Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 3

Sentence in lede?
Why is the sentence "During his first year as a U.S. Senator, Obama said he would not run for the presidency in 2008, but in a recent television interview he said that he has "thought about the possibility" of becoming a presidential candidate.[2]" in the lede? Is it really that important, and does it significantly add to the intro? Seems to me a small tidbit of his life. Thoughts? Thanks. --198.185.18.207 20:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. When a major-party politician admits that he or she is considering running for the top executive position of a democratic country, it's almost always appropriate for an article lede.  It's even more relevant when the politician already holds high office and an election for the executive office is approaching.  Actually, I'm somewhat confused as to how it is only a "small tidbit of his life".  Care to elaborate? &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 20:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Him being elected Seantor... big part. His saying he was thinking maybe, possibly about running for President... not so big. What people may or may not be thinking about just isn't that big. Now, if he had announced that he was actually running... then by all means, it deserves a spot, but if he simply says that it has crossed his mind, I'm not sure it does. I would rather it be replaced by something about his books. You know, "Obama is also the author of two books. His authobiography, Dreams from my Father and ..." you get the point. --198.185.18.207 21:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I was in a bookstore the other day and someone pointed to his book and said, "He will be the next president." He didn't say, "That's a good book."  :-)  Steve Dufour 15:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I understand your point a little better now. He's certainly waffling at the moment.  But consider that it's possible, perhaps even likely, that he would be the Democratic front-runner if he did make his intentions certain.  So, at least in my mind, the fact that he's talked about "possibly" running is of great interest.  Perhaps we should see what others have to say. &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 21:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Obama and race discussion
I reverted the edit changing "has been identified by..." to "is" because I think that per WP:NOR and WP:CITE the way to solve the question of race is to side step it. It is open to debate whether Obama is black, biracial, multiracial, white, or anything else. Many people will even tell you that race is a subjective social construct that cannot be definitively proven. Wikipedia is not the place to decide how to classify people racially or if it is even a legitimate practice.

The fact remains that he has been identified as the only African American senator. That is not disputed and there is a verifiable source for it. That can be cited and added because it is notable and verifiable. However, to definitively state that he is African American, or Black, or biracial, or multiracial is a step too far considering the loaded discussion surrounding it. I realize that the wording is a little awkward but it is better to be awkward than violate WP policy.

So... if people would like to calmly and logically engage in even minded and civil debate on the issue I am definitely open to it. I think that the current wording is a good consensus compromise for the various schools of thought here. --Rtrev 01:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully, this version will not be up for too much debate. Shakam 04:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Have commented out [from this version] the text under discussion pending agreement here on consensus language. --HailFire 08:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have reverted these changes. Unfortunately your edits are based on your own political views, and you have presented no reason why an official U.S. Congress reference is not to be accepted. Wikipedia has a guidelines which states that you will not disrupt the encyclopedia to make a point, and you are clearly breaking this widely supported view. The American media, the international media and the U.S. Senate itself all state that Obama is African American, so please leave your baseless spin to the talk page until a consensus is reached. Thank you. Harr o 5 08:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have not expressed any view. I have only hidden the text pending discussion here. Please be patient and give others an opportunity to comment. --HailFire 08:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The discussion should occur here without any further removal of the line. At present, a majority is forming with the opposite opinion to yours, and you must respect the fact that only you and Shakam are questioning these undoubtable references. Thanks. Harr o 5 08:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please allow a short interval (24 hours?) for discussion. | My own views are not the issue here. --HailFire 08:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please state what text you wish to include in the introduction about Obama's race. Harr o 5 08:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Restoring self-identification+reliable sources view and removing tag in this version. Let's continue to discuss here, but avoid negatively impacting the article's clarity for readers more interested in biographical content. Harro5, thanks for your patience. I hope that the current text will be reasonably satisfactory to all until such time as we can agree on something better. --HailFire 14:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * comment - Wandered over from a link on the BLP noticeboard. I'm not really understanding why this information is being disputed. It's actually better sourced than a lot of racial labelling that finds its way into WP. And since the information would not be considered negative by the subject of the article, I don't really see this as a WP:BLP issue. Just my two cents worth. Carry on. - Crockspot 16:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * According to this source Page 42 of the abridged version of "Race, Evolution, and Behavior" states: "In both everyday life and evolutionary biology, a 'Black' is anyone most of whose ancestors were born in sub-Saharan Africa[ here]. Now most means over 50%.  I believe exactly 50% of Obama's ancestors were born in sub-Saharan Africa so it's incorrect to call him black, unless you can find evidence of a black ancestor on his mother's side, we can't say most of his ancestors are from sub-Saharan Africa and thus can not state that he is black. Timelist 05:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * While this source does document a point of view on the percentage needed to be characterized as black, for one thing, it says nothing of African-American. For the specific term that was edited, the Oxford English dictionary is not nearly as distinct; "An American (esp. a North American) of African origin; a black American." Merriam-Webster- "an American of African and especially of black African descent" American Heritage dictionary- "A Black American of African ancestry" All these are commonly held values for the term "African-American". To say "exactly 50% of Obama's ancestors were born in sub-Saharan Africa so it's incorrect to call him black" is a mistake. The term used is African-American, not black. I won't revert this myself, but I do believe that there is enough basis to call him African-American. Stealthound 06:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But none of the definitions you cite specify how much African ancestry is required. For example, it's now well known that Warren Harding had some black ancestors, but no one would claim he was America's first black president or even the first African-American president. Timelist 06:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, the definition I provided was pretty lax. Some have put the bar much higher to be considered black.  According to Michael Levin "Ordinary speakers acquainted with the out-of-Africa scenario are most charitably construed as intending 'Negroid' to denote individuals whose ancestors 15 to 5000 generations ago (with Harris & Hey, 1999, counting a generation as 20 years) were sub-Saharan African...Hybrid populations with multiple lines of descent are to be characterized in just those terms: as of multiple descent. Thus, American Negroids are individuals most of whose ancestors from 15 to 5000 generations ago were sub- Saharan African. Specifying 'most' more precisely in a way that captures ordinary usage may not be possible. '> 50%' seems too low a threshold; my sense is that ordinary attributions of race begin to stabilize at 75%.[The Race Concept: A Defense] Timelist 06:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

