the very western nomenclature of naming his son after him. Nothing religious in how Barack was given his name at all. Bcc cindy (talk) 05:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

CltFn, you seriously need to get over your erroneous anti-Muslim bias. The "fact" that Obama's father was a "practicing Muslim" at the time of Barack's birth has been thoroughly discredited . . . he was non-practicing and atheistic. If you knew anything about Islam, this is considered apostasy and in extremist circles such as Wahhabism is punishable by death. Now, putting this aside for a second, I'd like you to admit that your attempts to insert the canard of Barack and Islam is nothing more than an attempt to appeal to the post-9/11 anti-Islamic climate in America in order to tarnish the character of a man who stands a decent chance of being elected President. You're transparent.Scientz (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record I'm viewing this from the UK, and this section on the one above seem bizarre to say the least. Being impartial (well relatively so) I read the comment "Wikpedia does not care if he is running for the office of the president" (or a statement to that effect) - this is simply wrong in my view. I for one I came to wikipedia on this matter to have a look at his background *because he is running for president". Excluding information on his upbringing is stupidity surely? CltFn does appear to have a questionable editing history, but if they are facts, then I can't see a reason not to have them on the page. What is anti-muslim and what is anti-muslim is for the reader to decide not you editors. Your job (as I see it) is to insure the article is accurate and relevant, and looking at the comments CltFn made (which I can of course see why you have concerns) they do fit here (if and only if they have valid references of course). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.156.106 (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As an intellectual property lawyer, I must caution that there is a genuine and reasonable legal concern arising from this discussion. Specifically, it has now been fairly thoroughly documented on debunking websites such as Snopes.com that Obama has only ever practiced Christianity, and was never a Muslim, and there was never any basis for any person to assert that Obama was a Muslim. Because the misinformation appears to have been published by persons trying to damage Obama, this gives rise to a cause of action for defamation of character (possibly even a fraud claim brought by third parties deceived into believing the misinformation). Although Obama is a public figure, and higher standards apply, the lack of foundation for these claims might be found to raise them to the level of actual malice required for a lawsuit to be founded on defamation of a public figure. In short, it would be a very, very bad idea to include these claims in any context except to note that they have been documented as untrue. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I will add to the above that I have researched this issue thoroughly, and have in fact worked on several defamation cases in the past, including defamation cases brought against public figures. Cheers again! bd2412 T 02:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

How about defamation cases brought by public figures? Won any of those? ... Andy Martin threatened to sue me and Wikipedia when I asked him if his original press release about Obama was available online, but he would have lost. ... Given the political demographic here, and the visibility of this page, the idea that anything actionable directed against Obama will survive more than a few minutes is absurd. Now, BLP pretends to higher goals but it's main purpose is to prevent legal exposure for Wikipedia. The idea that we need to go beyond policy in order to protect Wikipedia from suit by such an unlikely source as Obama would not be well founded. The real problem, IMHO, is the number of editors (and more importantly, journalists) who, faced with Katie Couric's question "Is America ready to elect a president who grew up praying in a mosque?" and convinced that the answer ought to be yes, but knowing that the answer may be no, decide to be less than forthcoming about the truth. Which is, among other things, is that Obama probably did learn Muslim ritual and recite surahs at school, and went through the motions of Muslim prayer at both school and mosque, albeit "not seriously" or with much internal belief. Does that mean he was a "practicing Muslim"? No. But it's an answer to the question "was Obama a practicing Muslim?" that doesn't attempt to conceal, mislead or obstructively minimize. Andyvphil (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of the arguments concerning Obama's "Muslim past" are ridiculous, for example "why did his father give him a Muslim name if he was an atheist?" here is an easy answer: his father gave obama his name, meaning he is Sr, and his son is Jr. Also im am sure you will find many atheists naming their kids John, Michael, Paul, or even Chris which is derived from Christian, these are all names you will probably find in the bible, does that mean their kids are going to be raised as Christians even thought their parent's are Atheists? no, I find that linking Obama to Islam just because of his name to be stupid, and yet there are still anti-Islam bigots who will still try to do this with unreliable evidence and rumors, even though it has been discredited many times.Wraith12 (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Wraith12

Leading candidate (again)

This article (like Hillary Rodham Clinton) -again-, should have leading removed. Neither Obama or Clinton have a large enough gap between them. GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Be bold and remove it. At such time he becomes the clear leader, it can be put back in. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

