Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5


Gas tax, estate tax

Recent edits by an anon (seen here) added the following to the article:

In May 2006, Obama campaigned to maintain a $.54 per gallon tax on imported ethanol, during a period when automotive fuel prices hovered around $3.00 per gallon. Obama justified the tax by joining Senator Durbin in stating that "ethanol imports are neither necessary nor a practical response to current gasoline prices". In June 2006, Obama campaigned to increase estate tax to their 2000 levels, claiming that this would eliminate the "Paris Hilton" tax break for "billionaire heirs and heiresses."

My position is that, as written, the blurbs violate WP:NPOV as they provide merely soundbytes without any context that are slanted toward a conservative view of both issues.

Regarding the estate tax, the use of the word "increase" is misleading and POV, considering that the estate tax is in the middle of a steady, drawn-out cut that will culminate in its elimination for one year in 2010. As the law stands now, the estate tax will automatically roll back to its 2000 level one year later in 2011. Regardless of what one thinks of the estate tax, one can hardly say, and remain neutral, that Obama supports an "increase" of the estate tax if he merely opposes extending a cut that is ALREADY set to expire in five years. My edit, which is only a slight change, to the blurb is here.

Second, regarding the gas tax, the sentence soundbyte purporting to explain how Obama justifies the tax is nothing more than an attempt to (1) make Obama appear to have no justification for the tax, and (2) avoid explaining how Obama actually justifies tax. It's POV and does not deserve to be in the article without elaboration. - Jersyko·talk 15:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

These are simply news items that show Obama's record of favoring raising taxes. If the news items show what is true, how is that slanted. One of them is from his own webpage. The other from a joint release with Sen Harkin, signed by Obama.

"Increase" is the straightforward term Jerseyko is attempting to bury as a rollback of a tax cut. The simple English language description of raising taxes from current levels is Increase. Any other description is political mucky-muck, or POV if you prefer.

The gas tax quote, from Obama's press release is accurate. If you have further explanation of his justification, please add it, or start another page for it, but I cannot see how you can remove a letter from the Senator campaigning for ethanol tariffs in the name of POV. The POV is shown in your removal of news accurately describing the positions of Sen Obama. If you feel as though you must apologize for Obama's campaigns to raise taxes, how about starting an "Obama Apologetics" section, rather than removing the actual quotes from the esteemed Senator.--24.13.84.218 17:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

How about assuming good faith and not being a dick? Cut the BS rhetoric when you respond to my points. I've explained how "increase" is a mischaracterization and oversimplification of Obama's position on estate taxes. I've explained how the gas tax blurb is an attempt to (1) make Obama appear to have no justification for the tax, and (2) avoid explaining how Obama actually justifies tax. You're justifying them by pointing out that they are cited, but you fail to realize that verifiability is only one qualification for text in an aritcle: it must also be written neutrally. Oversimplification is a logical fallacy, one that causes the text you've added to be POV. - Jersyko·talk 17:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I just read Obama's statement on the estate tax again. Point out where in that short statement Obama says we should increase the estate tax. It's not there. Your source defeats your argument. - Jersyko·talk 17:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Jersyko, your characterization of raising taxes being mischaracterized as a tax increase is pure Orwellian. In plain English, if one removes tax decreases, that is an increase. It is a completely neutral statement to point out the fact that Obama supports increased taxes. He may have some justification, he may not, but this is not the section on Obama Apologetics. It is simply a statement of his position on Estate Taxes. I do not see this entry as an appropriate area to explain Obama's support for higher gas prices or higher estate taxes, rather just report the information as is, and set up links to other sections that go into estate taxes and import tariffs in more depth.--24.13.84.218 20:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok, so this encyclopedia article about Barack Obama in a section about his career in the Senate is not "an appropriate area to explain Obama's support for higher gas prices or higher estate taxes." Your continued use of inflated rhetoric instead of reference to Wikipedia policy is impressive but unpersuasive. - Jersyko·talk 20:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. This is a good place to post facts about Sen. Obama. It is not a good place to make justifications for his posititions. That would be better on a campaign site, rather than on an encyclopedia entry. Where on earth is the inflated rhetoric? Can we stop this campaign to bury the facts? Just let the facts speak for themselves.

I have removed the list of billionaires. There is nothing in the links suggesting that these people are affected by the estate tax. In general, it may be a good assumption to think that billionaires have found methods of estate tax avoidance, or maybe they haven't but by no means are all billionaires eligible for the estate tax.--24.13.84.218 21:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with the removal of the link to the list of billionaires. Where are you getting this seemingly-arbitrary "52%" estate tax rate number that you claim Obama likes? I don't see it anywhere in the source. - Jersyko·talk 22:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_Tax, the Estate Tax in 2006 is 46%.--24.13.84.218 23:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Now please connect that 46% rate (or 52% or any othe rate) with anything Obama has said in the citation in the article. - Jersyko·talk 01:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, a revert of the Estate Tax taking it back to 2002 levels would make it..50%.., which is what Obama voted for. Obama voted to allow taxes to revert to their 2002 level.--24.13.84.218 12:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right, but the source does not say this. The source merely indicates that Obama opposes a Republican-backed tax break. Until a source says differently, I think the article should not presume that Obama voted this way or that. - Jersyko·talk 13:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Jerseyko, can you please do a minimal amount of research before removing my posts? The estate tax vote was widely publicized, in most every media outlet in America. Obama voted to allow the estate tax to revert to 2002 levels, quoted here in Newsday http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-senate-rollvote-estate-tax,0,1019235.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

I don't see why your speculative removals are more justified than my correct postings. A 2 second Google search would verify Obama's voting record. It had to take you longer to remove my statement than to check it vs. the congressional record.--Jbpo 15:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

First, the burden to provide sources is on those wishing to include the information, NOT on editors who remove unsourced information, per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Second, your wording, "Obama voted to allow estate taxes to return to a 50% level" is an inference based on what actually happened, which is that Obama voted against a Republican tax break. The source says "The 57-41 roll call by which the Senate rejected advancing a Republican bill to eliminate or shrink taxes on inherited estates." It does not say "The senators voted to retun taxes to a 50% level." That might well be the effect of the vote (though it might not end up that way!), but it was NOT the purpose of the vote. - Jersyko·talk 15:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, so then request a source in the discussion rather than acting as the censor. There is nothing in the wiki rules suggesting you should remove such statements. Why not just do a minimal amount of research 1st? --24.13.84.218 21:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll just refer back to WP:V again. It's a good read, give it a try. - Jersyko·talk 21:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Please also refer to the Wikipedia entry on Doublespeak http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak the Orwellian term for censorship to fit your POV, rather than consulting factual records. It is an apt description for your editorial style. --24.13.84.218 23:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:V is a policy all wikipedians must follow. Doublespeak isn't, but I'm glad to see it gave you another opportunity to break out the unnecessary Orwellian language. Consulting factual records is a great idea. It helped me fix the POV you inserted here, here, and here, among others. Things often look different when you don't selectively choose facts that fit your POV, don't they? I'm reminded of a section of the neutral point of view policy . . . "Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through selection of which facts to present" - Jersyko·talk 03:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Jerseyko above examples are not much on POV. They are simply a restating of the facts, and the implications of defeating the Estate Tax rollback. I have selectively chosen to publicize Obama's recent record. I do not think it gets publicized in the mainstream press, thus I publish here. The implied stance I am trying for is balance. This article is very rah-rah in favor of Barack Obama, without stating much of anything about his votes, or his stance on issues. Publicizing his votes, show his stance on issues. He wants to raise the estate tax. He wants to have tariffs on imported ethanol. He wants to fund the Bridge to Nowhere. I am reaching double digits on the nubmer of times you have removed references accurate representations of Sen Obama's stance on issues, and the implications of his votes. Given that the rest of this article is something of an Obama PR Piece, wouldn't some balance be desired in an encyclopedia entry?--Jbpo 21:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If implying that Dick Durbin caused 10,000 people to lose their jobs and that he "was failing the citizens of Illinois" by supporting sugar protectionism is not POV, please, explain what is. I'd recommend reading the neutral point of view policy. Notice that neutrality not balance is what is required. I've got no objection to, as you say, publicizing Obama's votes on major issues. I do object to doing so from any perspective other than a neutral one. I've explained how your selection of facts, such as failing to truthfully explain why Obama supports the ethanol tariff, violates the NPOV policy, then edited the text you added to the article. The article now discusses both the estate tax and ethanol tariffs, yet you accuse me of removing accurate representations of Obama's stance on issues, which I take to mean that since the article doesn't radiate your POV on the issue, I must have removed the discussion of the issue entirely. Good luck convincing me and the community on that point. - Jersyko·talk 21:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The 10,000 jobs statement was from Mayor Daley. Nothing implied, it is a fact that major politicians, businessmen, and unions have creditted the sugar tariff, championed by Senator Durbin, with destroying the candy industry in Chicago. How is this POV? It is the general consensus, which even Senator Durbin has admitted (to an extent).