He is "also" (hence the quotes), the only black/white biracial currently serving in the Senate. But that seems to be non-existant; and, it would be superfluous to say African-American and black/white biracial. Shakam 05:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just say he's the only person with any known black ancestry in the senate. That covers everything Timelist 06:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * While that may satisfy your opinion, please provide a citation which verifies that Obama is in fact the only Senator with any black ancestry. The U.S Senate states that he is African American, and the only such Senator, but does not support your ambiguous wording. Fact still trumps any watered down adjustments you have proposed. Harr o 5 07:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a fact that the U.S. senate classifies him as Africa-American, but it's also a fact that the U.S. senate is mistaken. The majority of his ancestors were not born in sub-Saharan Africa, and so he does not meet the scientific definition of a black person, and in no other country in the world would he even be considered black. Timelist 08:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I respect your right to a view on the issue, but the key argument here is that all reputable sources state that Obama is African America, and at present you are presenting only original research, which is strictly against policy. I will happily allow debate to continue on the talk page, but unless a source can speak differently than the United States Senate please stop disrupting Wikipedia by reverting. Thanks. Harr o 5 08:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Then explicitly state the reputable source that called Barack Obama African-American. For example the highly reputable, Time magazine named Barack Obama one of the 100 most influential people on the planet, but we would not present that as a matter of fact because it's not scientifically verifiable and there's no universally agreed upon definition or criteria for being influential.  Instead the fact that we would present is that Time magazine considers Obama one of the 100 most influential people on the planet.  Similarly, calling Obama African-American is not scientific or clearly defined, however it's an opinion given by a notable source, so it should be presented as such.  And what about all the reliable sources that classify him as mixed race? Here's just one example [].  It states Ironically, this custom by liberals and Democrats of referring to partially black people as black is simply a reiteration of the old racist, Jim Crow, "one-eighth law." In racist locales, such as segregation-era Louisiana, people with as little as one-eighth African-American ancestry were classified as black. This classification led to dramatic curtailments of freedom. In Missouri and Mississippi, "The marriage of a white person with a negro or mulatto or person who shall have one-eighth or more of negro blood, shall be unlawful and void." Obama is black only by the standards of white segregationists. Timelist 08:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * WOW...your source is crap...are you calling us white segregationists? Are you calling some editors on this page racists? I know that Frontpage.com is one of the most reputable sources on the net but really...wtf? Discussion over. Jasper23 08:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I would say that as the term is applied, if it is verifiable from a reputable source, we should keep it. Also, as a factor such as race is subjective, there are other ways to verify the validity of the label. "For me the term African-American really does fit," said Mr. Obama, 43. "I'm African, I trace half of my heritage to Africa directly and I'm American." New York Times Article Between this statement, and the verifiable source named previously, I believe that the current wording should be kept. Stealthound 08:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But to present a statement of opinion as a matter of fact violates wikipedia's NPOV rules & is an implicit endorsement of the racist one drop rule. Presenting this as matter of fact means that you are telling all mulattoes that they are in fact black, which is very POV.  It doesn't matter how many sources call him African American, because the category is inherrently arbitrary, just like it wouldn't matter how many sources called Obama influential, or charismatic, or charming, or sexy, we would always have to present that as an opinion, not as a statement of fact, because fact implies a clearly defined objective reality.  I'm not sure what the problem is with qualifying the statement. The statement is still there, and still prominently displayed in a credible way.  The article loses credibility when statements that are so obviously matters of opinion are presented as matters of undisputable fact.  And no I'mnot calling anyone white segregationists. I am simply citing the fact that many opinions exist so it's important not to be dogmatic. Timelist 08:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to stir the pot, in the USA, which is where the subject resides and serves in the Senate, there is no official legal definition of percentage of ancestry required for a person to refer to themself as "black" or "African-American". At one time in the past, having one-eighth African ancestry qualified you as "black", but that law was long ago repealed. There is currently no mechanism for verifying the race that a person claims to be on any official document. If you check the "black", "asian", or "native american" box on an official form, there is no way for the agency collecting that information to verify that fact. Where does that fit in here? Hell if I know, but to me, he looks black, and he claims to be black, so therefore, he must be black. - Crockspot 17:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But he doesn't look black. He looks half black.  If you had to describe him in a way that would allow someone to pick him out of a crowd, you would not describe him as black because his skin and features are twice as caucasoid as those of a typical African-American.  Instead you would describe him as half-black, near-black, mulattoe, or biracial.  Of course it's subjective and some people would consider him African-American, but because it's subjective we can't just categorically state that he's African-American. In order to be NPOV we must qualify the statement by saying something like "according to the U.S. senate, he's the only African-American senator".  Just because some of the editors here happen to agree with what the senate said does not mean they should impose this POV as categorical fact,  because on a genetic level, on a scientific level, you're race is based on where MOST of your ancestors come from. Timelist 18:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * He self-identifies as black. We are now in the business of telling people that they are "not really" black? That's a little contentious. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So if he self-identified as the greatest leader in Washington would we put that in the article as categorical fact. What if he decides tomorrow to self-identify as Chinese? And I'm not proposing that we state that he's not really black.  I'm saying that we should differentiate facts from opnions, and self-identifications and senate classifications should be described as just that, and not presented as categorical fact, that has implications not just for him, but millions of other biracial people. If Obama is African-American, then that means all American mulattoes must be too, so you seem to be the one who wants to tell people what race they are.  It's also not fair because if Obama becomes president in 2008 (and I'm convinced he will since Oprah has endorsed him) then people will call him the first black president,  but it's not fair if in 2024, someone who really is black on the genetic level becomes president, they will not be able to claim the title of first black president since Obama already took it with being objectively black Timelist 18:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So if he self-identified as the greatest leader in Washington would we put that in the article as categorical fact.
 * You have just demonstrated how race is unlike other attributes.
 * What if he decides tomorrow to self-identify as Chinese?
 * What if monkeys flew out of my butt?
 * If Obama is African-American, then that means all American mulattoes must be too
 * Only the ones who self-indentify as such.
 * so you seem to be the one who wants to tell people what race they are. 
 * That doesn't follow. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the argument has moved off point a bit. Wikipedia must verify article claims in reliable sources. Wikipedia cannot present original research in articles. Yes, some of us may not like that Obama is identified as African-American (without qualification) in reliable sources. We may even have perfectly logical, even convincing arguments that he should be otherwise identified. But the simple fact is that reliable sources describe Obama as African-American. On top of that, WP:BLP is not at issue because Obama himself identifies himself as African-American (one can argue over whether Obama is a reliable source for his racial ID, but that's beside the point, as the only thing that Obama's statements are relevant to is whether he's OK with the ID, not whether the ID is factual). And the article explains his racial makeup in its text, so it's not like the article doesn't give the reader the full picture. The sentence in the lede is sourced to a reliable source. And that's about it. &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 19:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As I already explained, a reliable source (Time magazine) called Obama one of the 100 most influential people on the planet. Does that mean we can state categorically in the intro that Obama is one of the 100 most influential people on the planet? Of course not, because it's a subjective statement, and subjective statements can not be presented as fact no matter how reliable the source is. What can be presented as fact as that a reliable source, Time magazine, called him one of the 100 most influential people on the planet. Similarly, we can't state as fact in the intro that Obama is African-American (because it's an opinion, not a fact, it's arbitrary where they draw the racial line); all we can state is that the senate classified him as black. Timelist 19:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, perhaps I was going off course a bit, too. I'm fine with the identification statement, though we need to work on the wording.  Let's try to make it as least awkward as possible. &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 19:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if this isn't just as awkward, but I would like to see what others think of this wording. Instead of the current first sentence in the article intro, should it be changed to the following: "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. (born August 4, 1961) is the junior U.S. Senator from Illinois. The Senate identifies Obama as the fifth African-American Senator in U.S. history and the only African-American currently serving in the Senate."? &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 19:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * How about Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. (born August 4, 1961) is the junior U.S. Senator from Illinois. According to  the U.S. Senate Historical Office, he is the fifth African-American Senator in U.S. history and the only African-American currently serving in the Senate. Or better yet, just leave out the fact that he's the fifth AA senator in history. It's redundant.  Being the only AA right now is the impressive point. Don't confuse the point with the other stuff Timelist 19:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I say that you keep the part about 5th ever (also important I would say) and then wikilink the Senate Historical Office. Then go ahead and add it unless there are serious objections.  I think that is fine wording. --Rtrev 19:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think your wording is fine, but I'd like to see if others think its awkward before we reinsert it. I disagree, though, that the 5th in history statement is redundant. I find it highly interesting, and it's certainly relevant (really? only the 5th in the *history* of the Senate? and what percentage of the US population is African-American again?). Anyway, let's see what others have to say about that, too. If no one comments in a reasonable amount of time, let's just go with that wording. &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 19:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think being the ONLY AA senator for a period of years sounds far more impressive than being the 5th ever. Obviously the fact that there's only about one AA at a time, tells the reader that very few must have preceeded him so mentioning that he's the 5th ever seems like clutter to me, and will just detract attention form the more impressive point that he's the ONLY AA in the senate. But others feel strongly the other way I wont argue. Timelist 19:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess the question that Jersyko's wording brings up is: who is authorized to determine Obama'a race? The US Senate? I say that it's Obama himself, in which case the article can simply say "he's black", rather than "he's black according to x". I say leave it the way it is. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No you missed the whole point of the discussion. NO ONE is authorized to contradict biology and determine that a half-black person is black. It's a matter of opinon, and must be presented as such. Timelist 19:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with User:Goethean, we are arguing over something that he claimed proudly. I still don't see the problem with the current wording, and believe changing it would be just to prove a point. The alternative is to change every biographical page that even references someone's race, removing it from the the reality of wikipedia, allowing discussion of a person's race only in cited, explicitly stated, ie., "he's black according to x", terms. (not that I'm totally opposed to that, it would just be impractical) Stealthound 20:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No we don't have to change every page that references race, because this is a unique case. Someone who is 50% white is being classified as black. That's extremely POV, contradicts biology, common sense, forensic DNA research, and craniofacial anthropology, and thus must be qualified.  It would be like someone who is worth only half a million dollars proudly self-identifying as a millionaire or someone who is only 5'10" self-identifying as 6 feet.  Timelist 20:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * To the casual reader of this article, however, the "Senate Historical Office identifies . . ." qualifier reads more like a reference for fact than a qualifier regarding Obama's race. And I don't think the qualifier argues with Obama's racial ID, it merely points out the source of the statement. We don't have to answer the weighty question of who is authorized to determine Obama's race or even what the definition of "black" or "African-American" is because it reads like a reference instead of a qualifier to the casual reader. For what its worth, and I think this is pretty obvious, I don't have a particular problem with the current wording in the article either; I thought we could compromise on this. &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 20:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * NO ONE is authorized to contradict biology
 * Not everyone buys the biologistic conception of race. Please see the wikipedia article on race for more info. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 20:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And not everyone buys into the one drop rule either, hence the need for qualification. Timelist 20:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Even the US Government says that race has a social definition, not only a biological one; "Race and ethnicity may be thought of in terms of social and cultural characteristics as well as ancestry." This statement shows the concept of race as both a social construct and a biological label. Stealthound 20:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And not everyone buys into the one drop rule either, hence the need for qualification.
 * The need only arises due to your unwillingness to accept Obama's self-identification as black. I submit that the article need not do the same. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