My reasoning? Obama and Clinton are practically tied. If any candidate needed leading in their article? it would be Republican frontrunner John McCain (but don't add it there either). GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Holy smokers, I can't find it to remove it. There's too much confusion on the editing page. GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this - both articles correctly say "a leading candidate", not "the leading candidate". There is a clear and obvious difference between those two constructions. As I said when GoodDay said this on the Clinton talk page, removing "a" ignores that the Democratic race has narrowed down from eight to two, each of which is a leading candidate. The lack of gap between them is irrelevant, as is McCain. Please don't remove it. Tvoz |talk 00:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sigh (sorry Al Gore), all right then. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The article "a" does make all the difference. I should have looked at this more closely before making my earlier comment. →Wordbuilder (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• GoodDay tries every few days to remove this descriptor from both the Obama and Clinton articles. I don't think anyone really knows why. Bellwether ^B_C 01:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought the Super Duper Tuesday results would discourage the usage of a leading. But I'm fine with it now. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"A leading" would have made good sense last week for either Clinton or Obama; however, with only two candidates remaining, it is now redundant. More generally, "a leading" applied to a candidate X, implies that candidate X is one of a group of "leaders." That, in turn, in logical terms, presupposes a group of "stragglers." However, the set of stragglers is now empty. Alternatively, saying that Clinton or Obama is each "a leading candidate" is logically equivalent to saying, "Clinton and Obama are together the leaders in the field of candidates." But that field doesn't have any one else. In other words, "a leading" applied to one candidate in a field of two, is equivalent to applying "the leading" to a field of one. And that, most people will agree, is redundant. The sentence should be changed to "one of two remaining candidates." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Mike Gravel is still in and he has a section on the MSNBC delegate scoreboard ... ;)--Tombomp (talk) 09:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

He has a snowballs shot in hell (or worse) of winning, or even finishing second. Charles Stewart (talk) 09:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely; I was just showing that the set of stragglers is in fact not empty --Tombomp (talk) 09:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it again. Whether or not he or she is "a" or "the" leading candidate, it does add bias. For me the only acceptable compromise would be a rewording that included the other's name. e.g. "Along with Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Obama is a leading candidate for the 2008 Democratic Party presidential nomination." However, I think someone can do better. Think!Scottmkeen (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No citation of Iowa victory and his speech there

That was a speech broadcast world wide. Many newspapers around the world translated it and put it in 2nd or 3rd page. That speech reborned JFK spirit inside of many people on internet. I vote to mean it as an "historial speech", of course in his political career, and may discuss in political history. --213.97.224.11 (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, i wanted to put on discussion one fact, Obama was unknowed for the world until that Iowa speech. And may be, time will say us that we will need a single wiki-page for describe that speech.--213.97.224.11 (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You raised this same question on February 1 and the response is the same as then, but I'll spell it out a little more this time. Unfortunately, the FA standards on space suggest that main articles be kept to a reasonable length - we therefore have little room for such details here, so there is a sub-article specifically about the presidential campaign, which is where the Iowa victory speech is discussed. Obama gives rousing speeches frequently - and the speech that actually brought him out of obscurity was the 2004 speech at the Democratic convention, which we include here. I daresay many editors of this article would like to include a lot more detail on the presidential campaign here, but we have to keep the size down. If you have reliable citations for how the Iowa speech was more notable than others, and how it was somehow transformational, please put them here on Talk. It's not that anyone disagrees that the speech was notable, it's that we have to pick and choose in the main article which facts go in main text and which go in footnote and which go in sub articles and which don't go in anywhere. I personally don't particularly agree with that restriction as this is not a paper encyclopedia, but the argument that has been made to me is that people's attention spans and their browsers have difficulty with extremely long pieces. That's not unique to this article, and we try to follow that guideline.Tvoz |talk 22:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this is a enciclopedia article, not a biography book. People want to know things with a eye-rush. Thats what wiki means, right? Yes. This article has to show the key things that people should know. Specific issues to specific articles. If people want to know more of an specific issue they will click to go to the subarticle. You are right, this article is going too long and it has to "branch-and-bound" spliting in many others subarticles. Anyway, theres a way to qualify and give importance and the significance of the facts, as brief as possible, but without loosing this qualification. Also, to put many things together hides the important facts. Theres a lot of work.
So, Why i keep discussing that Iowa is a key issue that should be remarked as brief as posible with the importance that it had?
1- You said, "actually brought him out of obscurity was the 2004 speech at the Democratic convention". Thats true for an american scope. Iowa was for a wide-world scope.
2- Within the historical context, Iowa caucasus predicts the democratic results. In people's minds iowa is an oracle.
3- It was a popularity inflexion point inside and outside america. Respect H. Clinton.
I will post some references and facts for all these points. Ill need time and help.--MisticVisions (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Flag Lapel Pin Issue

