| Revision as of 03:02, 19 March 2007 editTL500 (talk | contribs)284 editsm →Non-U.S. views: any Australian articles?← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 16:52, 13 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,291,616 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 84) (bot |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
|action1=FAC |
|
|
|
{{FAQ|quickedit=no}} |
|
|action1date=August 5, 2004 |
|
|
|
{{Article history|action1=FAC |
|
|
|action1date=12 August 2004 |
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Barack Obama |
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Barack Obama |
|
|action1result=Promoted |
|
|action1result=Promoted |
|
|action1oldid=5297601 |
|
|action1oldid=5174535 |
|
|maindate=August 18, 2004 |
|
|
|action2=FAR |
|
|
|action2date=09:53, 23 January 2007 |
|
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive1 |
|
|
|action2result=pass |
|
|
|action2oldid=102622704 |
|
|
|currentstatus=FA |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{blp}} |
|
|
{{WikiProjectBanners |
|
|
|1={{WPBiography|class=FA|priority=high|activepol=yes|politician-work-group=yes}} |
|
|
|2={{Project Congress|importance=high}} |
|
|
|3={{WikiProject Illinois|class=FA}} |
|
|
|4={{WikiProject Hawaii|class=FA|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
|5={{Talk Spoken Misplaced Pages|Barack_Obama_1-31-2007.ogg}} |
|
|
|6={{WPCD-People|class=start}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{| class="messagebox" style="background: AntiqueWhite;"and this really whwt happen hoe |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|This talk page is '''automatically archived''' by ]. Any sections older than '''10''' days are automatically archived. |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|} |
|
|
{{archive box|auto=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=WPR |
|
== Smoking == |
|
|
|
|action2date=18 August 2004 |
|
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/August 18, 2004 |
|
|
|action2result=Maindate |
|
|
|action2oldid=5294576 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action3=FAR |
|
Would the fascists who control this article allow some mention of his smoking habit? This been discussed quite a bit in the media and could become a campaign issue. Of course, if we want the article to remain an Obama advertisement, we might want to sweep his nicotine addiction under the rug. ] 19:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action3date=09:53, 21 December 2007 |
|
:That's not very civil. A better way to describe it would be this: "Obama's cigarette smoking is getting increased press coverage lately and I think it merits mention in this article. I believe there was a poll out recently (the standard "Would you vote for a qualified _____ for president?" poll) which showed that a large percentage of people would not. I think this merits mention in the article." I would agree that it should go on his ], but not here. The fact that Senator Obama smokes is not notable. The fact that it may affect his campaign, and that his campaign has responded with a "Quit Smoking With Barack" program, is. But not here. Lots of people smoke. ] 20:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive0 |
|
::So basically the answer is, "No, but we can stick it in an article that no one will ever read." Out of curiosity, does the Obama campaign have a full time staff of volunteers devoted to running this article? There's nothing to prevent that from happening. Given the way any mildly negative information gets suppressed, it wouldn't surprise me. The ironic thing is I think Obama would be better served by un unbiased account of his potential strengths and flaws. But I guess you would rather make this into a second Obama campaign web site. Maybe we should put up a link where people can make donations. ] 22:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action3result=pass |
|
:::I personally don't think his being a smoker is negative information and I think his attempt to quit will strike a positive chord with the electorate. My problems with it are not the NPOV issues but the notability issue. About 25% of Americans smoke. I do agree that the election page could be more prominent. Oh, and I don't work for the Obama campaign. Please be civil. ] 22:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action3oldid=8658294 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action4=FAR |
|
:::Please be ] Ogeez and ] of other editors. Referring to editors as "fascists" or accusing editors of working for Obama is not a good way to go about improving this article or any articles on Misplaced Pages. This article is NPOV and well referenced. It was even a featured article at one point. The Obama smoking issue is not relevant to his ], per ]. I understand he has recently quit (or is still currently trying to quit), and this fact may be relevant given that it's generated the note that it has (do a google search for Obama quit smoking if you must), but since he's decided to quit and there's not been any proof of him smoking since, calling him a smoker in this article would qualify as ], which is not allowed. I know it may appear this article is biased in favor of him, but it has been strictly upheld and maintained per wikipedia policies. Obama just happens to not have generated a lot of negative note, (real) criticism, or (real) controversy. The only thing I can think of that happened recently is the Fox News and Insight Magazine fabrication about him being "muslim", which even then can't be included in his article because 1. The story is false 2. It could only go in the articles for Fox News Controversies and Insight Magazine. |