How about: If race existed (which it doesn't) then Barak Obama could possibly be put under consideration as to what could possibly be an African America Senator, if African Americans actually existed as a viable racial construct (which is certainly debatable)...This was just a thought. We might want to expand upon this and make sure everyone knows that even if African American existed as a viable racial construct(Debatable) that Obama doesn't qualify even though the senate, the near majority of American print media, dictionaries, wikipedia and Obama himself would put him in this category. If there are no objections I will put this in the article. ThanksJasper23 21:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jasper you still don't get it. The notion that Obama is African-American is just an opinion. It may be a popular opinion, and it may be an opinion that Obama himself shares, but it's an opinion none the less, and under no cirmcunstances should wikipedia represent opinions as though they are fact, no matter how reliable the source of the opinion, especially when it's an opinion contradicted by many biologists, forensic DNA experts, and anthropologists.  Alan Keyes based his entire campgain against Obama on the idea that Obama is not African-American, and if you think simply citing a reliable source calling him African-American makes it a fact, then why doesn't Bill Clinton's article state that Bill Clinton is the first black president, as Nobel prize winner Toni Morrison (a reliable source) so labelled him?  I have cited actual definitions of what it means to be black and they are very precise in saying MOST of your ancestors must be sub-Saharan African, but since you feel that being African-American is just a social construct, just a matter of opinion, we must state who is giving the opinion.  In the same way, Time magazine named Albert Einstein the most influential person of the 20th century, but his article presents this as Time magazine's opinion, it doesn't mislead the reader into thinking it's a matter of unambiguous categorical fact.   It's not as though I'm advocating the racial information be removed, I am simply advocating it be put into context, and that controversial opinions like the one drop rule not be misrepresented as mainstream.  I don't think that whatever opinions you agree with should be imposed on the reader as fact. dissenting view points must be respected. Timelist 22:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thats funny. Saying that I was making false accusations and vandalizing this page and your talk page when you made the personal attack. Then you go and change your attack on this page, to a more neutral tone. You know its still in the page history right? Drop the accusations-drop the personal attacks-stay away from me. Jasper23 22:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the best thing to do at this point would be to simply drop the conversation for a few days, work on other Wikipedia articles, and then come back to it later? &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 23:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well you and I had reached a compromise, but for some other editors refuse to budge. I'm just really surprised at how controversial this is. To me it's totally obvious that calling a biracial man African-American is very POV, but POV is fine as long we're just reporting that the POV exists.  But presenting POV as fact is clearly against wikipedia's NPOV.  This should be obvious, not controversial. Timelist 23:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * calling a biracial man African-American
 * We're not. We're calling someone African-American who, by a purely biologistic standard is biracial, but who just about every news source has called 'black' based on self-identification as well as on social and cultural definitions of race (that is to say, he "acts black"). &mdash; goethean &#2384; 23:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no universally agreed upon social/cultural definition of race. Newspapers and Obama himself are free to classify him as black based on their personal opinion, just as they're free to classify him as "iconic", "influential", "sexy", "charismatic" or whatever other POV terms the press uses to describe him, but we're an encyclopedia and it violates wikipedia's NPOV rules to impose popular opinions as fact.  Encyclopedias cite opinions, and make clear that they are opinions, but they don't represent opinions as fact, and don't take sides on controversial cultural debates. Suppose I found a source saying Obama was the only left-wing U.S. senator. We could not just categorically put that in the article because "left-wing senator", like "African-American senator" is a vaguely defined, elusive term, with no clearly defined objective meaning, and thus is not a statement of fact, but one of opinion.   Timelist 04:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Jersyko said, "Perhaps the best thing to do at this point would be to simply drop the conversation for a few days, work on other Wikipedia articles, and then come back to it later? &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 23:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)"

I giggled. Shakam 03:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, so as a random user who is not involved at all in this debate, I think this is rather silly. Let's face it, neither side is going to convince the other to adopt the opposing view here. So, in the interest of the article, let's return to that compromise that was being discussed earlier. "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. (born August 4, 1961) is the junior U.S. Senator from Illinois. According to the U.S. Senate Historical Office, he is the fifth African-American Senator in U.S. history and the only African-American currently serving in the Senate." Seems perfectly fine to me, and it looked as if others were willing to compromise on this too. Any comments on the sentence itself? Any grammatical restructuring needed? Let's try not to veer off into debates on race and discuss this compromise version. That way, we can all settle this matter and move on. Gzkn 06:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As another who has not been involved, I think that wording is more or less OK, though cumbersome.


 * As someone who has watched this debate unfold for a while, I like the version mentioned above by Gzkn. It is factual, well-worded, cited and nuetral. Jasper23 17:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * On the topic of "African American": the term is rather porous. Obama does not fit the narrowest definition, in that he had no ancestor transported in slavery. Having some white ancestry—even 50%—is neither here nor there. Most people who are called, and who call themselves, African American have some white ancestry, and having as much as 50% is not particularly unusual. (I can think of people who consider themselves African American despite at least 75% European ancestry.) Obama apparently identifies as African American rather than biracial, and someone with his ancestry would be roughly equally entitled to either identity. - Jmabel | Talk 07:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You note that it's "cumbersome". Any ideas on making it less so in your view? Gzkn 08:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Obama does not fit the narrowest definition, in that he had no ancestor transported in slavery.
 * The wikipedia entry on African American begins:
 * An African American (also Afro-American, Black American) is a member of an ethnic group in the United States whose ancestors, usually in predominant part, were indigenous to Africa.
 * Obama qualifies under this definition. The phrase "According to the US Senate" plays into the hands of those who want this article to imply that "Obama isnt reallly black." &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I second what Goethean has posted. I have ancestors (several generations back) that were "transported in slavery", yet in appearance I look like an average white dude; which makes for an interesting conversation about reparations...but that's a topic for another page. If we need to classify Obama by ethnicity (as a social construct), then he's black/of African descent. - -  weirdo actor tundefinedc - - 17:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been away from my computer the past few days, but have to say that the compromise version looks good. Incidentally, in looking at the rest of the article, I happened to look here:. I found that some of his ancestors were also black slaves, such as "George Washington Overall, b. Bullitt Co., Ky., 4 July 1820, d. Nelson Co., Ky., 9 Jan. 1871." He is found at no. 110 on the list, being Barack's great-great-great-great grandfather. I thought that was interesting. Just wanted to share, since it came up in the discussion. I too would love to see Obama elected, but also believe that for Wikipedia to be a valuable resource, it has to remain unbiased. Well done on the compromise. Stealthound 16:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I just want to say again, that it is an unfair statement to say he is Black or African American. We can "compromise" cite all the sources we want but the truth is the truth. Mr. Obama is a mixed race individual. We can cite to news papers and website and articles that are also mistaken; can look up definitions; we can try to define race but the fact still stands, him mother is white and is father is black. That means it is equally acceptable to write he is another White senator in the United States. If we are going to construct the African American race as anyone with one drop of African American blood then we would be doing society a great injustice setting our country back 150 years. I do not understand what the problem people have with telling the truth. He is of mixed races THAT IS A FACT, to try to manipulate the words to push an agenda particularly in a forum that puts itself out as a site with factual information is just unconscionable.Jasev01 16:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources say that he is African American. Obama identifies as African American (not evidence of the truth of the matter, but rather evidence that he's ok with the label).  The article already talks about his mixed race heritage.  What's the problem. &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 23:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it is not true and at best a misleading lead it. What is the problem with making the lead in factual? Someone can identify with being from Pluto and swear by it but it would not be true. I would think the point of the article is to be factual. The point of the lead in is to give a brief synopsis of what the article is about. Why are people so interested in burying the truth paragraphs down? What is the problem with putting in the lead in paragraph that he is of mixed races unless you don't want people to see it? It’s offensive to reinstate racist policies that we claim were abolished in this country. (if you are a part black then you are all black). And yes I'm sure he is ok with it because it gets him votes but this should not be about that is should be about the truth. Jasev01 17:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your view Jasez01, but I kinda gave that up because I came to realize it wasn't a likely outcome. It's OK now, I suppose. Shakam 03:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Jasev01, the current lead was a compromise reached among users with many diverse views here after much debate. Please don't change it without discussion first. That said, if you feel the lead is misleading, please feel free to write a new version and place it on this talk page so we can all discuss it and reach a consensus on it. Gzkn 04:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Like Shakam, I won't fight it either but I would like to state that it is clearly racist and sets us back to the days of Plessy v. Ferguson where 1/8 of "black blood" made you Black, African America or whatever else there term of the day is. The Supreme Court overturned Plessy and saw the error of some racist thinking but apparently we all have not caught up with the times. I do not see the problem with simply editing it to say the truth that he is a mixed race person but apparently there are higher powers that do not want to see that done so I will leave it as it is. Hopefully when the consensus can join the world in the 21 century and get over the standards set in 1800s the article will change.Jasev01 23:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am suspicious (bordering on certain) that and  are both meatpuppets being utilised in this discussion. That is disappointing and also doesn't help to build consensus. Harr o 5 06:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm pretty sure he just forgot to log in. He has signed all his edits made under the IP with his Jasev01 signature, so there's nothing to worry about. Gzkn 09:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A meatpuppet enters Wikipedia and doesn't act like normal new users (eg. testing one edit, self-revert), instead entering into a serious discussion on an issue and taking a similar POV to another user (the puppeteer). Look at the contributions linked to above and notice that Jasev01 and the anon have only contributed to this article and moreso this discussion. Harr o 5 19:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between the term "black" and the term "African-American". African-American has more in common with other terms like German-American, Chinese-American, etc. The AMOUNT of German heritage, or Chinese heritage, etc. doesn't matter. It's a self-identifier.