(Hopefully we won't get sidetracked by placement/format over substance this time, but in any case here is a new thread)

My inquiry is to whether there ought to be any mention of Senator Obama's refusal to wear lapel flag pins because he sees them as portraying a sort of token patriotism? I know it may seem like a minor issue with the myriad of policy questions, but to be fair it has caused a buzz. Also, it's fair to note that (whether by his design or not), Obama's style, charisma, and personality has become an major media-frenzied issue in the campaign, I dare say more than any Presidential candidate in recent elections. Certainly one could make a case that this would fit within that frame of discussion.

controversy subsection

While Mr. Obama has less controversy attached to his career than many other politicians there needs to be a concise exposition of controversies attached to his name. Otherwise it could be asserted that the article was not neutral. I took the liberty of undoing the first revert to my addition however I'll otherwise leave it to the article's usual editors to consider my postulate.Trilobitealive (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversies are more than welcome to be incorporated in the existing article or one of the many sub-articles, but they will not be in a controversy subsection. Controversy subsections are by and large glorified trivia sections that invariably become a dumping ground for every complaint about the person, whether they are truly notable or not. All in all, if you would like to propose that a specific controversy be added to this article, you're more than welcome to propose that it be added. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead, is there a Wikipedia guideline that discourages sections/subsections dedicated specifically to controversies? →Wordbuilder (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

My thesis is that he doesn't have enough controversial material to add multiple sections such as are seen in the Hillary Rodham Clinton or Richard Nixon articles. But I might point out that the general reader needs to have a clearly defined place to find the information.Trilobitealive (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC) (UTC) I did go back and change the subheading to "Concern over business relationships" however I'm afraid that if you don't have a clearly defined area for these concerns to be addressed then the general reader will assume the worst.Trilobitealive (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Wordbuilder, Bobblehead is probably referring to one of the possible interpretations of WP:NPOV#Article structure. My opinion (which I'll admit no one here asked) is that when the general reader comes to one of these articles they need to have all the major areas of concern easily laid out and addressed in a neutral manner...in an easy-to-find place. This particular article isn't a huge project of mine but when I read it something became apparent to me (a general reader): the fact that his few real controversies don't need to be buried in a discussion about his domestic life. That's all. No plans for mutiny here. Trilobitealive (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually controversy sections are strongly discouraged and are not found in the presidential candidate articles for good reason. They are poor encyclopedic style and in practice tend to simply become POV magnets where anyone opposed to the subject will dump any editorial or attack piece they can find. Most importantly, they give undue weight to subjects which may not be at all noteworthy. It is much better (albeit harder) to weave notable controversies into the relevant sections of the article. In this particular case, a lot of work was spent by a number of much better and more experienced editors than myself specifically dismantling these attack sections in the presidential candidate articles and integrating anything notable into the body of the article. Please note that there are no criticism sections in the John McCain or Hillary Clinton articles either. This is by design.

By way of illustration, Gzkn [3] made a very good point about the idea of a separate criticism section over a year ago, saying: "think about whether a general 'praise' section would make sense". --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I'm not advocating such a section. I was just curious as to what the guidelines said regarding the subject. →Wordbuilder (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Although I have not seen changed on the site, numerous stories and photos are circulating of the Obama campaign office in Houston. They do not have the American flag in the office. However, they do fly the Cuban flag with a photo of Che on it. If that is not controversial, I do not know what is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.45.160 (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed that this sounds a lot like a campaign ad, and there isn't really anything counterbalancing that. I think that like, it definitly needs a NPOV check. Yeah, and for controversies, they should start with the support that he gave Farrakhan a decade ago. They should also mention criticism of him. There is criticism of every politician, no matter how good or moral they are, so I think that that definitly needs to be changed.