One might get the impression that facts unfavorable to Senator Durbin and Obama are being removed, soley to protect Senator Durbin from having his record published. I see no reason why I should be composing an explanation for Sen. Obama's voting record. I do not know the reason why he votes the way he does (and neither do you). A neutral posting of Sen Obama's voting record certainly stands on its own. If you have some favorable votes that Sen Obama has made, go ahead and post them. But please quit tailoring my neutral posts to fit your POV. --24.13.84.218 23:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Tailoring your neutral posts to fit my pov? Well, for one thing, I completely disagree with Obama and Durbin on economic protectionism, including sugar and ethanol tariffs. So that's a non-starter, I'm afraid. Second, I haven't removed any facts. Your edit about ethanol made it appear that Obama/Durbin had no explanation for their support of the tariff, as it said "___ justified the tariff by stating 'Ethanol imports are neither necessary nor a practical response to current gasoline prices'" without actually explaining how they justified the tariff, which is because they think domestic ethanol production is sufficient and even expanding (straight from the source). You selectively left off the crucial final fact, which is where the POV problem is. So what I've done, instead of removing facts, is merely told the whole story. The bit about ethanol tariffs, for instance, is still in the article, and is substantially the same as it was when you added it, but now it doesn't selectively leave out a crucial fact. Finally, you say "I see no reason why I should be composing an explanation for Sen. Obama's voting record", but didn't you add the "justified the tariff" sentence in the first place? So are you (1) not composing explanations for Obama's voting record or (2) cherry-picking facts from sources that happen to fit your pov while omitting others? - Jersyko·talk 23:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Jerseyko, I am not Obama's PR man. I am simply posting information about Obama's voting record and campaigns. The "cherry-picking" is for real: I am posting information largeley ignored by the mainstream media. That is one of the strong points of a Wiki. Information which is very important (Obama's stance on the Bridge to Nowhere, for example), is typically not reported or buried in the Chicago newspapers, although it is crucial to understanding the Senator. While the Chicago Tribune and SunTimes publish details of Obama's Grammy Awards, High School Athletics, and cheerful consideration of the Presidential nomination, there needs to be some outlet publsishing his voting record, even if that record is not popular with his constituents. Isn't one of the purposes of Wiki-Media to avoid the POV and cheerleading of the mainstream media? --24.13.84.218 14:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's purpose is to present information neutrally, without any eye towards whether the information is being reported in the mainstream media or not, excepting that it must also be verifiable in reliable sources. You do hit on one point that I think we agree on: the article should discuss Obama's stances on major issues (though in an NPOV manner), which it hasn't necessarily done up till now. Of course, Obama didn't necessarily have the voting record/public statements on issues until now, either. - Jersyko·talk 15:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, if Wikipedia was only here to re-publish things from the mainstream media, one could just use the mainstream media. One of the weak points of the MSM is that piles on information, without using much discretion as to its utility. Thus we know quite a bit about Obama's multicultrualism and high school sporting achievments and next to nothing about his stance on issues. I am not about to post the charming story of Obama attending fancy private schools for 30 years of his life. However, I will make an effort to post Obama's voting record, regardless of how that record reflects on his public image.--24.13.84.218 21:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, well, I'm glad we agree on that point. In (what I hope is the) conclusion, I don't want to discourage you from posting Obama's stances on major issues (I hope I've never come across as such), I just want to discourage you from posting what you believe are Obama's stances on major issues. Anyway, let's work to improve the article, I think TheronJ made a good suggestion below . . . - Jersyko·talk 22:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

About your rewording, editing in "from 50% to 0%", this language is simply incompatible with the source, which says "shrink or eliminate" the tax. - Jersyko·talk 21:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I added two sources for the 55% tax revert rate. One is conservative, one is left-wing. They both agree that 55% the rate that estate tax reverts to. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jbpo (talk • contribs) .

While I agree that if the current law runs its course the estate tax rate will be 55% in 2011, the vote in the Senate was not over whether to allow the tax to return to that level. Rather, the vote was essentially a cloture vote on a Republican tax break (i.e., elimination or shrinkage of the estate tax in 2011 and beyond). We have no idea what will happen between now and 2011, and whether Obama supports the 55% rate or a different one, as the sources do not say. Since the vote was not over the 55% rate, we should not presume it was in this article. - Jersyko·talk 03:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I put the Ethanol Tariff support back in. It is verifiable. If you have context, add it, but the Sentaor support taxing imported ethanol.--Jbpo 17:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's verifiable, but verifiability isn't the only relevant policy, NPOV is just as important! Since the text is not neutral, it should not be in the article unless it is made neutral. I would be fine with including an expanded blurb about it provided that it was neutral, but, with all due respect, your admonition for me to expand the text does not justify re-inserting a biased passage back into the article. - Jersyko·talk 17:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reworded the blurb about the ethanol "tax" (a tariff, actually, so even the word "tax" was somewhat misleading) for NPOV with information straight from the source. - Jersyko·talk 18:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  • It seems to me that the estate tax paragraph doesn't match the source. (1) According to the source, Obama opposes a Republican initiative to prevent previously passed increases in the estate tax from taking place. (2) Obama supports a so-called "compromise bill" instead. (3) Ultimately, I don't see anything where Obama prefers to return the estate tax to Y2K (particularly since I think that failing to prevent the scheduled increase only takes us to 2002). I don't have time to rewrite it, but maybe someone else could suggest a rewording.TheronJ 18:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Good point. I'll change the date for now, and see what I can find this evening regarding your further comments. - Jersyko·talk 18:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I've reworded the blurb to comport with the source and with what little else I can find about Obama's stance on the estate tax. It now reads, "In June 2006, Obama campaigned against making recent temporary estate tax cuts permanent, calling the cuts a "Paris Hilton" tax break for "billionaire heirs and heiresses." If anyone can find a more comprehensive statement by Obama on what exactly he wants to do with the estate tax, please post the link here. - Jersyko·talk 21:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Immigration Reform

Again Jerseyko, I am not Obama's PR man. If you insist on claiming POV on any post not written in the style of a PR flak, go ahead, but I really do not work for him.--Jbpo 18:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Neither do I. However, simply put, the fact that you don't work for him does not excuse you from adherence to the neutral point of view policy. You wrote "Obama campaigned to reform immigration through a system of paying a substantial fine and back taxes . . .", failing to note that he supports those things only to provide a path to citizenship for undocumented workers. As you wrote it, it reads as if Obama supports fining illegal imigrants for no articulated reason instead of as part of a plan to integrate them into society as citizens. Tone down your rhetoric in talk page posts. - Jersyko·talk 18:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could tone down your condemnations in the same forum. I basically retyped the ABC news report, and an -ing suffix in Obama's own statement to make the tense correct. You insisted, without much merit, that this represents point of view. It does not. Go ahead and add your 2 cents; I have no problem with it. But please quit seeing POV in any story that is not Rah-Rah for Obama. --Jbpo 19:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You've misrepresented my view. I don't "see POV in any story that is not Rah-Rah for Obama", I see POV in your attempts to report the story differently from what has actually been reported. Let's look at this in detail with your recent edit as a good example. You wrote:

"Obama campaigned to reform immigration through a system of paying a substantial fine and back taxes, learning English, satisfying a work requirement, and passing a background check, and well as securing the border with Mexico [reference]."

Here's what the reference actualy said:

"The first priority of any immigration reform should be to secure our nation's borders. In that respect, the president's proposal has merit as a temporary solution. . . . We also know that border security is only one side of the equation. Comprehensive immigration reform cannot succeed without a plan to bring the undocumented out of the shadows and offer them a path to citizenship, after they pay a substantial fine and back taxes, learn English, satisfy a work requirement, and pass a background check."[1]

First, you've obviously deleted the point of Obama's quote from your summary of it, his point being that "comprehensive immigration reform cannot succeed without a plan to bring the undocumented out of the shadows and offer them a path to citizenship." This is the crux of the debate over immigration in the United States right now, and Obama's position on this issue should not be conveniently left out of the article in favor of taling only about fines etc. for illegal immigrants.
Second, and merely as an aside, your addition was poorly worded, mainly because it forces the reader to ask "but who is paying taxes and fines, and for what purpose?" Surely you don't believe that Obama's position on immigration is to fine, tax, learn English, and satisfy work requirements? That doesn't even make any sense. That's like responding to the question "What is your favorite color?" with "I like baseballs"--your answer might be "white", the color of baseballs, but "I like baseballs" isn't an answer to the question. Similarly, the answer to "what is your position on immigration reform" would not be "taxes, fines, learning English", it would be "providing citizenship if you pay taxes, fines, learn English, etc."
I hope this helps you understand why your addition was POV, quite contrary to your contention that I "insisted, without much merit, that this represents point of view." - Jersyko·talk 20:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No, your edit was trivial and not very helpful. Immigration reform implies that there would be some path to legal immigration. You duplicate that by writing about the path to citizenship. My addition was basically copied from Obama's press release. The poor wording belongs to the Senator. I'll stand by my observation that Obama is offering a series of fines, penalties and tests as a path to legal immigration. That is what he said. If it does not make any sense, then perhaps he should not have said it, but of course that is up to the Senator, and not me. In any case, it does not merit your trivial edit, nor your condemnation as POV. --Jbpo 00:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You said: Immigration reform implies that there would be some path to legal immigration. What?? There have been constituencies calling for deportation of all illegal immigrants for years. Why does merely saying "immigration reform" automatically mean "providing some path to legal immigration"? That's an absurd argument. You also say I'll stand by my observation that Obama is offering a series of fines, penalties and tests as a path to legal immigration. -- but you didn't do that! You left off the as a path to legal immigration part in your edit, the most crucial words in that sentence in the context of the immigration debate as it is in the US today. You claim to merely be reproducting what Obama said, but now you're now misrepresenting what you said Obama said. Thus, as is your pattern and professed POV, you edited in a negative picture (instead of a netural picture) of Obama talking about how he's going to fine and tax without even referring to who he's going to fine and tax and for what reason. Finally, as to your point about me being picky with the neutral point of view policy, well, it is the most important policy here at Wikipedia and is absolutely non-negotiable (that's in the policy itself), so, yeah, that's what we do. - Jersyko·talk 01:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. 1) There is already a path to legal immigration that does not require Obama's fines and penalties. 2) There is evidently some kind of immigration reform called for by Obama. That reform calls for various hurdles for immigrants, which I listed. 3) There is a major difference between reform and calling out the militia. No one is suggesting that Obama is calling out the Militia.