I'm half black and half white. I'm frankly offended by the opposition to calling Mr. Obama African-American - and I don't even like the term African-American (like we were tourists who just decided to stay). Underlying the arguments is an implication that calling someone African-American or black is pejorative. Jasev's comments particularly disturb me.

In any event, Mr. Obama identifies HIMSELF as African-American. To call him anything else is a violation of the policy on biographies of living persons.

This whole discussion is so....it's the most difficult RFC that I have responded to. I honestly can't even wrap my brain around it. NinzEliza 09:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I did forget to log in and it was me who made the “mixed" changes sometime yesterday. To be clear my comment was not to insult, defame, or single anyone out.  I am African American, to be fair my mother traces her roots back to slaves and my father was born in the Dominican Republic but with African heritage too.  I'm not saying someone who is mixed is not African American I'm saying to solely classify him as an American or whatever else is in a way offensive and is an attempt to push home a politic gain and is bias and is a way racist for the same reason stated above(the 1/8 part discussed above which without reading it I though of myself)I personally believe the difference between African American Black American whatever else is pure semantics of the time we all know what we are talking about and we can use whatever term is less offensive.  When someone looks at me in general most people say you are black. Around people of Latin origins I sometimes get you look Dominican (as a side bar I get from a lot of people that I look like Carton from the fresh prince who is also Dominican go figure). When I travel to South America I've been called Brazilian. But throughout all of this I will not deny either side of my heritage or place one above the other i.e. in an article about me I would never say I am the first Latin Senator because it would be unfairly prejudicial and not accurate. I'm not accusing anyone but the point I am making is that we all can agree that Mr. Obama grew up with his white family member yet to Google and find a picture of any of them is nearly impossible. He just met his African family and I can Google and the first things that comes up are pictures of him in African kissing and hugging (no offense to anyone) people in traditional African grad, who look like they have stepped out of some movie. Is that to drive home to the black voters he is one of us? I'm just saying to use being African American to political gain is insulting to me and o other African American. To use a racist test developed by slave holders in the 1800, even in a "positive" way is insulting. Like someone else said somewhere in here he can identify as Chinese American but that would not be true and we would not put it here. And like someone else said I don't see what his race need to be in the first paragraph at all. It just looks like someone is going way out of their ay to throw that in upfront and it must e for a reason. I am not kicking Mr. Obama out of any black club I am just asking that he be identified as what he is upfront a mixed individual. I don't car if it says only senator with African American heritage because that is fair and true and ideally I'd like to see: Mr. Obama is multiracial, however According to the U.S. Senate Historical Office, he is the fifth African American Senator in U.S. history and the only African American now serving in the U.S. Senate.

I think that is a fair statement of the facts and what is going on otherwise it looks like someone is trying to hid and bury something for whatever reason Jasev01 11:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

African-American is the ethnic group, black is the race. Only problem is that in the US those two words are considered synonymous. I can read in my school's history books, where it jumps around from calling people African-American to black. 70.144.220.11 21:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

So Jasev, you're blacker than I am? I still get called nigger, and I still can't get a cab in Manhattan.

I'm from Illinois. There is no political gain to be had by being a person of color in Illinois politics, much less calling yourself African-American. There is certainly no political gain to be had being a person of color on the national level.

The 1/8 rule applies to white people identifying people of color (which timelist has done here), not to people of color identifying themselves. Furthermore, the 1/8 rule was used specifically for the purposes of oppresion and discrimination, NOT mere identification. Barack Obama identifies himself as African-American. I suggest that it's racist, particularly for a person of color, to suggest otherwise.NinzEliza 03:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

First before you put words in my mouth I never said anyone is blacker than anyone. I simply said that if we are going to report fact REPORT FACTS. I said to write that he was mixed upfront not that he Black with bells and whistles. In the same way that you headline with he is black, it is equally correct to headline that he is white yet no one would suggest doing that. For what ever reason it is political or the war feeling in someone stomach it makes people feel good to headline with he is black, yet no one would headline is white. Both are equally correct. The clearer more correct statement is he is mixed that’s all I am saying. You can attack me personally you can ignore me but it does not change the fact that I am right and no one has said one thing to attack the merit of what I am saying and I presume that is because what I am saying is correct. There would be little or no harm is removing the statement or changing it to clarify that he is mixed. No matter who makes the 1/8 argument or calls whoever else a nigger or whatever else it is equally harmful. It’s not me being racist; if you read what I said Ninz, "I am not kicking him out the black club...I am simply asking that the truth is told." If speaking the truth makes me a racist then I guess I am. I personally do not want to accept any racist policy even if it affects me positively and just because some ascribes to something does not mean it’s true. I was under the impression we were here to tell the truth not the truth as someone wants it reported. And who ever can't get a cab in Manhattan isn't trying hard enough I was born and raised in NY and never had a problem. Jasev01 00:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm half white half black. I'm African-American. SAY DIRECTLY TO ME that I'm not.NinaEliza 07:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's try to keep things civil everyone. Jasev01, here's my point of view:
 * 1) I don't understand how calling Obama an African-American is a lie and racist. Do you have to be 100% black to be African-American? My view is that race is often subjective, and that people of mixed races often choose to identify themselves with one of their races. One of my friends is half-black and half-white and part of an African-American organization and identifies as African-American. Is my friend lying or being racist? I have friends who are half-Asian and half-white who are in various Asian cultural groups and identify themselves as Asian. Are they lying? Are they being racist? Should they disavow themselves completely of their "Asianess" just because they're not completely Asian?
 * 2) "yet no one would headline is white". Right, because that's not notable. What I mean is that another white senator is not notable. Because he identifies himself as an African-American, because the African-American community has largely accepted him, and because he is half-Black, he can be seen as an African-American senator. And because there have been so few African-American senators, this is notable. That is why it is in the lead and not "mixed-race". There is no "racist" conspiracy here to hide his mixed-race heritage. What about a half-Asian senator or a half-Hispanic senator? Or a half-anything U.S. president? Would we deny the fact that they would be trailblazers for a certain race just because they're not fully Black/Asian/Hispanic/etc.?
 * 3) Anyway, with regard to the lead, I took what you wrote above and came up with another compromise:
 * "Obama, who is multiracial, is the fifth African American Senator in U.S. history and the only African American now serving in the Senate, according to the Senate Historical Office."
 * My personal view is that it is awkward and unnecessary, but what do other people think? Gzkn 08:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Remember the most important point in terms of Wikipedia policy is what reliable sources say about Obama, not what he IDs as or what the "truth" is. Reliable sources invariably refer to him as African-American, including the Senate's own website.  Wikipedia seeks the "truth" (if such a thing exists in a situation such as this one) through reporting what reliable sources say about a subject and verifying this information through references.  Wikipedia does not independently seek "truth", as doing so is unpermitted original research.  That said, discussing what is and what is not "truth" is actually contrary to Wikipedia policy to some degree because it does not consider the policy context.
 * Regarding Gzkn's proposed language, it's bulky, but I'm OK with it (though I prefer the current version). Surely it's important enough for the intro. &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 14:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