• People who come to presidential articles and open with "I've noticed that this sounds a lot like a campaign ad" are usually attempting to force their negative POV into the article. This may or may not be the case with this unsigned commenter, but it's not a helpful comment to make, especially on an article that is a current FA. Bellwether ^B_C 00:53, 13 February 2008

(UTC)

There should definitely be a POV check and the "American Flag" issue should be mentioned (as should other controversies). This link offers some direct quotes from Obama regarding his decision to stop wearing an American flag. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/04/397319.aspx

For what it's worth, I've begun a thread above for a back-and-forth on that issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.176.235 (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Barack Hussein Obama..."Jr."?

In an archive Mr. Bobblehead argues:

"As far as including Jr. is concerned. Barack seems to be following the model of if the Senior dies, then you drop the Jr. from your name (or if you named a son the same, you become Senior and your son becomes Junior). There aren't any official references of his name with Jr. at the end.

Still, Wikipedia is not a vanity press. In light of the fact that, were Barack elected (at this point, as likely as not), he would round out the percentage of presidents' whose names are the complete namesakes of their fathers', to exactly 10% (11-out-of-44):

1. Barack (Hussein) Obama (Jr.?)
2. Bill (William Jefferson) [Blythe III; subsequently adopted as] Clinton
3. Jimmy (James Earl) Carter (Jr.)
4. [Leslie Lynch King, Jr.; subsequently adopted as] Gerald (Rudolph) Ford (Jr.)
5. (John) Calvin Coolidge (Jr.)
6. Theodore Roosevelt (Jr.)
7. William McKinley (Jr.)
8. James Buchanan (Jr.)
9. John Tyler (Jr.)
10. Andrew Jackson (Pres. Andrew Jackson was the exact namesake of his own father, "Andrew Jackson," who died a few days after Jackson's birth; yet it is Pres. Jackson's own adopted son who is known to history as "Andrew Jackson, Jr.")
11. James Madison (Jr.)

---

--to do our encyclopedic duty, through indicating that our subject's name is entirely his father's namesake, while also acknowleging Barack's preference in usage, we simply put the encyclopedic emendation (Jr.) in a parenthetical notation after Barack Hussein Obama in the lede sentence. Any disagree? Justmeherenow (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops! Make that 12:

12. John Adams (Jr.)

Justmeherenow (talk) 08:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead's arguement that, despite Barack's being the namesake of his father, encyclopedically we should avoid the designation "Jr." to align with Barack's own practice seems stylistically reasonable. However it is simply original research.

Britannica:

Barack Obama
American politician
in full Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.

New York Times:

Full name: Barack Hussein Obama Jr.

--Justmeherenow (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the origin of Senator Obama's anti-Iraq war position

Senator Obama reminds voters rather often that only he, among his Democratic opponents, opposed the Iraq war before it began.

I assume that the origin of Senator Obama's opposition can be traced to the speech he gave in October 2002 at the anti-Iraq war rally at the Federal Plaza in Chicago. Part of the text of this speech is cited in footnote 105, but the entire text of the speech can be found in Wikisource:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

Based on the text, Senator Obama did not actually declare his opposition to the then anticipated Iraq war. He instead calls it a "dumb war" and cites various reasons for avoiding it, while suggesting several alternative courses of action the US government could take.

Has anyone established the date when Senator Obama first declared publicly his opposition? I suspect it probably occurred sometime in 2003 during his campaign for the US Senate. But, of course, I may be wrong.

--Buzava (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just read the entire text of the speech, and there's no way I would have interpreted that speech as anything but an expression of opposition to a war with Iraq. He says "I oppose dumb wars", and he says "I think a war with Iraq would be dumb". Technically, he never says "I oppose a war with Iraq", but I think it's clear that he was using a rhetorical device to say that exact thing. Cogswobbletalk 18:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

All (not part) of the text of Obama's October 2, 2002 speech is cited in the footnote with a link to Remarks of Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama Against Going to War with Iraq, which is the source for the Wikisource article Barack Obama's Iraq Speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newross (talk • contribs) 08:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Ill. State Sen. Obama (D-13) confirmed he was exploring a possible run for the U.S. Senate in the July 16, 2002 Chicago Defender front page article "Barack Obama explores U.S. Senate seat."
• Ill. State Sen. Obama (D-13) stated his opposition to the Iraq War in the September 26, 2002 Chicago Defender front page article "Opposition to War Mounts."
• Ill. State Sen. Obama (D-13) gave his public speech "Against Going to War with Iraq" at the first high-profile Chicago anti-Iraq War rally organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq at noon on October 2, 2001 in Federal Plaza in Chicago, Illinois;
  the same day and hour that President Bush and Congress in the White House Rose Garden announced their agreement on the joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War.
  The October 3, 2002 Chicago Defender front page article "War with Iraq Undermines U.N." was illustrated with a front page photo of Obama standing and addressing the anti-Iraq War rally in Federal Plaza with the caption: "Left Photo: Sen. Barack Obama along with Rev. Jesse Jackson spoke to nearly 3,000 anti-war protesters (below) during a rally at Federal Plaza Wednesday."