|
|
|
|action4date=09:53, 23 January 2007 |
|
|
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive1 |
|
|
|action4result=pass |
|
|
|action4oldid=102622704 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action5=FAR |
|
:::It might help not to look at articles like "We need to have a balanced amount of positive and negative information in this article". Rather, look at it like "We need to use NPOV language/wording, and include relevant, notable information about this person/thing/place/idea in order to represent accurately the person/thing/place/idea we are writing an article about." --] 23:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action5date=22:24, July 26, 2007 |
|
|
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive2 |
|
|
|action5result=pass |
|
|
|action5oldid=147098144 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action6=FAR |
|
::::Just look back at the rest of this talk page. Every time something negative comes up, it is deemed "not notable." Yet the article includes shameless puffery such as: "The Washington Post noted his ability to work effectively with both Democrats and Republicans, and to build bipartisan coalitions." Is there any other politician who gets this type of treatment? I make no apologies for referring to the editors of this article as fascists, nor for accusing them of working for Obama. Just because they use polite language and come up with excuses like "undue weight" for rejecting negative information does not justify the ridiculous pro-Obama bias of this article. It's not like you're fooling anyone. People will come here looking for answers to questions like "Does he smoke?" or "Is he Muslim?" and instead see this puff-piece that refuses even to acknowledge these issues. ] 00:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action6date=06:08, 15 April 2008 |
|
:::::Maybe because he isn't Muslim. It is clearly indicated in its own section that he joined the United Church of Christ in his 20s. The only issue I have is that more should be explained about how his mom disliked organized religion and his step-father was somewhat secular also. That would finally clear up the whole Muslim thing. But this is completely offtopic. As for on topic stuff, ] clearly says quitting or smoking does not matter unless it plays an integral part of his life. Sure there are "multiple available citations" but that "does not mean it is notable for inclusion in a Misplaced Pages article." ] 00:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action6link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive3 |
|
:::::::'''Stop right there'''. ] is an essay I assembled, one looking for consensus concerning article subjects who are smokers. It is not in any way official policy. I myself am actually of the opinion that Obama's public effort to ''quit smoking'' is notable enough for inclusion in the article. ] 02:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action6result=kept |
|
::::::::My mistake but I still don't think quitting smoking is important until he makes it important. He only seriously addressed it once and has not seemed to address it again. ] 00:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action6oldid=205714008 |
|
::::::Ok. You win. According to official Misplaced Pages policy, we are not allowed to mention the smoking habits of a guy who wants to be president of the United States and a role model for children. You guys certainly know Misplaced Pages policy better than I do. I'll give you that much. Maybe we could start a new policy on WP:How_his_parents_met that would say statements like this are not notable: "His parents met while both were attending the East-West Center of the University of Hawaii at Manoa, where his father was enrolled as a foreign student." Or is that more important that his smoking? ] 00:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Yeah, I'm going to ask you again to not call me a fascist. The object here is to create an encyclopedia article. Between 15-25% of Americans smoke. Barack Obama the Senator smoking is not notable. As an aspect of his political campaign, it is. I note you haven't added anything to the (unprotected, btw) campaign page, or its discussion page for that matter. If we were truly trying to remove negative information, don't you think his past cocaine use would be the first to go? ] 00:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::His smoking might not be notable, but his very public effort to ''quit smoking'' is. The Obamas have been very open about it, with countless reliable sources available. ] 02:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
Winston Churchill smoked and drank regularly. Hitler did neither. The point being, smoking has nothing to do with leadership capacity and quality. ] 16:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action7=FAR |
|
I agree with the above point. |
|
|
|
|action7date=12:56, 16 September 2008 |
|
|
|action7link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive4 |
|
|
|action7result=kept |
|
|
|action7oldid=238756853 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action8=WPR |
|