An amazing (and amazingly long!) discussion. I'm content with what's currently in the article (reporting what the Senate reports is fine with me), but I'd like to point out the obvious: if someone's mother were German and father Irish, I doubt we'd be having arguments over whether he's really German-American or Irish-American, or what he "self-identifies" as. Most likely that person would say "all of the above". Why is this situation any different? I expect Barack himself is more interested in who he is, than who he is not. Just because he self-identifies as African-American doesn't mean he doesn't self-identify as anything else. He was born and spent his formative years mostly in Hawaii, so he coul be described as a Polynesian-American. He spent a lot of time with his maternal grandparents from Kansas, so he's also a Midwesterner. Currently he's a Chicagoan. Few Americans have only one 'identity', and he's no exception. Please stop trying to pigeonhole him, or anyone else. It's not worth the effort, and there aren't enough hyphens to go around anyway. Flatterworld 15:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree whole heartily with Flatterworld and the Gzkn's proposed language(wordy or not)(if it were up to me, it honestly does not affect me one way or another I still wake up eat and carry out my daily life regardless). My point is simply what Flatterworld said there is no need to pigeonhole or identity as one thing particularly if you are equal parts. And as for a person self identifying not I'm not saying the self identifier is racist or lying. I am saying that in a place where were are looking to write complete information leading with a half truth is not far. Maybe its the lawyer in me but omission can be lies in some cases. In the case of a person of mixed races saying I identify with one or the other is not a lie that is them. To report it to the world in a lead in that he is that and thereby inferring that solely is a lie by omission. And as for what is true and Wiki policy, that’s ridiculous, you can find websites that say Borat is the ambassador from Kazakhstan and he identifies as so but we all know its not true. The truth may be relative but just because people choose to ignore it does not make it not so.Jasev01 13:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The difference between your Borat hypothetical and Wikipedia policy is that Wikipedia requires reliable sources. A source stating as such about Borat would be unreliable, indeed.  Regardless, it seems we have an agreement on the wording to some degree, so shall we leave it at that? &middot; j e r s y k o talk &middot; 19:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there any Wikipedia guideline on the torture of innocent sentences that have already suffered enough abuse? --HailFire 22:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm with you, and reiterate my preference for the current, already complex sentence over the acceptable but "tortured" alternate version. If you want to peruse WP:MOS for torture guidelines, be my guest :) &middot; j e r s y k o talk &middot; 00:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Somebody said something about mixed-race people often choose to identify as one of their races. If you aren't granted equal "passage" on both sides then it kinda is racist. If African-American and black were not viewed as synonymous in the U.S. then I wouldn't have a problem with it saying first African-American, but it just isn't that way in the U.S. (Not that I am suggesting it be changed anymore) Shakam 03:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Expand the lead?
Just throwing this out there, but it looks as if the one paragraph lead does not follow WP:LEAD for an article of its size. Gzkn 08:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Audacity of Hope
Is anyone going to place a summary about that book on the subsequent page?  Bearly541 talk  08:27, Saturday November 4, 2006 (UTC)

Re-election Tag and Archiving
Barack Obama is NOT running for re-election, and has anyone thought to archive the talk page?  Bearly541 talk  08:30, Saturday November 4, 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks to whoever archived the page!  Bearly541  talk  23:00, Saturday November 4, 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section
This section violates NPOV by just throwing in minor criticisms from various columnists. If there are any significant controversies for which Obama has drawn criticism, that should certainly be included. But this is just a bunch of cherry-picked quotes dissing Obama. I'm not aware of any other political article that has such a section. It's just not encyclopedic. Can you imagine what the article for President Bush would look like if we included every criticism from a newspaper columnist? It's got to be a notable criticism or controversy, not just something said by one person. Maximusveritas 22:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. Jasper23 22:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

So when the most highly regarded political commentator in Illinois criticizes the Illinois Senator for real estate deal with an indicted swindler who may be about to bring down the governor of Illinois...how can it not be notable? Would it be more notable after the next shoe drops and Gov Blago is indicted? How about when the leading news magazine in the world identifies Obama's tendency to waffle, while the rest of media thinks he is some kind of benighted leader? Is that significant? It seems from MV and J23 that entry that disagrees with Obamas PR is not significant. --Jbpo 02:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Jbpo, I think their point was that, to an outsider who is not familiar with Illinois politics, the section seems like a random collection of quotes from columnists criticizing him. It's stubby. Consider beefing up and explaining this real estate deal. Make it a paragraph summarizing what the deal was. From reading the article, all I can deduce is that Obama had an "adjoining property relationship with indicted political fundraiser Antoin Rezko". What does that mean? Gzkn 04:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

GZ, ok, but anyone can edit wiki. Feel free to jump in with more content.--Jbpo 13:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like HailFire might be working on that section, so I think I'll let him work through it first. I did a little Google search, and this link is a good summary of that land deal controversy so far. Gzkn 13:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That second quote from The Economist, "something about him fills a gap in American politics..." is not criticism even though it appears in the criticism section. Perhaps it can be moved elsewhere? 128.9.216.214 22:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The John Kass point should be removed. An opinion column is not a reliable source. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 22:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll be rewriting this section today, and will post a preview of it in this talk page for discussion (hopefully it's not too contentious). Gzkn 23:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Be sure to check the Chicago Tribune coverage as well as the Sun Times.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0611090010nov09,1,6819020.story http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-0611050397nov05,1,750738.story http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0611030337nov03,1,7736524.story http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-0611010273nov01,1,2852476.story Rezko's motive was that anything he built on the side lot would be worth a whole lot more when Obama ran for President in (fill in the year). That also explains why he paid the full asking price, as he wouldn't be the only real estate speculator in Chicago who could figure that out. Barack's motive (or more likely that of his wife) was that the nominal sideyards needed to be equal in order to give a symmetrical effect. That meant they had to buy a 10-foot strip of land. Why didn't the original owner do that in the first place? I haven't seen a plat, photo or anything similar, but I expect that had something to do with the official survey which would have included the (probably) 10-foot parkway on the other side. Parkways may have public sidewalks, so any hedge or fence would be on the owner's lot beyond that line. As general information, these sorts of buybacks are common when a large piece of property with a house is subdivided by the original owner. The only problem that I can see is that Rezko is the speculator who happened to buy the land. The Obamas would have been better off to buy both pieces of land, resurvey and sell off the smaller piece. However, because of the parkway issue, I doubt they realized they had a problem at the time they bought the house. If this is the biggest 'scandal' Obama gets involved in, I think the world will remain safe for democracy. :-) Flatterworld 23:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I assume his wife is African American?
Reading between the lines a little I picked up the idea that his wife is probably African American. If so this would be a major piece of information concerning his own identity as an African American, or his identification with the African American community if you want to say it that way.