• U.S. Rep. Kucinich (D-OH) voted against the joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War on October 10, 2002.

• U.S. Sen. Clinton (D-NY) voted for the joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War on October 11, 2002.
• U.S. Sen. Biden (D-DE) voted for the joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War on October 11, 2002.
• U.S. Sen. Dodd (D-CT) voted for the joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War on October 11, 2002.
• U.S. Sen. Edwards (D-NC) was a cosponsor of and voted for the joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War on October 11, 2002.

Newross (talk) 07:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It's notable that he's voted identical to Hillary Clinton in all votes regarding Iraq. It's somewhat ludicrous, and certainly not novel that he would loudly proclaim his opposition to the war, when he never had to vote to authorize force. There's no way to predict how he would have voted. I daresay that peer pressure in the Senate might have been a pretty powerful thing at the time. Scottmkeen (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

School essay and born a citizen

I see that someone has removed my sentence (cited) about his famous third grade school essay. I agree that this is kind of a minor item, but still I think it added interest to the article and I don't see how it could have done any harm.

On an unrelated item... Do you think it would be a good idea if the article mentioned that he was born a US citizen? Of course we Americans all know that he was, but people in other countries will also be reading the article and in other places it's possible that a child born to a non-citizen father would not be born a citizen. Borock (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Borock, please see my comment below, prepared while you were entering yours. --HailFire (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks HailFire. I hadn't considered it from that point of view. Borock (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've tweaked it to natural-born citizen, which refers to Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution. kencf0618 (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the change by Kencf. The first line already plainly states that he was born in Hawaii; further elaboration in this context will only confuse readers. --HailFire (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Kencf and Borock about highlighting the fact that he was a citizen at birth, that's a fact that probably wouldn't be inferred by a large portion of the non-US readership. Cogswobbletalk 19:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I propose that "natural-born citizen" addresses two issues quite handily. First, the distinction between jus soli and jus sanguinis would be pertinent to some in a non-American audience. Furthermore, being a "natural-born citizen" is, not to put too fine a point on it, one of the constitutional requirement for holding the office of the presidency. John McCain, and for that matter Barry Goldwater, should get the same treatment –there's more to the United States of America than the fifty states.kencf0618 (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[out] I agree with Hailfire on this - he is clearly identified as having been born in the US (and to an American mother, which wouldn't even be necessary for citizenship). Seems to me that saying that he is raises questions in people's minds that might not have been there before - certainly we don't say the equivalent thing for others if they are born in the US. John McCain was not born in the US, he was born in Panama, so it is relevant to state that he is an American citizen, and even so we do it in a footnote. Obama was born in the US so why would we say it there? Tvoz |talk 19:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think both McCain's and Obama's articles should say that they were born US citizens. I was being generous in saying that all Americans understand the concept of being a natural born citizen. I also understand that in Monte Carlo a child born to a Monte Carlon mother and a non-Monte Carlon father would not be a Monte Carlon. (I'm just guessing at the spelling of that, maybe it should be "a subject of the Prince of Monte Carlo. :-) ) As far as I know the same kind of laws might apply in other countries. Again, an educated, intelligent American would understand all this already and would also be able to figure out that if either of these guys had a problem the Republicans or Democrats would not even be considering nominating them for president. But Wikipedia is read by other people besides educated, intelligent Americans. Anyway that's my opinion. I don't plan on adding it to the article again if people don't agree. Thanks. Borock (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tvoz and Hailfire. Some uninformed readers may be confused, or may perceive this as a jab at McCain whose citizenship is discussed at footnote 1 of the John McCain article. Obama's birth made him a lot of things (e.g. an earthling, a citizen of Hawaii, et cetera). No need to list them here in this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that uninformed readers are the ones most in need of an encyclopedia article. :-) Borock (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Article size and readable prose