You can make it more clear, which is fine, but your chanting of "POV, POV" is not very useful whatsoever. It drives people, like myself, away from making perfectly legitimate edits, and letting the cheerleaders and Senatorial Staff PR people edit the Wiki. Can you please lighten up a bit on your POV witchunt, which seems only to apply to posts which are not leading cheers for Obama? --Jbpo 02:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The first part of your most recent comment does not make any sense in the logical flow of this discussion and is completely off point. I suggest you read my posts again, you're completely missing my point.
"POV witchunt" . . . which only applies to posts casting Obama in a negative light . . . perhaps you should look att the myriad other POV discussions I've been involved in on numerous other articles (most of which aren't political-related) in my 4,500 edits at Wikipedia. So I'll say "no" to your request for me to "lighten up" on my "POV witchunt". You're welcome to think of my NPOV edits as merely "making it more clear", but that's not going to stop me from calling "POV" when I see it. I'll end this comment with a request for you to read the neutral point of view policy in toto. - Jersyko·talk 02:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Presidential Ambitions

There appears to be a contradiction in this section. We first say that he is "neither affirming his candidacy nor putting off the possibility altogether". But then, in the next sentence, we say that he "will not run for the presidency in 2008". I think the truth is closer to the latter because that is something he himself has said while the former relies on speculation from secondary sources. Maximusveritas 20:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that was contradictory, though I don't think we can really say with certainty what he's going to do at this point. I edited the section, though my wording is remarkably clumsy, perhaps I should fix that . . . · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 20:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, fixed my edit. I really don't think we can say anymore right now without violating Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, even though it still seems a bit contradictory. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 20:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that no where in that article does it provide a quote showing that Obama is actually "keeping his options open". Everytime that's said, it's in the words of the author of the article, but no proof is given. Meanwhile, we know for a fact that Obama has said he will not run, so I think we should just stick to that. Maximusveritas 20:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I went ahead and rewrote it in order to reflect the reality of the situation a little better. Maximusveritas 22:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I like it, good work. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 23:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone keeps changing the posts about the petitions online to force Obama to run for president. One comment left said they were removed because they weren't noteworthy. I think that person is politically motiviated. I honestly believe most people reading this article will find the information interesting maybe even useful. So, who would erase such information? Who wants to suppress the common man? Someone who doesn't agree with Obama? Yes, I'm suggesting that. Why else? The information obviously is on topic and well written. Brien86 22:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I like Obama, but removed the petitions. Wikipedia's content policies indicate that such petitions should not be described in Wikipedia articles like this one, see, e.g., what Wikipedia is not and no original research. Also relevant is Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline. If the petitions are discussed in a reliable source, then perhaps they should be discussed in this article. For now, however, I don't think we can include them. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Blogs are specifically pointed out to be generally unacceptable sources per WP:RS. Thus, this edit does not comport with WP:RS. If blogs were acceptable sources, anyone could post any opinion they want to their blog, then post it in articles here with a cite to their blog. I'd also like to note that the blog you cite is merely expressing an opinion; it's not purporting to report fact, like a newspaper would, it's expressing it's opinion on a political subject, thus it's even less appropriate per WP:RS. The only reason Wikipedia can ever consider including information from blogs is when they report factual information; but even then, newspapers or other reliable sources are preferred if they can be found reporting the same information. This is all in WP:RS, another policy I wish you would familiarize yourself with, Jbpo. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 03:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the "Reliable Sources" is a guidline and not a rule. It seems perfectly logical to state opinions from blogs in encyclopedic entries, probably more so than posting opinions from newspapers. There are varying degrees of blogs out there. This one [2]is quite well researched, and reliable. However, given that the statement is only a matter of opinion, and given that the blogger did a significant amount of research to form his opinion, one could fairly surmise that the bloggers text is a well informed statement as to the reaction of some in the Christian community to Sen. Obama's statements. If there is a dispute as to reliability, it should be as to whether the statement reflects the authors opinion, rather than whether the blog is 100% correct. It is an opinion, and not provable as to correctness. --Jbpo 14:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

But the verifiability policy requires that sources be reliable. Your dismissal of the reliable sources policy as merely "a guideline" that you seem to want to ignore demonstrates, at the very least, a marked misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. Finally, if we're going to provide discussion of reaction to Obama's speech, we must not only provide links to reliable sources that discuss reaction to the speech, but also adhere to the undue weight portion of the NPOV policy. Linking to criticism of the speech alone violates that policy. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 14:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Illinois state bills

Recently, User:J8427 added this bit of info to the article. To clarify, the user did so after first inaccurately describing the bill in an anti-Obama way twice (this is the third edit by the user attempting to insert the information). My problem with the current edit is that it gives undue weight to Obama's position on a non-notable state bill and does not explain Obama's position at all. The bill merely creates a cause of action for a parent whose child was born alive and was disfigured by a botched abortion. I'm not sure why the bill was necessary, given that tort law most likely already provides for such an action. But that's neither here nor there. I'm posting here to see what others think about the bill's notability and whether we should give a detailed description of Obama's vote on one state bill (and why this one over all the rest? why cherry pick here?) in light of undue weight and other relevant policy. Thanks. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 12:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it doesn't belong. Shsilver 13:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The bill is by far the most controversial vote of obama's career in the state senate. Read the bill; it's very short and simple, which is why I included a direct quote in the post. [3] (It mentions nothing of disfiguration.) A vote for controversial legislation is notable, regardless of whether he sponsored the bill or not. A post that references his explanation of his vote would be an appropriate addition as you mentioned. As for undue weight, it seems that one reference to a "negative" (and very controversial) vote in a section that describes several "positive" bills that he supported does not give undue weight. Also consider that it supports the statement in the next paragraph: "though known as a principled liberal..." And btw, this is my only wikipedia user name. No sock puppets. J8427
The bills mentioned are bills he had a hand in writing or proposing, not just voting for. That is a major difference. Find a "controversial" bill he proposed or wrote if you want to add seomthing less positive. Shsilver 18:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
It is true that it is not parallel to the other bills mentioned. However, it is common on most articles about politicians to mention significant votes they cast (check some other high profile senators, for example). It might be more appropriate to mention it in the senate race section - see my comment below. The senate race section in general needs to be added to. Compared to the same section in the Alan Keyes article, it is rather sparse, especially considering that it was a notable campaign that received significant national media coverage.--J8427 02:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Shsilver. Whether the bill is controversial is somewhat beside the point, but the bill was not nearly as controversial as you think it was. It merely creates a cause of action for damages so that the parent of a child that was born alive after a botched abortion can recover from the negligent doctor. The bill does not, as you originally suggested, "grant medical care and protection for any child born after a failed abortion attempt." Have you read the bill? I recommend reading it again so you can see what I mean. Finally, it is likely that the parents would already have an action for malpractice against the doctor even without the bill in question, making opposition to the bill even less "controversial" since a remedy at law exists even without the bill's newly created cause of action. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 23:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Your interpretation is noted; the bill does say that, among other things.("The General Assembly finds that all children who are born alive are entitled to equal protection under the law regardless of the circumstances surrounding the birth.") Even if it as toothless as you say, it still makes one wonder why he would oppose it, especially given the other legislation that he supported. This is why on my most recent post I put a quote from the bill and a link to the full text of the legislation, allowing the reader to decide. You are probably right that it is not as controversial as I think (since I closely followed his US senate race), but it is also probably more controversial than you claim. Why bother including it? Because anyone who does a bit of research on his senate race will come across references to that vote. Keyes even claimed it was the motivating factor in his decision to oppose Obama (this was probably just campaign propoganda, but shows that this was not just an obscure vote). Including information on the vote and obama's explanation for it, if he has one, would fill a significant gap. The first time I saw the article, I was surprised to find that the vote was not mentioned, because I assumed that an explanation of his vote would be on wikipedia, if anywhere. --J8427 02:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you have any reliable sources stating that the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act was one of Keyes' motivating factors for entering the '04 Senate race? Can you provide reliable sources for the significance and notability of Obama's position on the act? For what it's worth, the full title of the bill gets three google hits. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 03:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The bill was commonly called the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act," probably because a similar federal bill had that name. For that reason, the actual title will not show up on google results as much, assuming that to be a legitimate measure of notability. Alan Keyes' motivation can be found in his acceptance speech (about halfway down) where he says that vote is "what finally arrested my attention and forced me to consider whether I not only had the opportunity to oppose him, but the obligation." [4], as well as in many interviews. [5] The notability of Obama's position that he voted against a bill that in very similar form was passed by the US senate by unanimous consent, and by the house on a voice vote. This would indicate his vote is significant. Granted, it is not the same bill, but the intent was the same. I'm really not sure why there is such a question of notability. Where are all the sources for the the bill that he sponsored to make sure mammograms are covered? Where is the evidence of notability for that bill? Why the "cherry picking?" --J8427 04:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
You're quite correct to point out the lack of sources for other statements about Obama's time in the IL legislature. Feel free to remove the relevant unsourced statements from the article if you like. Cherry picking is likely not implicated if a source is cited, however, as he sponsored the bill. Nonetheless, if it turns out to be merely a minor bill, however, that Obama did not push for very hard or really had little to do with, it doesn't deserve mention, in my opinion. Finally, I'm not sure that two Alan Keyes sources prove the notability (or can serve as reliable sources) of the bill. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that if Keyes really was motivated to enter the race by Obama's "no" vote on this bill, then it belongs in Keyes article, not this one. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 12:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"Coalition builder", Illinois FOP endorsement