Is there a way that this, if true that is, could be mentioned in the article? Steve Dufour 05:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think his wife is actually mixed race;) Jasper23 05:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Then maybe there is no need to mention it, until she becomes the First Lady and notable in her own right. :-)  Steve Dufour 06:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was totally just kidding. I have no idea what she identifies as. Jasper23 06:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * How about a picture of his family? Steve Dufour 08:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There was no picture of his family on his Senate website. Steve Dufour 14:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I've seen his wife on Oprah many times and she does appear to be black. She probably has some white in her, but the majority of her ancestors appear to have lived in Africa so she's black. His kids are also black. Yes they have one white grand parent, but they have 3 black grand parents, so most of their ancestors are from Africa so they're black. So his wife is the only black person married to a senator, and his dad is the only black person with a senator son, and his kids are the only blacks with a senator parent, but is Obama himself black? He has 50% of his ancestors from Africa, and some would argue that 50 is a passing grade. But definitions state that you need MOST of your ancestors from Africa to be black, and most means greater than 50%. Perhaps his mother has a tiny amount of black ancestry, as there was a lot of race mixing in the South. If we can find evidence of this we can push him over the 50% mark and into the black category. Timelist 14:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Many people who are considered African American are not "black" by your definition. For instance check out basketball player Scottie Pippen. He doesn't look very "black" to me.  Steve Dufour 14:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You do realize the typical person who self-identies as African-American has 83% of their ancestors from sub-Saharan Africa. People who are only 50% black often self-identify as mixed, so much so that the census has a mixed category and historically had a "mulattoe" category.  Timelist 15:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You define "African American" by race. I define it by historical and cultural identity.  I don't think there is anything wrong with your definition.  On the other hand I think that mine is more in line with how most Americans think about the question.  I have never heard of someone being kicked out of the African American community for being less than 50% black.  Steve Dufour 15:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Steve's right - it all depends on self-identification. Harold Ford Jr probably has less African ancestry than Obama, but he self-identifies as African American.  People in the US are more likely to identify as biracial if they have parents who are of different races, but as only one if the ancestry is further back.  The 83% figure for African Americans is only an average - there are people with a lot more and a lot less African blood who self-identify thus.  Of course, as for "black", that term has even less meaning - I always heard growing up (in Trinidad and Tobago) that black merely means non-white (granted, that's largely a relic of the Black Power movement).  When it comes down to it, even race is a function of self identification, not genetics (even if you believe that race exists, it's impossible to draw boundaries between one race and another).  Guettarda 15:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There are people, especially in the hispanic community, that have far MORE African ancestry than Obama, who DO NOT self-identify as African-American, and certainly not as black. In fact in Brazil, if you any white ancestors at all, you self-identify as white. So clearly self-identification is all a bunch of hooey.  True, there are no clear boundaries between races, because all races blend into one another. However most people fit biologically into one race or another because most people have most of their ancestors from one region of the world or another and those regions historically did have geographic boundaries or races wouldn't have developed in the first place. People like Obama are the exception to the rule, so any attempt to pigeon hole him into one race or another is going to be quite subjective, and should be presented as such. Timelist 16:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I argree with most of what you say. However Senator Obama is certainly an American and in the eyes of most Americans he is black.  So it doesn't seem unreasonable to call him an "African American". Steve Dufour 17:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You can argue it from both sides. I think if you did a poll of Americans and asked "Given that Senator Obama has a White mother and an African father, is he black, white, or mixed race?" I think "mixed race" would win by a small amount though I haven't done the poll so I could be wrong. It would certainly win in many countries outside the United States and in Brazil "White" would win.  I do think though that the term African-American is more inclusive than black.  I see black as more of a racial term, and African-American as more of a cultural term, so you could argue that he's African-American but not black, if you define African-American as "percieved as black within the U.S.".  The problem is African-American is a poorly defined term, which is why we needed to qualify it. Timelist 17:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But the place to qualify it would be the WP article on African-Americans, not in a one page biography of a senator. Steve Dufour 02:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not either/or. We can do BOTH! Timelist 02:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless the senator's African-American-ness or lack of it can be shown to be a real life issue then we can't mention it in the article. Did he say anything in his books about it?  Do the people in Illinois have an opinion about it?  Steve Dufour 03:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I added the information that his wife is African American after reading it in this article. It says "black" and her WP article says she was born in the USA. Steve Dufour 16:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I see someone has taken this out. Please explain your reason.  Thanks.  Steve Dufour 01:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, what is the point of including his wife's race at all? Would you include Laura Bush in the article on her husband as "Laura Bush, a European-American"? Is there some undercurrent of reason for including it here? CMacMillan 01:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Identifying her race (the relevance of which I cannot see) seems absurd. D a v e R u n g e r (t)⁄(c) 02:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please at least admit that you don't like it because it is impolite to say it like that, not because you can't see the relevance. Thanks.  Steve Dufour 16:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree 100% that what I did was in bad taste, putting "an African American" after Mrs. Obama's name. (I don't say things like that in everyday life.) However I do think it is important considering that Senator Obama is a person of mixed race who has chosen to indentify with the African American community.  The fact that he chose an African American as a wife seems to me to be important information concerning that.   Besides that the article says that he is an African American; so why not say the same about Mrs. Obama?  Steve Dufour 02:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Does she take the same stance; that is, to foster her claim to fame as "African American"? I would say he chose Michelle Obama as a spouse, not an African American, but none of us can begin to explain why he picked this particular person. If we follow the argument, then the article should say he is married to an African American, Michelle Obama... if the important part is her race. Basically, there have been African American/Black wives before her, so she's not the first. Is it truly notable? (And I second your contention that some of the rhetoric applied to the subject doesn't belong either. Is it notable that he's the fifth black senator? When do we stop counting?) CMacMillan 02:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * When I read the article I was curious about his wife's race/ethnicity. I kind of expected that other people might be interested too.  Steve Dufour 02:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)  p.s. I never said the article should say anything about why he chose her as a spouse.  (Of course he chose her as a date first.)  p.p.s. I am leaning more towards not saying that he is African American.  All the information about his racial background is given in the article.  Saying that he is African American doesn't tell us anything more.  However the sentence there now was a result of a compromise between people of different opinions and that's cool with me.


 * I counted 7 times where Senator Obama's race/ethnicity was mentioned in the article. I would like to mention Mrs. Obama's one time.  In my opinion history will consider her race a point worth mentioning.  Can someone give me an honest reason why not?  Steve Dufour 02:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hope this satisfies. --HailFire 07:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. At least people who are interested can check out her article.  Steve Dufour 12:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The Compromise
"Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. (born August 4, 1961) is the junior U.S. Senator from Illinois. According to the U.S. Senate Historical Office, he is the fifth African-American Senator in U.S. history and the only African-American currently serving in the Senate."

It's been a day now since I last posted about this and there have been no comments against this compromise version. I'm assuming the silence means people accept this compromise. If not, please post! I'll let this sit for another day for people to respond to with requests for changes. If there are no objections by then, I will be bold and put this into the article. Gzkn 14:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. If you feel its too cumbersome, you could always just say "By some estimates, he is the fifth African-American senator" or, "he is considered/described as/dubbed the fifth African-American senator", anything that makes clear that we are citing an opinion, not a fact. But the way you have it is fine. Timelist 14:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I like that Gzkn, go ahead. IMO a "true African American" would be a person who traces his or her ancestors to blacks held in slavery in the United States before the Civil War.  Senator Obama is always going to be a border line case, maybe he is and maybe he is not African American.  I would say the same for a Nigerian, for instance, who is 100% black and had become a US citizen, or a child born of Nigerian immigrants:  100% black African ancestors and born a US citizen -- but still not for sure an "African American".  BTW I am a "white" American yet my suntanned skin is as dark than some African Americans'. Steve Dufour 15:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As I have stated before, I like the compromise. IMO it is great to have a real African American politician like Obama, representing us in the Senate. Jasper23 15:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * How about finding a picture of his family that could be included in the article? Steve Dufour 16:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the compromise, but I actually think that calling him a mixed race man who self-identies as black will help him more politically (assuming that's your goal). Why?  Because African-Amican voters will appreciate the fact that despite being mixed he is CHOOSING to identify as African-American, white voters will be comforted by the fact that he's half white,  and African American women will be really impressed that a smart successful mixed race man chose to marry a black woman, when so many successful men who actually are black, choose to marry white women.  I hate to say but racist white voters will also prefer a mixed race man who chose to marry a black woman instead of a white woman.  I think all of these factors, in addition to his intellect, charisma, and support from Oprah, will converge and get him elected the first non-White president in 2008. Timelist 16:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting points. You may be right. Steve Dufour 17:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the compromise, of course. One thing, though--we shouldn't be basing ANY decisions about article content on what will help Obama politically.  If he runs in '08, I will happily vote for him versus essentially any Republican opponent.  However, my political preference does not and should not, per WP:NPOV, influence my editorial decisions in this or any other article.  I just wanted to emphasize that; it's very important to keep in mind when editing on Wikipedia. &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 16:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh I agree. Timelist 16:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Simply brilliant use of wiki, "I think all of these factors, in addition to his intellect, charisma, and support from Oprah, will converge and get him elected the first non-White president in 2008." Yes I agree as well, this article is generally written to get Obama elected as president rather than providing the facts relevant for a biographical entry. What a pathetic use of a shared resource--Jbpo 01:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I personally would love nothing better than to see Obama elected, he's the most charismatic politician I've ever seen, BUT, my personal bias is not relevant because I've contributed NOTHING to this article. All my edits were rapidly reverted so while I'm honest enough to admit my bias, it's left no thumb print in the article. Timelist 01:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Except for leaving your thumb print in the article, in the above discussion.--Jbpo 02:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see that he has done any harm. It seems to me that all the articles here on active politicans are written by their supporters and detractors.  The historians come later....Besides it's been an interesting discussion. Steve Dufour 02:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Editors who are 100% unbiased and neutral are not interested enough to write the article in the first place.  I think all this talk about objectivity is all a bunch of hooey. We're human beings, not robots. We all have agendas, the important thing is to be upfront about them.  But since editors are virtually never neutral, it's better to err on the side of supporters, since at least their bias is in a positive, non-libelous direction. Timelist 02:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As I did before, I wanted to emphasize, again, that we all need to have a better understanding of WP:NPOV. Statements like "it's better to err on the side of supporters, since at least their bias is in a positive" simply do not comport with the neutral point of view policy, but rather a sympathetic point of view, which is what Wikinfo uses. &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 03:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And as I did before, and as I want to emphasize again, we all need to have a better understanding of human nature, and instead of pretending to comform to some impossible ideal of 100% neutrality, we should all just admit our bias, so others can help keep them in check. People who claim to have no bias are the most biased of all because they have no self-awareness. Timelist 03:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Un-indenting (undenting?) Looks like Hailfire beat me to the punch in adding the compromise version. Gzkn 13:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "Outdenting"? :-)  Steve Dufour 09:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)]


 * Why does the intro not state simply what party he is a member of? I see it is standard in other senators' pages. 193.1.184.254 15:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed this unsourced statement by Nahabi wandera
"The actual Swahili word for "Blessings" is "Baraka". In Kenya, where Obama's birth farther was born, several men go by the name Barrack and it is not a Swahili word at all"