Ogeez, the article is not "ridiculously pro-Obama biased". You're not doing anything to contribute to this article or wikipedia. You came to the wrong place if you were looking to smear a presidential candidate you don't like. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to include relevant, representative information about something. That's what this article does, and it's a fine example of a good article. The problem with including a lot of the "negative" information you want to be included is, none of it is notable. Read the policy. If he were to say something blatantly racist and there was a public reaction/outcry, such that it generated plenty of note, it would be included in this article, regardless of the political affiliations of the editors. But somehow I don't see him doing something like that, so people who see him as a threat will continue coming here to find out why his article is so "biased". --] 02:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action8date=4 November 2008 |
|
|
|action8link=Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/November 4, 2008 |
|
|
|action8result=Maindate |
|
|
|action8oldid=249658914 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action9=FAR |
|
:I wish every political figure had as good an article as this. ] 19:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action9date=17:30, 2 December 2008 |
|
|
|action9link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive5 |
|
|
|action9result=kept |
|
|
|action9oldid=255411914 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action10=FAR |
|
I think it would be rad to include a fully contextualized discussion of Obama's smoking including the fact that individuals with lower incomes (working-class) are more likely to smoke than those with higher incomes. Also, why doesn't GWB's page list his cocaine use? Probably it's controlled by "fascists" as well. -- ] 18:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action10date=03:36, 10 March 2009 |
|
|
|action10link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive6 |
|
|
|action10result=kept |
|
|
|action10oldid=276168026 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action11=FAR |
|
Smokin' Obama ! Consider the moment when we first learned that Obama smoked. Did it skewer, however briefly, previous thoughts we held of him, whether yea or nay? Probably. Ok, certainly. Now, after becoming aware of such, did our opinions of him become sufficiently altered that our perception of the man took a new form? Probably, not. If we liked him, we continued to like him. If we didn't, then we continued to not. Net effect of all of this is that the smoking issue is, well, just that, an issue for each of us personally. But, is it an issue of encyclopedic proportion. History says no. Current events say yes. If we decide yes, given the current free-flowing content of Misplaced Pages, then logic guides to mention, for all public figures, their smoking habits . Because if the smoking habit of one is sufficient for encyclopedic entry, then the non-smoking habit of another becomes equally necessary. Since no one is prepared to do that, I vote we leave it out . --] 23:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action11date=23:34, 16 March 2010 |
|
|
|action11link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive7 |
|
|
|action11result=kept |
|
|
|action11oldid=349918777 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action12=FAR |
|
:I agree that including it would be an example of ]. I don't agree that if it's included in one article, it should be included for all articles — notability of a specific event or characteristic should be determined on an article-by-article basis. I'm certainly sympathetic to the argument that it should be included since the media made a (relatively) big deal out of it a few weeks ago — this has entirely died down, though. If it comes up again in a big way in the campaign, then it should probably be included, at the very least in his 2008 campaign article as a campaign-related issue. —] ] ] 23:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action12date=12:32, 17 March 2010 |
|
::It bears pointing out for the sake of newer users that ] is an opinion essay, not a Misplaced Pages guideline or Misplaced Pages policy. It is a concise expression of opinion, and does not carry inherent weight in determining article content. I am also personally of the opinion that ] directly contradicts ], which ''is'' a guideline, in that the notability policy specifically states that notability is generally permanent. ] 17:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action12link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive8 |
|
|
|action12result=kept |
|
|
|action12oldid=350447914 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action13=FAR |
|
== Breaking news: Obama didn't pay some parking tickets while in college! == |
|
|
|
|action13date=12:32, 17 June 2012 |
|
|
|action13link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive9 |
|
|
|action13result=kept |
|
|
|action13oldid=497955278 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action14=FAR |
|
So, are the fascist dictator Obama hawks guarding this page going to oppress this ''very'' noteworthy information , too? ] 23:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action14date=20:51, 22 October 2012 |
|
:Hey, those parking tickets weren't from college; he broke the law in ''law school!'' That's like frowning in clown college: it's a serious impingement of character.--] 23:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action14link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive10 |
|
|
|action14result=kept |
|
|
|action14oldid=519144660 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action15 = FAR |
|
::Finally, a candidate who forgets to pay his parking tickets, just like me. A man of the people! |
|
|
|
|action15date = 2021-12-04 |
|
::OBAMA GAINS MY VOTE. |
|
|
|
|action15link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive11 |
|