Agree that this line about Obama and the Illinois state police needs reworking to mesh better with contemporary reports, including:

For other contemporaneous references to Obama as "coalition builder" see:

Also, I could find no references to the NRA in this context. So there's something to be said here, but it needs to be said differently to rely on any of these sources. --HailFire 22:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed {{fact}}, modified text, and added citations in this version.--HailFire 20:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Black/Jewish Senators Catholics etc & UK comparisons

As a mere Brit, I'm flabbergasted to learn that there are only 3 black US senators. (Have I got this right - what proportion of US citizens are black?) What about black Congress-persons? Are there more there? I recall a lot of talk about Kennedy being the first catholic president - this seems equally surprising. Has terhe been a Jewish president yet? I would exptec so as I believe there is a large Jewish communjity in the USA. (We Brits had a Jew2ish boss in Disraeli in ?1860's - not sure if we've had one since)

I remember reading some analysis of why this is so (apart from the most obvious reasons); electoral differences between parlimentary goverment and the way things work in the USA are most likely a contributing factor. Check the paragraphs after the "Populists and Virgins" section header of this article for some insights. If I come across more material, I'll add it here. --HailFire 12:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's something about it from The Economist. --HailFire 09:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that Kennedy was the only Catholic president, and there has never been a Jewish president. Joe Liberman would have been the first Jewish vice president, if he and Al Gore had won in 2000. Liberman is currently a senator, and it doesn't look like he'll win the reelection next month. If the Democrats win the House of Represenatives, Nancy Pelosi will probably become the first female Speaker of the House. Mustang6172 20:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Off topic, but Lieberman has been leading against Lamont in nearly every poll so far. It seems more like that he will win reelection as an independent than not. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
In response to our British cousin, I note: Disraeli was not Jewish; he was Christian. His family had originally been Jews, but they had converted before he was born. No Jew could serve as a Member of Parliament until the 1860s, when the oath was ammended to removed references to Jesus. Baron Lionel de Rothschild was, I believe, the first Jewish member to take the new oath. Or was it Sir Moses Montefiore? I forget. Anyway, Britain has never had a Jewish Prime Minister. Considering that the Jewish Community in Britain is almost 1,000 years old, it is arguably more overdue in Britain than in our young nation. On the other hand, you have had a woman PM, and we have never had a woman President. The Jews are approximately 2 per cent of the US population, and we have at least 2 Jewish Senators (2% of 100). I don't really know where all this talk is headed; just a response to your comments....66.108.4.183 23:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

Tags added

Per stricter requirements since Obama passed FA, Featured articles should now have inline citations: I've tagged paragraphs and statements in the article which still need inline cites. The WikiSource speech contains no source, so it should also be added here. Thanks, Sandy 18:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Coburn-Obama

Request for Comment: Barack Obama's self-identification

Barack Obama identifies himself as African-American. The term African-American has been linked to people who do not know their racial heritage in Africa due to the slave trade. Barack's father was born in Kenya. 19:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Barack's father is Kenyan-American (black) and his mother is Kansan (Kansas in the United States) (white). Barack Obama is bi-racial. Shakam 19:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

OK for you with the edits made to the first two paragraphs of this version? --HailFire 14:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's much better than what it was. (If I wrote a paper I wouldn't put that, but you know how I feel anyway.) But yeah, thanks man, it's much better than what it was, and keep up the good work on this article, because I see you've contributed a lot to this one.

P.S. It will probably have to be revised again if Harold Ford Jr. wins.

Shakam 20:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright I'll leave it alone for the time being, even though I strongly disagree, but in November even if Harold does not win, the sentence should/will be scratched entirely. Shakam 20:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a PR Flak for Senator Obama?

Re-reading this article, it sure seems like Sen Obama can do no wrong. Despite his partisan voting record, he is presented as seeking some middle ground. His vacant pronouncements about national unity are taken at face value, while his voting record and campaigning are completely New Deal Democrat. Any addition, by myself and others, that mention the Senator's actual voting record are removed via Wikilawyering and some completely partisan editors. If "this page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism", shouldn't this article be editted to remove cheerleading and POV?--Jbpo 15:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree. To tell everyone the truth, I am quite surprised that this is even a featured article. Compared to the Hurricane Katrina FA, it does not seem to possess a FA's level of content or quality. The main reason in support of that belief is that this article seems to indicate that Barack's beliefs and/or polcies have never engendered controversy. Many, and I mean many, of the other articles of prominent politicians have sections devoted to controversy. Lieberman's page has an entire section on "Bush's kiss," something that could be summed up in two to three sentences. This article seems POV to me; we should at least rename it Barack for Senate(jk). Seriously though, I propose a POV tag. The great kawa 09:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
At least one contributor has stated that the Barack Obama article is biased and may require a (N)POV tag. Expert guidance from experienced Neutrality Project reviewers would be most appreciated. Kindly reply on the article's talk page, if possible. --HailFire 13:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
If you guys have any notable controversies to add, then please do so. Obama is the kind of Senator who tries to avoid controversy, so it's no surprise that there aren't any on the page. The only one I can think of was his spat with McCain. I don't know if we need a seperate section on that, but it should probably be in the article. Also, if you can point out any specific POV problems, please do that. If not, then I don't think a POV tag is warranted. Maximusveritas 13:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I second Maximusveritas. What controversies? The McCain disagreement? The speech to the evangelical left (already mentioned in the article)? · j e r s y k o talk · 13:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Well let's see, Wikipedia keeps a decent history, so this isn't real hard. Sections on Obama supporting the Bridge to Nowhere have been removed 5 times. The section on Obama's position on Judge Alito (against filibustering but voting for it) is gone, the section on Obama's support for ethanol tariffs has been removed 3 times. Obama getting campaign contributions from fugitive felon Tony Rezko? Gone, in record time.
I agree, and you can add the state bill voting record (see talk section above) to your list. When one reads almost any other article on a senator, especially a sitting one, there is a lot more information on their votes and actions that might unpopular, regardless of whether or not there was a "controversy." J8427 19:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The controversy that Obama avoids is mostly due to the press not reporting his voting record. The miserable editor/censors here on Wikipedia have effectively drowned out any reporting on actual votes by the Senator and his positions on issues and replaced it with fawning (and quite distorted) coverage of how popular Obama is. Could his popularity have something to do with the suppression of his actual positions and voting record by the Chicago Media AND Wikipedia? --Jbpo 17:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Obama's page should at least have sections devoted to some controversial decisions of his (like those stated above) even if that involves statements from certain organizations that do not support his liberal views and positions on certain issues. I mean Steve Irwin's article has a section on people who are glad he is dead and their criticisms on his death. I am not saying that this article should be turned into that, but I do believe anybody who comes to his page looking for specific issues or positions that he has taken that have created controversy, will think that he has had none. The great kawa 19:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Things get removed and re-added all the time. You just have to make your case here on the Talk page and build consensus. As far as your examples, it's important to note that Senators make lots of votes. We can't mention all of them; only the most notable ones. I did a Google search for "Obama" and "Bridge to Nowhere" and the only things I found were a quote from Obama where he actually states his opposition to projects like the Bridge to Nowhere and a comment from you on another website where you criticize Obama for 2 of the things you mention above. So I think that's an example of something that definitely does not belong in the article. I do think the Rezko thing belongs in the article. He's not exactly a "fugitive felon", but he is notable because Obama returned his contribution Maximusveritas 19:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Aside from being a fugitive charged with a felony, how is Antoin Rezko NOT a fugitive felon...anyway...you folks are proving my point quite well. It is common knowledge among everyone interested in Illinois politics that Obama traded his support for the Bridge to Nowhere for support for the I-355 extension (so did Hastert btw). However you will not find that info in the Tribune or SunTimes, and even the slightest mention of Obama supporting the Bridge to Nowhere get censored here, although his vote speaks for itself. Why even have an alternative media if only the MSM drivel is repeated about what an upstanding citizen and unifying force Senator Obama is, despite his partisan voting record, and various sellouts of the voters. Read the below info on why Obama questionable votes are not controversial. Why not just publish a few of his votes, and a few of the questionable things he campaigns for (tariffs for example, while he was one of the bigger abusers of flying around in ADM's private jets from function to function) and let the reader decide if it is controversial?--Jbpo 23:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
In general, if the notability of these controversies is questioned in regard to NPOV of the article, it would be better to provide the information for all or at least most decisions that editors here consider controversial. This information, of course, should be sourced as generally required, and, if questionable, could be limited to just stating. There is no need to describe the entire controversy of a subject right in the article, it can be just linked. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Controversies section created. --HailFire 14:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
OK Neutrality Project, but how does that stop the editor/censors from just removing everything they do not like? Facts have been inserted all over the Obama entry, only to have them removed by Hailfire, Jerseyko and the other builders of Obama's reputation. This article obviously is an annointment of Obama rather than an examination of his postion, actions and voting record--Jbpo 17:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Voting record section created. --HailFire 14:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Voting record section re-merged with "Other legislative action"; all content retained. --HailFire 17:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Jbpo's (aka 24.13.84.218) idea of "neutrality" can be gleaned from several older subsections on this talk page. Personally, I've decided to stop feeding him. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Could we avoid arguing ad hominem and decide on principles? The policy requires that all significant viewpoints are represented, and facts are essential for their representation. What is the reasoning for removing the information on votes? Lack of sources, extra assertions, something else? CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 19:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm not sure what you're asking. The article currently includes a section titled "Sponsored legislation" which also discusses his votes on other legislation. I've never been opposed to including such a subsection, and even suggested something similar on this talk page awhile back. Even the vote on the "bridge to nowhere" is currently discussed in the article. It was, initially, removed several times because of (1) improper sourcing, (2) deceptive use of sources, and (3) NPOV violations. My guess is that it was removed again recently in the course of HailFire's edits to overhaul the article. But it's back now. Regarding Illinois state bills, there was a discussion on this talk page about that. Basically, it came down to assertions of notability and such about bills without any reliable sources, if I remember correctly. Finally, Rezko. It seems Obama received a donation from a person who is now a convicted felon, but was not at the time he donated the money to Obama. Obama returned the money. Numerous other Democratic politicians in Illinois received money from the guy. Do I have the story right? If so, why is such information warranted in this article instead of in an article about the donor himself? Obviously, if consensus favors including it here, fine, but it is only now being discussed on this talk page. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Jerseyko's opinions show through on his editting. It is impossible to post something as simple as (indicted felon) Tony Rezko being a campaign donor to Obama without facing censorship from Jerseyko or Hailfire regardless of the validity of the sources or the factual nature of the stories. They just refuse to allow facts to be publish that may reflect negatively on the Senator. It ruins the tone of the whole article. If Obama took money from a (accused) crook, lets hear about it. Why bury it? So he gave it back, publish it and let the reader decide if there was a quid pro quo. If a posting if verified, or verifiable, then leave it alone or verify it: quit censoring posts that do not fit your point of view.--Jbpo 01:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