It could very well be true though, so I kept it here in case anyone wants to investigate. Gzkn 13:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems likely; cf. this discussion. I'm not sure it's worth noting, though. mvc 16:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The Further Reading and External links section
I could see this to be quite problematic in the future, as more and more random links get thrown in there by passersby. I would rather not see those two just become endless lists. :( Any suggestions as to what might be done to limit the two sections? Or maybe this may not be as a big of a problem as I think it is, in which case, feel free to state so :). Gzkn 03:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah... these kinds of sections always seem problematic and invite non-notable, POV, non verifable, and vanity links all the time. The usual way I have seen it dealt with is a commented out section like this  .  Then it is acceptable to just revert undiscussed links there.  That will prevent a lot of reverts to the article and shift things in favor of caution.  It is very similar to the way Obama's middle name "Hussein" has comments around it to prevent reversion.  Another example off the top of my head is in the "Leet" article in the examples section.  --Rtrev 04:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah cool, thanks! I added the comment in there. Gzkn 05:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with the trivia section?
There are only 5 or 6 items. If a person is not interested it's easy to skip over. If no one objects I will remove the tag, which itself takes up room and is a distraction Steve Dufour 02:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps one can find more things to put in the trivia rather than deleting it.--Mr.Weirdo 21:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Avoid_trivia_sections_in_articles. I would try to put the items in the biography. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 22:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess that works too.--Mr.Weirdo 02:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Following up on the suggestion by goethean... no more trivia in this version. --HailFire 17:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Father's place of birth
I've just added more details about Obama's father's birthplace, on the grounds that a) Nyangoma is unlikely to warrant its own article any time soon, so we can't just make that a link, and b) it's easy to look up Wichita, but people not familiar with Kenyan geography would have trouble finding Nyangoma. Given that Obama travelled there, and spoke about it in his autobiography, I feel it's relevant. The town is now in Bondo District, but appears in a map of Siaya District (linked from both articles) which was made before the boundary was redrawn, and is clearly south of the dividing line (latitude 0° 18’ north). mvc 09:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Rewritten Criticism Section
Here it is. I was wondering if we could change the title of the section to Criticism and Controversy to be more comprehensive. Comments/suggestions welcome.


 * Criticism and Controversy


 * Obama came under fire after the Chicago Tribune published an investigative report on November 1, 2006 detailing the senator's adjoining property relationship with indicted political fundraiser Antoin Rezko. According to the article, Obama and Rezko's wife bought the adjoining lots in June 2005, with Obama paying around $300,000 less than the asking price; Rezko's wife bought her property for the full asking price. The article also stated that Obama and Rezko continued to collaborate on improvements to the properties in 2006. An editorial published by the Tribune on November 3 questioned why the Senator was associating himself with a developer under federal scrutiny. The editorial also stated that the two land deals invited speculation as to whether Rezko's wife in effect subsidized Obama's purchase. In a separate Tribune column, editorial columnist John Kass criticized Obama's land deal, writing, "At best, it is a gamy story of a presidential hopeful displaying a lack of judgment by getting involved with Rezko in a real estate arrangement in which the Obamas benefited." Although he had previously described his dealings with the Rezkos as ethical, on November 4, Obama acknowledged that the land deal was a mistake.

Note: you'll probably have to edit the section to see the refs.

Also, after reading both the Economist and David Sirota articles, my view is that they should not be included in the criticism section. First, placing the Economist article under the Criticism section wrongly characterizes it. Two sentences from an Economist article that is more describing who Obama is than criticizing him does not make for notable criticism even if it is the Economist. If the Economist writes an entire editorial criticizing Obama (which a previous version of the criticism section seemed to infer), that'd be another matter. The Sirota criticisms, if you read the article, are actually from blog posts. Once again, the inclusion of this source under the criticisms section gives readers the wrong impression about the actual article. Also, Sirota's position on Obama (he's actually a self-described fan of him) is certainly more nuanced than the current criticism section suggests.

I realize, of course, that this may not be the consensus. If not, I was hoping that the above could at least replace the current one sentence on the Rezko deal. Looking forward to all of your comments. For the most part, the debates have been civil and enlightening so far, and I hope they stay that way. =) Gzkn 06:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Good job, I like your rewrite and agree with your reasoning on the Sirota/Economist articles. This would definitely be a major improvement from what's there now. Maximusveritas 20:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the good ideas, Gzkn. I've borrowed substantially from your draft and entered a more condensed paragraph in this version. --HailFire 17:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks good, Hailfire. Gzkn 00:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Legislation
A new bill was added and deleted two edits later - can someone check its validity?• Le  on  22:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I looked into it and it certainly looks true to me. Here's what was removed (by User:Rtrev who cited vandalism for some reason):
 * "Obama joined with Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) to introduce comprehensive legislation to expand the cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons, including but not limited to shoulder-fired missles and antipersonnel landmines. The Lugar-Obama bill would seek to control these conventional weapons in a manner similar to that of landmark Nunn-Lugar legislation's approach to nuclear weapons, securing cold-war era armaments in post-Soviet states, paying to dismantle a>nd destroy those weapons to prevent them from falling into the hands of terrorists and rogue states. "
 * The ref points to the wrong website though. It should be http://obama.senate.gov/news/051102-obama-lugar_proposal_targets_stockpiles_of_conventional_weapons/index.html. Gzkn 07:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Modified text and re-added in this version. --HailFire 13:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

'Jr.' in name
The Jr. should be dropped, as both of Barack's parents are deceased. It's only used to differentiate the two Barack Obamas (and their wives, when referred to as Mrs. Barack Obama - although that disappeared when she remarried - and Mrs. Barack Obama, Jr.). Source: any etiquette book. Flatterworld 14:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Wikipedia's article suffix (name) says "There is no hard-and-fast rule over what happens to suffixes when the most senior of the name dies. Do the men retain their titles, or do they all 'move up' one? Neither tradition nor etiquette provides a definitive answer (columnist Judith Martin, for example, believes they should all move up, but most agree that this is up to the individual families)."  The statement is unreferenced, so I'm certainly skeptical.  Do you have a specific reference for your position?  I'm inclined to agree with you if you can provide one. &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 15:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My references are hardcopy, not online. However, that Wikipedia article is sufficient anyway. Either they move up (and without a next generation 'Jr.' there is no 'Sr.') or the family's preference rules (Barack doesn't use Jr., so we can assume that's his preference). As for the 'most', that would apply if confusion were likely to continue even after death (if the father were a famous writer, for example). In conversation, one would simply say 'the late Mr. X' to differentiate the two. Flatterworld 15:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Akin to the pronounciation of one's own surname, the use of name suffixes is the choice of the individual (or the individual's parents in the case of minor children). Some people (example: Sammy Davis, Jr.), use 'Jr.' long after the relevant 'Sr.' is deceased.  Some never use 'Jr.'  Unless evidence is produced that shows Obama ever styled himself 'Jr.' no such suffix should be included. -- House of Scandal 18:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Various sources, including Project Vote Smart's entry on Barack Obama and Time Magazine's October 23rd cover story on Barack Obama refer to him as "Barack H. Obama" and "Barack Obama", respectively.  Additionally, his official Senate website lists him as "Barack Obama".  No "Jr." from any of these prominent sources, so I'm going to remove the "Jr." from the article.  --Tim4christ17 talk 07:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Just as a curiosty in this discussion, my son is a jr. and i am listed as the sr. Now legally my name is not such and such, sr. because it does not appear that way on my birth certificate, however, my sons legal name is such and such, jr. legally because that is how it appears on his birth certificate. Would the legality of his name have any bearing on how it is represented here? I am only asking as a point of reference because i dont even know if his name was recorded as a jr. or not on the birth certificate. Thanks Jmsseal 03:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Wake Up Wal-Mart
I think his stance towards Wal-Mart is a very crucial one. He's a very influential politician, teaming up with another very influential political, against the largest retailer in the world. Taking a firm stance against the health care and wages being put out by the largest retailer in the world, is noteworthy in my opinion. Especially if you're being critiqued on economic policy. Bleu`dove 22:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Odd addition of controversy...
User:Jbpo added: "Despite his November 3, 2006 campaign statements against voting along color lines in Maryland, when the Republican candidate happened to be African American, on November 5, 2006, Obama campaigned for fellow Democrat and African American Harold Ford in a historically black Church in Tennessee, stating that "I'm feeling lonely in Washington, I need my dear friend to join me."."

Forgetting the fact that it uses the wrong citation form, I fail to see how this is notable controversy. The sources don't cite any controversy that arose from this. The addition smells like original research to me. Gzkn 14:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The article already discusses Obama's campaigning for candidates in the '06 election. Connecting his statement in campaigning for one candidate to his campaigning for a different candidate without citing a source that already does so is certainly original research.  Besides, the connection of his statement in support of Ford doesn't really prove anything regarding what I believe is Jbpo's point--what if Obama is just a good friend of Ford's and merely wanted him to join him in the Senate?  He certainly didn't say anything close to "vote for Ford because he's black."  So even as original research, it's not controversial.  But the most important thing is that it's original research to fabricate a controversy here when a reliable source has not done so. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

An Associated Press story is hardly original research. There are about 32,700 results on Google showing the audacity of Obama's comment, and a heavy amount of discussion on Blogs and newspaper columns about Obama's playing the race card when it could aid his party, and claiming to be a racial unifier when race plays against his party. Here is a good column by a Chicago newspaper columnist. I am putting this entry back in. I really get tired of the censorship on this entry. How about:

1) Do at least a cursory Google Search before you decide to delete an entry 2) If your viewpoint is contradicted by an entry, try a second Google Search before you censor.