Following edits entered today, this article's length was reduced from an all-time high of over 132k to under 120k. The article's readable prose component is now reduced to about 10 printed pages, including images and table of contents, bringing it more in line with featured article criteria #4: "It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail." If your contributions (or content you value) have been removed, please consider removing less notable material before making new additions, or alternatively, helping to improve one of the subarticles. Thanks for editing. --HailFire (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

In that cause I have removed some extra info on Obama's Senate race opponent and on the debate between them. Borock (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't found too much to trim. I did remove the theory that he was awarded Secret Service protection because he is black. That seemed a little bit out there. Borock (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Obama's early public opposition to the Iraq War before it started:

• restored important information and (condensed) references
  • removed 5 redundant Chicago Sun-Times (paid archive) citations
  • removed 1 redundant Daily Herald (paid archive) citation
  • removed 1 redundant Chicago Defender (paid archive) citation
  • changed citation of pages in David Mendell's 2007 biography Obama: From Promise to Power to refer to Cited works section
  • added 2 notable White House press release (October 2, 2002 and March 16, 2003) citations
  • added October 2, 2007 Marilyn Katz (Chicagoans Against War in Iraq) article citation
  • removed line breaks between citations to condense references
  • corrected date (March 16, 2003) of Daley Plaza anti-Iraq War rally and Bush's "Moment of Truth" ultimatum
  • removed individual titles and first names of 4 U.S. Senators in 2008 U.S. Presidential Democratic primary who voted for the joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War to condense text
• changed "early critic of Bush administration policies on Iraq" to "early opponent of Bush administration policies on Iraq" to match cited references
• left "Bush administration" un-wikified
• left added sentence "I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." in blockquote from October 2, 2002 speech
• removed added citation of Michael Crowley's February 13, 2008 The New Republic opinion piece "Cinderella Story: Is Obama's Iraq record really a fairy tale?"

Newross (talk) 05:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"Cultural and political image" section

This seems to have been written when Obama was still fairly new and unknown. Now just about everyone in the country is talking about him at least once a day. I'm not sure how the section could be updated. Maybe it should just be removed, and then rewritten and put back after he leaves office. ;-) Borock (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

hmm... Many hours of hard work have gone into that section. I contributed some of them myself. On the other hand you have a point. Rereading it now it seems kind of like a random collection of opinions, in a way. The "controversy" over his "blackness" especially seems a bit outdated now. I'm not quite bold enough to remove the whole section however. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't remove sections from or make major changes to this article without discussion - this is a featured article that has been vetted and reviewed, and we need to talk about major changes like this. I do not think the section should come out - this is an encyclopedia piece with a long view and we have to assume that people coming to read it now and in the future may not know about these image issues. Editing it is of course possible, but we ought to talk about how first. Similarly, I think big edits especially by new editors ought to be preceded by discussion - being bold is generally fine, but in a high-profile article like this one there has been a great deal of discussion that you may not be aware of. We have extensive archives of how we got to the point we're at,and editors who are available to talk with, so I think bold editing can be problematic. New eyes are valuable, but let's talk first. Tvoz |talk 03:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I would definitely not remove this section. I do not find it dated; rather, it helps to explain why Obama is where he is today and why his presidential campaign is so successful. It should be augmented at some point with reflections from the campaign, yes. But I believe it is vital to the article. Indeed, I have emulated it in both the Hillary Rodham Clinton article (*) and the John McCain article. This section gives us a chance of describing the political and cultural intersection between a biographical figure and American public life, and that's an important thing to do. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC) (*) Back version of HRC given because section is currently out of the article for scholarly cite renovation work.

I don't plan on removing the section then. I've made a resolution not to hurt anyone's feelings here on Wikipedia. Borock (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there any interest in adding a section about his international echo? In Germany he's dominating the news about the presidential election, but with reports from a very critical stance as far as the Spiegel is concerned. That's rather unusual. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the articles in Spiegel and other foreign news agencies about Obama the person or Obama the presidential election candidate? If it is about the presidential election candidate, it would probably be worthwhile to include it in Obama's election campaign article. If it is about the person, then the image section would probably be applicable. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It analyses his rhetoric and statements(especially about foreign politics), so I would include it in his campaign. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, there ya go.. You may also consider adding some of it to the Foreign policy section of his political positions article. It'd be nice to add some critical reviews of his policies in that article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:ObamaSouthCarolina.jpg