CP/M, thank you for your intervention here. I think it is helping us to make some progress. This article was named a FA in 2004, but please compare any version from just before August 2006 when the overhauling began. You will see this article had become disordered, full of scattered facts and unattributed POV or rah rah statements with either no citations or weak citations. A lot of writing, reorganizing, and research has gone into cleaning those up and improving quality, as well as adhering to the higher FA verifiability standards of 2006. I do not think anyone is trying to bury anything significant. My own contributions have mostly been improvements to existing details found in the article, and plenty of scattered or less contemporary facts have been shifted around. See for example the new article created to accommodate expansive details on the 2006 Senate race. I do hope that Jbpo will tone down his harsh words. Thanks again. --HailFire 05:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I've already mentioned this to you, but I'll say it again. Your large amount of work on this article is improving it, HailFire. You're correct that the article had basically not been updated significantly since it attained featured status a couple years ago. Perhaps most importantly, the article is thoroughly referenced now, but was much less so as late as early September. So thanks for all your work. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hailfire, you English skills are quite fine, and the article has better organization than it did before your edits, but there is still the major issue of removal of information. I think you (and most Wiki editors) should work on editting, rather than removing statements. The "cleanup" you performed, while fixing some format issues, also happened to delete important information about Senator Obama. This article needs less censorius Wikilawyering, which harshly but accurately describes your defense of deletions, and more facts. --Jbpo 12:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This took all of 6 minutes to be removed

"Obama has been ranked the 4th most partisan Democrat currently serving in the Senate, voting with the majority of Democrats on 94.97% of the time. [6]"

Fully documented. No point of view whatsoever, just a statement of fact. Perhaps "partisan Democrat" could be rephrased to most likely to vote with his party (which is very similar to partisanship), but why is this being deleted? Why not edit it, clean it up? Shouldn't a summary of Obama's voting record be part of his entry? Who doesn't want to know how the Senator votes?--Jbpo 15:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

My edit summary response: "what is that website? what are its sources? where does it say "4th most partisan"? why use the vote % with Dems, why not vote % with Repubs, which makes him 12th?" · j e r s y k o talk · 16:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Your response is more appropriate for the talk section, but in general, unwarranted. You can use the link to the source for that information at HillMonitor, which works much like any other hypertext link. If you can click through first, rather than deleting my entry, you might discover that Obama is 88th, not 12th on voting with the Republicans and 4th in voting with the Democrats. Other commentators have (rightly) interpreted this as a partisan voting record. I suppose it could be phrased differently, but it is pretty much another of a series of facts that you have deleted.--Jbpo 17:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster. This article reads like a press release from Obama's office. The one line of "criticism" is utterly hilarious. Check out any other senator's site (especially a REPUBLICAN senator's site, and you'll see scads of criticism - even from first-termers. I don't know enough about Obama's record to add critiques, but I guess that's the point. The media and now Wikipedia have been so fauning it's impossible to get a fair viewing of the man and his record. This is a common problem on WP, and must be addressed by neutral observers if it hopes to remain a good resource. - Nhprman List 01:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, so it's the media's fault. Well, try to fix that, then, and get back with us. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Not exactly the media's fault. The missing facts in this article are mostly due to Jersyko. He tends to remove anything that does not sound favorable to the esteemed Senator. There is plenty of negative information in the local media about Obama (Tony Rezko anyone? Sponsoring the mafia-linked Treasurer candidate? Skipping a Better Government meeting in Chicago, while lecturing Kenyans on corruption?), it just gets removed from the Wikipedia entry and ignored by Obama cheerleaders.--Jbpo 22:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Care to back up that accusation against me? And if it's all my fault, why have you spent effort trying to convince editors here that Wikipedia should report things that the media has not? So is it mostly my fault, mostly the media's fault, or perhaps something else entirely?
Additionally, I would note that, for the most part, when we've discussed things you've added to this article in the past, they have remained in the article, though with rewording to avoid neutrality and verifiability problems. An examination of this talk page is all that is necessary to confirm as much (immigration, estate tax, ethanol, etc.). And if they were removed later, I wasn't the one to remove them. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Sure, Wikipedia keeps a history of your deletions. They are all documented. You delete first then ask for edits later. You are mostly to blame for the deletions in this article and for wikilawyering any dissenting views out of the editorial content. The mass media is juvenille, repetitive and lazy but there is enough factual information out there to show Senator Obama's actual record as a kneejerk party hack rather than the media potrait of a bipartisan, thoughtful leader.

It becomes very tiresome to try to fix this article as you have appointed yourself Lord High Censor for the Esteemed Senator, rather than legitimate editor. You just removed reference to Obama's voting record on October 25, 2006 only 6 minutes after it was posted. You need to use some discretion in your edits to add some value from this article. --Jbpo 13:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you mean this? Yeah, I removed it because it was false. The source simply doesn't say "fourth most partisan democrat" as you claimed in your article addition (additionally, I was wary of the reliability of the source at all, given that an IP address was in its url and its homepage url was unclear). When you added the information back, I reworded it to read what the source actually says after finally confirming what the source was hillmonitor.com, which uses an IP in its urls for some reason. It's currently in the article, right? So you're complaining about what, exactly? My deletion of the incorrect, POV first addition to the article and my caution toward use of the source (which I had to discover on my own, by the way)? · j e r s y k o talk · 14:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Partisan definition.."A person who supports a political party or cause over other parties or causes" So where is the POV? The very definition of the word is supporting a political party, which is quantitatively defined on Hill Monitor. Rather than clicking through the hypertext, or using a dictionary, JKo decides to remove the entry because it contradicts the view that Obama is some kind of bipartisan leader. The complaint I am repeating, Wikipedia is not a PR Flak for Senator Obama. The article is skewed by your repeated censorship and mangling of facts to suit your point of view. You continue to censor information that you do not like in an attempt to wear down other editors of this entry with wikilawyering mumbo-jumbo. --Jbpo 17:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