It is pretty much a waste of time to edit this entry with anything other than PR for Obama, which pretty much makes the entry useless except for people wanting to read pleasantries about the Senator. Please do 30 seconds of research and quit censoring this entry.--Jbpo 03:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Great! If there are numerous sources that discuss this "controversy", then it should be easy to find many reliable sources (other than ultra conservative opinion columns and blogs) that support the assertion that Obama is being hypocritical here, right?  Please.  The comment in Tennessee doesn't even discuss race.  It's simply unpermitted original research to draw the conclusion that he was discussing race in Tennessee on top of the original research that it is therefore controversial to do so even if he was.  And by the way, it's up to the user wanting to include the information to provide sources per WP:V, not the user or users challenging its inclusion.  So do your own Google searches please.  Finally, if the chronic talk page hyperbole, POV pushing, personal attacks, and incivility don't stop, I'll happily start a user conduct request for comment. · j e r s y k o</b> <i style="color:#007BA7; font-size:x-small;">talk</i> · 04:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

So let me get this straight Jko...any opinion that is different than yours is "ultra conservative" and not to be included. There is major difference between a challenge and censoring an entry. You continue to censor any information that does not read as PR for Senator Obama (where did the entry for Obama's support for the Bridge to Nowhere go btw?). Is it considered civil to censor all that may oppose your POV? About a month ago I noted that this article reads like PR for Obama, and that any entries that do not read like PR are removed. Though there was a lot of support for improving the article, the censors continue to lurk here, cleaning up Obama's image.--Jbpo 15:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I started an Rfc on this "controversy", fyi to everyone. · <b style="color:#709070;">j e r s y k o</b> <i style="color:#007BA7; font-size:x-small;">talk</i> · 04:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

 * From WP:OR: "Original research excludes editors' personal views; political opinions; and any personal analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position the editor may hold." Sorry but this is exactly what you're doing. If you have any sources for your analysis, by all means go ahead and provide the source. Otherwise it's only your analysis and is considered OR. Zarbat 09:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Since when does citing AP sources qualify as original research. Rather than the opinion of one person, which this definitely is not, how about 32,000 others, as noted by a Google Search and cited. You can discount the opinions of opinionated journalists if you like, but if the controversy section is supposed to describe controversy, I suggest we show some analysis other than that of Obama's PR staff in this entry.--Jbpo 15:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As everyone other than yourself who has commented on this so far has no doubt seen, the AP report you mention does nothing but discuss Obama's campaigning for Ford, including the "I need my dear friend to join me" quote. No one here (I think) doubts the truthfulness of the quote or the AP story.  The AP report does not, however discuss any kind of "controversy" regarding the quote.  The problem isn't the facts presented, some of which (campaigning for Ford) are already discussed in the article, it's the original research involved in synthesizing the facts contained in the AP report and the other report to fabricate a "controversy".  Finally, do you disagree that the opinion piece you linked to in the second go round was, in fact, written by a very conservative columnist/blogger? · <b style="color:#709070;">j e r s y k o</b> <i style="color:#007BA7; font-size:x-small;">talk</i> · 16:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm here due to the RFC request. As noted in prior comments, the addition of the "controversy" as phrased appears to violate WP:OR. Not because the quotes are unsupported by reliable sources, but because the connection between the quotes and the conclusion that they are a controversy are currently unsupported by a WP:RS.--Bobblehead 23:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (RfC) I think that "joining dots" between quotes to draw a conclusion stands for original research. WP:NOR must be strictly enforced in this case per WP:BLP. JRSP 13:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

So Bobblehead and JRSP..since a Chicago newspaper columnist published this controversy..doesn't that reduce the NOR claim? Someone somewhere has to do original analysis. Since this was in a published and much repeated citation, wouldn't that qualify as NOR? How could there ever be a controversy if no one ever did analysis of a candidates claims? --Jbpo 21:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think making shit up does qualify as Original Research. I think you know that too. Jasper23 23:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you have a cite from a reliable source to support the connection as a controversy, then please provide it. That's what people have been asking for from the beginning. --Bobblehead 23:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe Jbpo is referring to this opinion piece written by a very conservative writer and blogger. · <b style="color:#709070;">j e r s y k o</b> <i style="color:#007BA7; font-size:x-small;">talk</i> · 00:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * He said a Chicago newspaper columnist which Michael M. Bates is not, so I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt until he provides a link to the source. --Bobblehead 00:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that even if Jbpo has a source for the "Chicago newspaper columnist", that still might not make it notable controversy. If the Chicago newspaper columnist, and some blogs, are the only ones who have written about it, and none of the wires have picked up any such controversy, it's probably not notable enough to warrant inclusion. Otherwise, if citing random columnists/bloggers was the only requirement for including something in the controversy section, we'd be looking at piles of random, little "controversies". Gzkn 00:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Technically, WP:RS, WP:BLP, and WP:V do not specify quantity just reliability. WP:BLP does preclude the inclusion of "random bloggers", partisan websites, and obscure newspapers as single source references, so your example is a bit of a red herring/straw man argument, but like I said. I'm giving Jbpo the benefit of the doubt for now. If he can provide a reliable source that meets the BLP requirements, then it may be eligible for inclusion. --Bobblehead 01:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, my argument certainly wasn't about quantity, more about WP:RS/WP:BLP. But that's neither here nor there...anyway, I'll just wait for Jbpo to respond. Gzkn 02:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course Obama was being a hypocrite, but I'm not sure that amounts to a controversy. In the general scheme of things I don't think its notable. As for the article reading like PR for Obama, I'm not sure how much negative or positive stuff really belongs in there. To the best of my knowledge he really hasnt done much in office yet. Good or bad.Caper13 06:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to the RFC, I agree that lacking sources, this would be OR. IF one considers Bates' column to be a reliable source, that might negate the OR claim, but then you have another potential problem: WP:NPOV. Given the reams the media has printed about Obama, I think including such a small criticism would be undue weight.--Kchase T 19:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing unsourced para
An IP added this, which I removed because it was unsourced: ''On May 4, 2006, in his weekly Podcast, Obama stated that "we have to recognize that if we are going to uphold the traditions of this country as a nation of immigrants then we have to deal with this issue in a way that reflects common sense and compassion," disagreeing with actions the House of Representatives have taken to cut down on undocumented workers in the United States. He also pushed for creation of a "pathway to earned citizenship for the 11-12 million people that are already here." Obama continued later to say, "It's hard to imagine that we want to live in a country where we have police and immigration officials coming into peoples homes and taking away the father of the family...leaving a mother and child behind."'' Gzkn 00:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Grandfather Onyango- Asperger's Syndrome?
I was reading his description of his Grandfather Onyango in "Dreams of My Father" and was struct by how his behavior exactly match someone with AS, like myself. For example, he was very particular about how things are arranged, had an intense interest in Western farming techniques, and was physically clumsy. The description certainly seemed to indicate he was considered "quite odd" by Luo standards. 4.225.114.184 12:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)!

May well be. I know a couple people with AS and it seems to fit. Could also be just plain old OCD. However, I don't know if you want to add this or are simply commenting. You should read the Wikipedia's guidelines on original research before anything else. --Rtrev 02:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Is Obama Muslim?
I feel I should ask, purely to see the discussion on the talk page: Is Obama Muslim?
 * Wikipedia is not a discussion board, but perhaps you should take a look at the last line of the infobox. It would appear he's a member of United Church of Christ. --Bobblehead 19:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Removed trolling...is not..is relevant again. If I am being out of line I apologize. Jasper23 06:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ehh, WP:NOT#A discussion forum and WP:TPG (because of WP:BLP) indicate that it's fine. You're not out of line. · <b style="color:#709070;">j e r s y k o</b> <i style="color:#007BA7; font-size:x-small;">talk</i> · 14:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be provocative, but there has been a small controversy over his religion recently, and I came to the page to see if there was anything on it over here. The reason I didn't contribute anything is because I don't really know anything else.


 * And, that "just to see the discussion on the talk page" thing was a joke, seeing how long it took to decide about the black thing... Also I apologize if I was supposed to put this on the bottom rather than the top. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.49.76.109 (talk) 02:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
 * No worries. Jasper23's comment about removing trolling was not directed at you, but about another comment that has subsequently been removed. RE:Religion controversy: If you have reliable sources that point to this controversy, please let us know. Gzkn 02:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)