I've restored this image to the location in the Barack Obama#Political advocacy section where it appeared previously. If you want to replace the image, its caption, and references with an alternative contribution that better illustrates adjoining section content, please consider stating your reasoning here and seeking consensus before making the change. Thanks. --HailFire (talk) 11:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Obama Portrait 2006 trimmed.jpg would be much better, I think. There is no difference in the substance of the two images--they're both of him making speeches. However, the USC one is professional-quality and is currently gaining support to be a featured picture. (It's definitely among the best portraits that exist on Wikipedia.) Image:ObamaSouthCarolina.jpg, on the other hand, is washed out, tilted, out of focus, and grainy. I'm not sure what advantage you see to using such a poor-quality photo. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Feature article criteria #3 states: "It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject". The image you want to use as a replacement dates from October 28, 2006. It was taken months before Obama became a presidential candidate, at a California appearance that he made in support of Democratic Party candidates prior to the 2006 midterm election. As a closeup, it provides no context, it could have been taken anywhere, and it does not illustrate political advocacy apart perhaps from party solidarity, which is not a topic covered in the adjoining section. I do understand your desire to find a home for it so that the feature picture nomination does not fail, but please, do not try to force this image here where it is NOT a good fit. --HailFire (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Since the image was taken during a speech of Obama supporting California Proposition 87, perhaps a home could be found on the image light article Political positions of Barack Obama in the Energy policy section? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pleased that it's been incorporated into Political positions of Barack Obama, but my insertion of the image here is not just for its FP candidacy. One would think that the best (by far) photo of Barack Obama on wiki could find a place in this article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Returned to Hawaii

I think this is a little unclear. Did his mother and siblings sister (his mom's article only mentions her) also return at the same time? Was he sent back by his mother? I don't think he decided to return on his own since he was only about 10 years old. Redddogg (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

High School Days

Here is an article, hidden away in the footnotes, that gives a much more positive view of Obama as a high school student. Do you think some stuff from it could be added to the article? Redddogg (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Your link to the article doesn't work. 66.32.217.17 (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Here you go: http://starbulletin.com/2007/02/08/news/story02.html I guess I chopped off a letter pasting it. Redddogg (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I might try to add something from it, when I get around to it. I have long felt that this article should have more about Obama's life story and a little less about his political opinions, which I think most people find less interesting than the other. Steve Dufour (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

wiki links

It seems like there are far too many wiki links in the article. I mean, is it really necessary to provide links to words like "pronounced", "memoir" and "multimillionaire"? 66.32.217.17 (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"magna cum laude" in infobox?

The infobox on Michelle Obama mentions that she got her undergraduate degree cum laude. If mentioning the distinction is the usual practice I figure we should include magna cum laude in the box next to Barack Obama's law degree. (If not, someone should remove the distinction from Michelle Obama's infobox.)

The article also doesn't note that Obama is your new bicycle, but I can live with that omission. ;)

Hussein

It should be noted that he is a relative of Saddam Hussein. Balder Hato (talk) 10:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

But not a very close one. :-) Redddogg (talk) 11:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Noted by who? Having the same middle name as someone else's last name is hardly evidence of relation. Cogswobbletalk 19:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Thousands (if not millions) of people have that name. It is a refrence to a religious figure. (example: paul, David, Rebbecca etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.37.50 (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't feed the trolls. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Education

Can you please update your page to include the dates Barack Obama Graduated Columbia University and Havard Law School. Only seems fair since the dates were included in Hillary Clinton Bio.

Education: Graduated from Columbia University in 1983 and Harvard Law School in 1991. Became first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review in 1990

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/28/at_harvard_law_a_unifying_voice/?page=1

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgdme (talk • contribs) 19:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Senate Career

It seems somewhat incongruous that Mr. Obama's short and comparitively speaking, relatively uneventful, senate career of three years has recieved 6 full paragraphs while his apparent Republican rival's (John Mcain) controversial and eventful senate career of some 22 years only has 3 paragraphs devoted to it. I note also that while there is no mention of the oft cited but hardly conclusive Muslim connection there is no problem devoting three paragraphs to Mcain's role in the Keating 5 scandal. I do realize that being the issue of a Muslim father and having studied the Koran as the chosen faith to fulfil a religious studies requirement is not a crime or an ethics violation whereas the Keating 5 behavior was at least an ethics violation.

Without having read the guidelines for entries for presidential candidates I would think that any controversies should at least be mentioned in passing if for nothing more than to document its importance in the American voting publics political purview. Surely the subject of Mr. Obama's exposure to Islam or percieved exposure should at least ne mentioned.

Uwharries (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)uwharries