JKo, can you just censor this in the discussion before I post it "Real Estate link for Rezko and Obama" [7]--Jbpo 17:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm curious, do any other editors object to removal or rewording of POV material or material with an unclear source? · j e r s y k o talk · 14:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, do any other editors just delete entries they do not like, or do they do a tiny bit of research first before acting as Lord High Censors.--Jbpo 17:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed a personal attack from your diatribe above and warned you about personal attacks on your talk page. I don't plan to take part in further discussion here until it's clear that you have calmed down. · j e r s y k o talk · 17:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Voting record subsection

Actually, I think a section titled "voting record" goes too far. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, after all. I'm not aware of any other Senator articles that have such a subsection. What is common practice, however, is to have a subsection on the Senator's political views and ideology, listing a few pertinent votes or sponsored legislation as evidence where no better evidence exists. See, for instance, Ted Kennedy#Political views and Bill Frist#Ideology and issues (I'm not saying these articles should be used as templates for this one, of course). "Voting record" is just too broad and indiscriminate to include in an encyclopedia article, whereas "political views and ideology" focuses a bit more on the person's views on prominent political issues. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd just say it in the first place needs a rewrite into prose, with mentioning something related and putting in context. A good option would be section on political views, best if quoting him. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Political views are already detailed in the political advocacy section. The estate tax issue can be absorbed there (Done --HailFire 17:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)), but really, I don't know what to do about the Gravina Island Bridge vote -- I haven't located a single source that says Obama's vote was anymore notable than votes by the other 81 senators who also voted "No". All published reports suggest that this amendment was a theatrical event with Stevens and Coburn as the primary protagonists. I think I have demonstrated a good faith effort here. Jbpo, unless you can succeed where I failed (in looking for an appropriate supporting reference), kindly give a little on this one? --HailFire 17:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
One other disturbing thing about this one is that besides Coburn, you would be hard pressed to find a Senator who has been more critical of the Gravina Island Bridge than Obama. That is why they wrote a law together. Perhaps I need a wikivacation. --HailFire 17:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Hailfire, that is exactly the point. The reader can see that Obama talks one way and votes another, but only if it is published, not suppressed. It is common knowledge that Hastert and Obama traded the Bridge to Nowhere for the I355 extension (which is being built right now), but that is insider politics stuff. The verifiable point is that Sen. Obama votes differently that his press releases would have you believe (pro-tariff, pro-pork, pro-tax) but repeating his press releases will not provide that information, (nor does disguising the Bridge to Nowehre as the Gravina Island Bridge provide much useful information)--Jbpo 19:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Vote record I entered into the article on 19 October 2006 relocated here pending consensus on neutrality, notability, and verifiability elements. --HailFire 10:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

WNP, of course that is a plausible answer...but how does it stop the deletions by our esteemed editors of sections that do not cheer for Obama?--Jbpo 16:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, it needs to be sourced. Then, we have rules that allow sourced material, and NPOV rule which requires allowing all opinions and relevant facts. Removal of them without compelling reasons isn't acceptable, and I hope the editors can agree on that. If someone keeps removing, there are ways to stop that, but these should be discussed when and if it happens. Let's not heat up situation now, we probably can just agree to represent the facts.
P.S. WNP is the name of the group; my nickname is CP/M. Just in case. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 17:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The NPOV rule doesnt allow all opinions. Only relevant and notable ones. If it allows all opinions then I will put mine into the article. I dont agree with all the removals but I also dont agree that all the material should stay in the article.However, saying that all opinions need to be put into the article is, in my opinion, just plain wrong. Jasper23 17:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, if your opinion was at least published in some state-wide newspaper... That's why the policies work together. Of course, not all need to be voiced, but all major ones at least (due weight). This is so on many topics, especially political. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 19:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but which "removal" are we all talking about now? Rezko? It's in the article. Estate tax? After much wrangling a few months ago over POV, it was rewritten and is now in the article. Illinois state bills? We need reliable sources documenting that they won't turn this article into an indiscriminate collection of information (call it "proving their notability" if you like). Bridge to nowhere? It's in the article, but shouldn't be for lack of sources discussing Obama's vote (Jbpo even admits as much, saying something along the lines of "Wikipedia should report this because the mainstream media won't"). So can someone please help me stop being confused :( · j e r s y k o talk · 19:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd hope that Jbpo could provide the controversies he believes are lacking, together with sources. If not, the problem is unclear. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 19:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
CP\M...over the last week or so, information that does not sound like Obama PR has been re-appearing. I still find it impossible to find citations for articles that are not published, but the Senator's voting record speaks for itself. The flow needs to be improved, but thanks for the management of this article. --Jbpo 14:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Controversies controversy

The problem with references to returned campaign contributions from 2004 and earlier, Senator Ted Stevens' threatened walkout over federal earmarks, and a vote to maintain ethanol tariffs is that you really need to find a verifiable source that says these are actual controversies that actually involve Obama in some notable way.

This is not Wikilawyering, friends, it is just a basic and non-negotiable policy for any serious editor that wants to contribute value to any Wikipedia article: No original research. It takes time to locate good references, and we are, all of us, limited to published sources.

The returned Rezko contribution may merit mention in Wikipedia, but where? In a summary section about Obama's 2004 Senate campaign? → possibly. In the main article about the 2004 campaign? → likely. Or perhaps in an article about Antoin Rezko? → certainly. If you want to put it here, you have got to reference a verifiable source that actually puts forward the claim that the controversy tells us something notable about Obama. Preferably notable enough to warrant mention in a continuously developing article that is being updated daily and eventually needs to rotate out less notable or stale content to maintain quality.

In any case, Obama is not immune to controversy, he's had his share and references can be found in verifiable sources. Examples:

These sources speak about actual controversies involving Obama, as reported in published sources. Even this week's TIME magazine cover story highlights some popular criticisms.

If you find something that you consider Wiki notable and can verify it, add it to the article, but please, no manufactured or off-topic controversies. Always ask yourself, am I submitting verifiable references and improving the article with this addition? If you can sincerely answer "YES" to that question, then you are surely on the right track. Everyone has a POV, the greatness of Wikipedia is that we are asked to rise above it, and to accept graciously the corrections of our peers when we miss our target. --HailFire 21:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This Contro section is a basic definition of capitulation to the mainstream media and using wikilawyering to censor information that does not fit ones own views. The #1 defense of a wikilawyer is always 'this is not wikilawyering' as the censor uses lawyerly nonsense to purge facts from their flak. As HailFire is one of the offenders I am pleading against, why not let Obama's record speak for itself rather than editting out the Senators actual record? Why do you insist on taking out information like felon Rezko supporting Obama? Perhaps it needed cut down, but why not let the (well documented)facts come out somewhere rather than acting as a censor?--Jbpo 01:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

For discussion

I dont believe this section should be included in the article. Yes, it is sourced. I am not denying that. How is it notable? Does the average person know about this? No Does the average voter? No Does the average policy wonk know about this? No Was Obama the target of an investigation? No Was Obama the main target of news reports? No. I am not saying that this does not belong in wikipedia. However, ths should be mentioned on the Rezko page and not have its own "controvery" section here. How is this controversial? This is nothing. Here is the section:


  • Illinois businessman Antoin Rezko hosted a 2003 fundraiser for primary candidate Obama, raising $11,500 on top of $8,500 Rezko had earlier raised for Obama's campaign for the Illinois state legislature. Rezko was later charged with participation in a scheme involving the Illinois state Teacher's Retirement System, prompting Obama to return the $11,500.[1][2]

End sectionJasper23 23:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is more about relevance than notability. It is verifiable in a reliable source. But why is this particularly relevant to Obama? He got money from a donor who, at the time Obama received the donation, was not convicted or accused of anything. And not only did Obama get donations from the guy, but numerous other politicians did as well. In fact, others received more sizeable donations than Obama, including George W. Bush. Once Obama found out about the guy's illegal activities, he gave the money to charity. All of this stuff clearly belongs in an article about Rezko (and one exists). But why here? If here, why not in Bush's article and each of the other numerous politicians he gave money to as well? Should Wikipedia discuss donors who are later accused or convicted of a crime in each politician's article that has received a political donation from such a person? I posit that such information, given that none of the politicians were complicit in receiving any illegal donations in this case (or at least in Obama's case), is irrelevant, or at least nearly so, in any of these politician articles. WP:NOT indicates that such information does not belong in these politician's articles. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. This section should be in an article about that years election cycle or about Rezko. Even in those article this only merits a brief mention. I think Jersyko explained it much better than I could. However, I would love to hear a good counterargument. Jasper23 00:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Obama certainly knew that Rezko was a aggressive Illinois political animal when he took the money. Rezko has had his hand in a huge amount of government contracting when he gave so generously to candidate Obama. Either Obama was aware of Rezko's manipulations or incompetent in not knowing a major backer was a schemer. Why not edit it to a managable length and publish? Rezko is in a huge controversy for pay-to-play politics. How about bringing up the question at least, was Obama involved in a quid pro quo with an indicted felon? Doesn't it take 2 to tango?--Jbpo 04:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that your counter-argument is all point of view and conjecture.(With the exception of this "Rezko is in a huge controversy for pay-to-play politics.") You havent touched upon any of the previous arguments against inclusion. Jasper23 19:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry to say that this proves my point. The Senator can do no wrong. Stumping for mobsters? That's fine. Fugitive felons? Not our Senator. Skipping a Citizens for Better Government Meeting in Chicago, while condemning corruption in Kenya? Just fine, as long as he does not get any on him. The esteemed Junior Senator has a lot of open issues. Where can anyone get information about his contrivances, if not Wikipedia? Our editor/censors say this is POV and conjecture...shouldn't the reader decide that rather than the editor/censors? This is a Wiki...NOT A PR FLAK FOR SENATOR OBAMA--Jbpo 23:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Please try to be constructive in your edits on the talk page. I understand that sometimes it can be frustrating when edits you make are reverted. However, wikipedia is a community of users. All I asked for was your counterargument to the concerns listed above. Thanks for understanding. Jasper23 23:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
J23, I understand your point but..I started this section as "Is Wikipedia a PR Flak for Senator Obama?", and it has drifted to the point where people are making truisms such as "wikipedia is a community of users" to justify deleting information. I have been repeating (for nearly a year), if interesting information conforms to Wiki standards, although it may not be favorable towards Sen Obama, why not edit it a bit rather than deleting it? --Jbpo 12:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
So you would rather bully something into an article rather than actually discuss arguments for inclusion and non-inclusion. I was trying to be nice, polite and respectful. Its called common courtesy and it is not being shown by a few editors on this board. Think about it. Jasper23 02:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
J23 Having had nearly 25 factual entries (with citatation) concerning Sen Obama deleted, I am not a likely candidate as a "bully". Your politeness is certainly welcome here. My point is that a factual entry that complies with standards should not be removed, but editted for format etc, rather than debated to death for inclusion/non-inclusion. A team of editors stands ready to remove any entry that does not serve as PR for Sen Obama, and they are very willing to discuss, wikilawyer, delete without comment. Can we just clean up entries rather than deleting them? --Jbpo 13:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
See, the whole point is that this is a factual entry that does not comply with standards. That is why we need to go though the inclusion/exclusion process that you disdain so much. I honestly dont believe this belongs in the article and have jumped in on this issues because of the way this has been handled on the talk page. I would ask you to please stop with the wikilawyering and team of PR editors accusations. It gets tiring. Especially when you say the same thing in every comment. So basically, address the problems brought up about this statement or it stays out. Jasper23 18:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
J23, in general, no, we do not need to go through the inclusion/exclusion process for compliant edits, but perhaps, with regard to Tony Rezko it is called for..Rezko is a major donor to Illinois Democrats (and a few Republicans). There is major unexplored issue as to what has been provided to Rezko in return for his donations, for example, seats on Illinois Healthcare Failities Planning boards. How about we leave an open ended entry for a while as Blago, Obama, Madigan, Stroeger may be charged in the next few months with providing quid pro quo to Tony Rezko for his donations. A short entry noting that Obama has a long relationship with Rezko seems very appropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jbpo (talk • contribs) .
Thank you for your response. Unexplored issues and people possibly being charged in the future do not make this a legit item for inclusion in this article. If Obama does get charged with a crime (pure speculation on your part) then we will give this item its own section. However, it seems highly unlikely as nobody is seriously suggesting this will happen. I dont see the compelling argument. Jasper23 03:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Jerseyko, do you really think this is true "given that none of the politicians were complicit in receiving any illegal donations in this case". If our esteemed politicians were not complicit in taking these funds, why would Rezko continue to pay them? We will soon find out from Public Official A [8] --Jbpo 12:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Intro Incorrect?

Intro states:

at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, delivered while he was still an Illinois State Senator.

But he had not yet been elected?


What's the problem here? -Grammaticus Repairo 05:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Only current African-American Senator = notable?

The sentence Obama is the only African American currently serving in the U.S. Senate., citing a reference from the Senate's Historical Office has been subject to a mini-revert war today. Does this line warrant a mention in the introductory paragraph? I would argue absolutely, as this isn't POV, cites an unquestionable source, and is an important characteristic of Obama's. The article needs to recognise very early why Obama is so notable as a politician, and does so effectively, but this sentence is just as important in the introduction as any other. Please share your thoughts, and wait until we can get a consensus before re-adding the line. Thanks. Harro5 06:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


Why is "only currently serving" notable? I could very well go to many articles and add unneeded facts about something that is liable to change. What if he dies, what will it say then? "Was the only currently serving African-American."

I've dropped trying to change the line, (he is the only currently serving black/white biracial too, but that doesn't seem to matter at all) so it should be dropped entirely. Shakam 15:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless you are prepared to say that John F. Kennedy's status as the only Roman Catholic president is unimportant (and delete that fact from the article on him), please stop propagating the notion that Barack Obama's status as the only African-American senator is unimportant. We all know that it is. You may or may not like hearing it, but it matters. The very fact that you keep deleting it from the article proves that it matters more than you're willing to admit. Let's be intellectual about this, shall we? ABCxyz 00:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any records that say it is notable? (I know now you want to ask, "Do you have any that say it isn't?") Well, you don't need evidence for something that isn't but you need some for what is. This sentence is liable to change and has no significance towards this article.

On JFK: I would say it is unimportant, because it's a Christian religion; furthermore, if Bush were to convert to Catholicism today it would negate that fact. Only notable thing I see being added as a qualifier for a description is if the president was a non-Christian, e.g. Muslim, Buddhist, etc. Shakam 01:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with noting this fact about Obama? If his status as the only African-American senator changes, then this article will quickly be changed. That's a good thing about wikis. There's no rule that we can only report permanent facts. Rhobite 01:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I think this conversation demonstrates some of the problems of using extremely subjective "notability" criteria to determine article content. Shakam thinks that JFK's religion and Obama's race have no place in their articles because Shakam finds these facts to be non-notable. I suggest that we focus on content that is verifiable in reliable sources instead of arguing about whether something is "notable" according to unknown, personal criteria. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Even though the Senate Historical Site may be reliable, it isn't reliable in the way it describes him. Only currently serving is not needed, now if he was the first then it could be notable (if he "WAS" an African-American). How about I go to all biographies and add what that person is currently? NO!

Just leave it scratched.

To Rhobite: You can't call that a fact, its too ambiguos to be a fact.Shakam 03:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If reliable sources are referring to Obama as the only African-American Senator in the current Senate, we should go with those reliable sources. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


My efforts are refuted by ignorance. I'll accede acquescingly, because I tend to forget how thick people's skulls can be. You all can be subjugated by how things are, but I will not. I am sorry if I have hurt anyone, and good day. Wikitruth Example of Ignorance = G. K. Butterfield article.

To Hailfire: Keep up the good work with the article. Shakam 04:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You need to take a look at the no personal attacks policy. We have an undoubtedly reliable source which says that Obama is the only current African-American Senator. The crux of your argument seems to be that the source is wrong, Obama is not African-American. There are those of us who think that perhaps the Senate's official website is a pretty damn good source for information about Senators. That doesn't mean we are "thick-headed" or that we disagree with you in regard to whether the website *should* label him as such. It does mean, however, that the information is verifiable in reliable sources, which is what determines Wikipedia content. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not direct "thick head" towards anyone so I would care not to look at that policy; however, you may look at the notability policy.

The US Government (metaphorically speaking) was a verifiable and reliable source when de jure segregation and slavery were law. That didn't make it right did it? Shakam (Wikitruth)

There is no "notability policy" (only somewhat controversial guidelines and proposed guidelines). And which are you referring to, exactly, because I haven't seen a reference to a notability guideline or proposed guideline here, only expressions of personal, subjective feelings about notability. Finally, you're basically saying that the United States Senate website (of 2006, not 1856) is an unreliable source for information about United States Senators. Sorry, I'm just not buying it. · j e r s y k o talk · 16:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


How can you cite something deviating from the common belief, especially of what is notable?

I believe the person that did that section on the US Senate website is just as ignorant as many people today. And, did you even get the metaphor? Shakam

No, I didn't. You're talking about how the U.S. Government was wrong about something in the past. I don't see a metaphor, I see a description of something that actually happened. If the inference is that the government is that the government has been wrong before, so it might be wrong here too, I agree. But I fail to see how the argument effectively assails the reliability of the 2006 Senate website for information about Senators. As I've said before, I'm generally sympathetic to your normative point, but the fact that you're arguing in the normative is a problem when we're dealing with article content, which must not adhere to Wikipedia policy, not what one *thinks* it should adhere to. Finally, why are you seemingly randomly linking to the Wikitruth article? What relevance does this have to information in the Barack Obama article? Talk pages aren't soapboxes, after all. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikitruth = Subliminal message; at any rate, what one "thinks" is the basis of all history. What one "thinks" changes flaws in systems. What one "thinks" is the future.

It's hard to change something that has been embedded in the US society so long, and I realize it is too early to bring knowledge to a place like this, (seeing as how if it isn't one person this week, it's someone the next week). I'm not doubting the accuracy of the website, but in that particular page, claiming him as African-American is a deeply embedded social construct. I'll just deal with the mulatto article and other personal interest articles; moreover, "real" people. Shakam 03:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

If I may, I am not one to edit things I merely come here for information that I hope is accurate and spot-checked (I know that makes me bad too). As an African American, I simply wanted to interject my thoughts on this situation and you all can take it and change it as you will. I feel that it is equally racist than anything else to call him African-American only. There was (in some places it is still) a time where one drop of "black blood" made you black and most people would argue that that is racist. Mr. Obama is multiracial not just black. To identify him as African American is equally as fair as to identify him as white in that he is equal parts. Because the media and in my humble opinion the Democratic party chooses to (for political gains) show his African family and in many cases hide his white family (I can Google and find pictures of his African family who he only met recently but if I look for his white family who he grew up with they are nearly non existent), does not mean that he is black or African American or whatever else. I'm not saying as a black person I would "kick him out the club" I'm saying if we are going to be accurate then tell the truth he is multiracial otherwise its equally correct to call him white. One can identify as they choose (a white person from South African who naturalized to the United States claims to be an African American that would be true but to read that on paper would in people's minds at least invoke other feelings and thoughts that may be inaccurate) but for the sake of the truth and accuracy for those who may not know better I would hope that you all take this into consideration. Thanks Jasev01 00:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Jasev01 07:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Applauses* Thank you!!!!! This is what I have been trying to pitch to them for the longest, but they do not want to hear it. Your input is greatly appreciated by me. Shakam 04:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Almost every long profile I have read about Obama in major media sources since 2004 (and the Senate itself, evidently) makes note of him being the Senate's only current African-American. Evidently, then, this is a salient fact. Yes, in an ideal world it would not matter what his racial background is, and no politicians would ever use race issues to win votes. But we don't live in that world. We should not be using Wikipedia as a means of pushing for racial harmony. Also, the article does say that he is not just African-American, but that he has a white mother, i.e. is white. Andrew Levine 01:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The real world is what you make it. And, just because something is wide-spread does not make it a fact, ignorance is a factor. Shakam 02:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I think the real problem here is one that is beyond the scope of this article. Most biologists will tell you that the idea of race is a purely social construction. It is almost impossible to identify people consistently by race based on genetics (even with mitochondrial DNA mapping for those who know). There is more difference between a white man and a white woman than between a black man and a white man (assuming the social labels "black" and "white") Race is very much a social construction. Barack Obama is "black" only because he appears to have a skin coloration that is associated with "African Americans." There is no real reason for this. He does not socially fit into stereotypical "African American" or "black" culture. He is as "African American" as Theresa Heinz. His upbrining and cultural roots are CLEARLY not culturally aligned with the stereotypical "American black." What really becomes clear is that in Obama's case our comfortable but largely irrelevant racial classes break down to absurdity. The same holds true for Tiger Woods and many other multi racial individuals. Is it fair to label Obama "black" when he is just as much "black" as "white?"
The real issue is whether the social application of "African American" to Obama is significant. Is he suddenly "African American" because several media sources say so? Could we equally say he is one of several Hawaiian American or Kansasian American senators? Perhaps a rewording to "such and such source identifies Obama as the only..." would be appropriate. The problem of race categorization is well beyond the scope of this article and should probably be the focus of a Wikipedia guideline. Rtrev 03:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem with "such and such source identifies Obama as the only..." is that the list of sources is almost endless, and they include Obama himself. See for yourself:
  • The U.S. Senate: [9] (included in page about African American Senators)
  • The New York Times: [10]
  • from the Times article: "Mr. Obama and Mr. Powell often use that term [African American] when describing themselves.)", so clearly Obama himself identifies himself as African-American (in addition to being white and bi-racial).
  • BBC News: [11] ("only the fifth African-American to serve there.")
  • CNN: [12] ("he would become only the third African-American to serve in the Senate since Reconstruction.")
  • Associated Press: [13] ("Obama, the only African-American in the Senate...")
  • Washington Post: [14] ("He was the first African American editor of the Harvard Law Review,")
I stopped there but could easily go on. When editing Wikipedia, we put aside our own ideas of whether race is real or only a social construct. We do not base articles on our own opinons of what it means to be a white American or an African American or a Kansan-Kenyan American, and whether labels like these are of any relevance at all. We report on what the reliable sources say. Andrew Levine 04:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way, here's Obama in his own words:
  • "I think most people are aware of my biography and I think appreciate the fact that not only as the African-American senator, but also a senator whose father was from the African continent, that I've got a special interest in these issues." [15].
  • "As a law professor and civil rights lawyer and as an African American, I am fully aware of [Lincoln's] limited views on race." [16].
  • "My view has always been that I'm African-American," he said. "African Americans by definition, we're a hybrid people. One of things I loved about my mother was not only did she not feel rejected by me defining myself as an African-American, but she recognized that I was a black man in the United States and my experiences were going to be different than hers." [17] Andrew Levine 05:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The WP:V is stupid. You can't have a neutral point of view and say that information is based on verifiability, not truth. I have a question, why can't we add all of the other appositives that he is currently in the U.S.? He is also the only black/white biracial senator, senator with recent Kenyan ancestors, etc. Who decides that "African-American" is the most important?

African American - a black American of African descent. [3] Biracial - consisting of, representing, or combining members of two separate races [4]

Now tell me, which applies more to Barack Obama from a neutral point of view knowing what both of his parents are? Dictionary.com is a reliable source. Shakam 05:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

He's both African-American and biracial. I do not dispute that. But as shown above, most major media sources in the U.S. and others around the world have mentioned that he is "African-American." The Senate terms him "African-American." Obama calls himself "African American." He has even called himself "the African American senator." They all seem to think it's relevant, even if you don't. Andrew Levine 05:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the point is that he and several other major verifiable sources have named him such. Unless there is a groundswell against the nomenclature in verifiable sources we cannot say otherwise per WP guidelines. However, I would like to note the dissent on the talk page at least (see my above statements). Rtrev 05:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. I thought it operated by concensus. At any rate, *sigh* African-American and biracial are not synonymous. Aren't news articles just adhering to social construction anyway when they are written? It seems that the dictionary can only be used to give accurate definitions of words, because that is the only thing it does. People must learn to think on a subject for themselves without the help of others. But that will never be the case, as was the case with Patrick Henry, people are idle-minded and need to be lead. "Give us liberty, or give us death." Shakam 05:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, news articles adhere to social constructs. So does Wikipedia. The core of this dispute, I think, is that you want Wikipedia to be something it isn't. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be an instrument for social change. It is not for smashing existing social norms, however wrongheaded and false they may be. It is not an instrument for promoting novel ideas or activism of any kind. It is a collection of knowledge that has already been published and verified. You hit the nail on the head when you say we follow rather than lead. When we edit Wikipedia articles, we aren't allowed to think for ourselves. If you want to advance your own personal views on race, and convince people of their truth, you will need to find another outlet for them. Andrew Levine 05:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Semi-Protect?

This article undergoes a lot of anon vandalism and editing drive-by's. I would like to see this page semi-protected for a little while to see how that affects things. What do other people think? Jasper23 07:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've pondered the same, but feel that some of the drive-by edits we've seen have been constructive, or at least instructive. Also, we've been lucky to have some top-notch recent change patrolers like User:Gdo01 on the beat. As for the vandals, I'll be a naive optimist and hope that with unprotected status we might eventually win some of them over to becoming model Wikipedians. So I'd suggest we keep the page unprotected for as long as we can manage it. --HailFire 07:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Congrats

I'm surprised at how well this article is cited. For its size, it is very good. Lots of back up. Sod Aries 20:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Congrats to everyone here on this article -- pro & con -- compliment to Wikipedia generally -- with all the noise & fluff so available now, about this guy, that it literally is pouring down on all of our heads, this article is the best resource I've found so far for learning about Barack Obama. Can't say the same for all the other Wikipedia articles I've read, although there have been some other good ones... As long as Wikipedia is up to this sort of quality, not only will it be of great value to those of us in the US who may want to vote for Obama some day, it also -- because it's on the nets and so accessible -- will explain the Obama Phenom to foreigners, who wonder what in blazes we think we're doing over here in our politics, sometimes. So, kudos.

--Kessler 00:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Drug Use

Should Barack Obama's drug use be listed somewhere on this page? He has openly admitted to it. While drug use may not be a huge voting priority to myself, to others it can make a difference.

Bleu`dove 04:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Done in this version. --HailFire 21:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we can improve the wording. The presentation of this fact seems asynchronous. I will attempt to improve it. Chooper

Hand Sanitizer Use

I thought that maybe everyone could take a break from the back and forth over whether this artical is too adulatory or partisan and enjoy this tidbit from the New York Times. It is most certainly not notable enough for the article but it looks like Obama and Bush share at least one thing. Sorry for the aside, happy editing. --Rtrev 06:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

His Middle Name

Is this man's middle name really Hussein? It's just a name, but I wonder from a marketing perspective, how this may adversely affect his presidential campaign. lol. The opponent could really try to use this to their advantage.

Not that I don't absolutely adore the man, but was just wondering. lol. Relir 13:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a place for political advertisements. If his middle name is Hussein, than it should be left in on the page. If someone can't distinguish between a middle eastern leader and an American politician, they have no business debating politics anyways. Bleu`dove 21:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ John O'Connor, Blagojevich not only politician to benefit from Rezko, Belleville News Democrat (AP), October 12, 2006
  2. ^ Natasha Korecki and Dave Mckinney, Where is Rezko?, Chicago Sun-Times, October 13, 2006
  3. ^ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/african%20american
  4. ^ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/biracial
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_2&oldid=1136548482"