::On a serious note, please, grow up, and quit being so concerned about such petty matters. I'm sure plenty of anti-Obama editors have forgotten to pay at least one parking ticket in their lives. I'm sure I have at least five, since my old college was a pain with parking permits. |
|
|
|
|action15result = demoted |
|
::If this is the deepest dirt one can bring up about Obama, I think one needs to re-assess their own motivation. When the information arises that he killed a man and drank his blood, I'll consider it a noteworthy point. Jaywalking charges, not so much. --] 23:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action15oldid = 1058343247 |
|
:::Damn it, sarcasm is impossible here. Please be aware that all references to "clown college" in my comments in future are to be interpreted with a grain of salt :)--] 01:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Oh no, my comment was more directed to the news agencies such as Fox who drum the story up, and to a lesser extent the user who posted this, although he may have been sarcastic too.--] 03:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::He was. ] 03:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|currentstatus=FFA |
|
The man had to also drink his victim's blood for your noteworthiness? Truth be that all of these aspects have an undeniable influence in our personal assessment of the man; but, not any of it needs concrete exposure in an encyclopedia. --] 00:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|maindate=August 18, 2004 |
|
:Smoking? Really? Does he eat red meat, too? I certainly hope not! Carnivores can't be leaders! |
|
|
|
|maindate2=November 4, 2008 |
|
:Things like smoking shouldn't really be on the radar. Really, think about that for a second. :Smoking is bad for you, but equally so are things like french fries, lack of activity, and auto emissions. However, I don't expect that the president should be a vegan cross-country runner who drives a SmartCar. To be fair, this is slightly bigger news than if Obama once hit the bumper of a parked car while backing out of a parking space.But this isn't the sort of thing that would have any effect on his campaign. The third article cited above even concludes on that note.This is, essentially, news sites scraping the bottom of the barrel for Obama dirt.--] 00:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|itndate=November 5, 2008 |
|
::To be fair, a picture is starting to be painted here. It turns out that Obama is a product of the American melting pot, invests money at a loss, smokes, and parks illegally. I think he may have been my college roommate. ] 05:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|otd1date=November 5, 2013 |
|
|
|otd1oldid=579954170 |
|
|
|otd2date=November 4, 2016 |
|
|
|otd2oldid=747850418 |
|
|
|otd3date=2022-11-04|otd3oldid=1119935935 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|listas=Obama, Barack|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Barack Obama}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=top|s&a-work-group=yes|s&a-priority=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Top|DC=yes|DC-importance=High|USGov=yes|USGov-importance=Top|USSL=yes|USSL-importance=Low|USPresidents=yes|USPresidents-importance=Top|USPE=yes|USPE-importance=Top|portal1-name=United States|portal1-link=Selected biography/4|portal2-name=Illinois|portal2-link=Selected biography/1|portal3-name=Chicago|portal3-link=Selected biography/7|portal4-name=Hawaii|portal4-link=Selected biography/11}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject U.S. Congress|importance=High|subject=person}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=high|American=y|American-importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Hawaii|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Illinois|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Chicago|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject New York (state)|importance=Low|Columbia=yes|Columbia-importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject African diaspora|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Africa|importance=Mid|Kenya=yes|Kenya-importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject 2010s|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Law|importance=Top}} |
|
|
| blp=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{press |
|
|
| collapsed=yes |
|
|
| title = On Misplaced Pages, Debating 2008 Hopefuls' Every Facet | author = ] | date = September 17, 2007 | url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601699.html | org = ] |
|
|
| title2 = 'Round the Clock: Obama, Clinton Wiki-Warfare | author2 = ], Rachel Martin | date2 = April 3, 2008 | url2 = http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89333759&sc=emaf | org2 = ], ] |
|
|
| title3 = Editors in Chief | author3 = ], ] | date3 = April 4, 2008 | url3 = http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2008/04/04/02 | org3 = ], NPR |
|
|
| title4 = Wiki Woman | author4 = Eve Fairbanks | date4 = April 9, 2008 | url4 = http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=4f0c6aa3-3028-4ca4-a3b9-a053716ee53d&p=1 | org4 = ] |
|
|
| title5 = Hillary's Wiki Defender | author5 = Jesse Brown | date5 = April 10, 2008 | url5=http://www.cbc.ca/searchengine/blog/2008/04/this_weeks_show_april_1008.html | org5 = ], ] |
|
|
| title6 = Misplaced Pages Wars | author6 = ] | date6 = April 11, 2008 | url6 = http://www.charter.net/video/?vendid=35&vid=142269 | org6 = ], ] |
|
|
| title7 = Liberal Web | author7 = ] | date7 = April 21, 2008 | url7=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_7_60/ai_n25474310/print?tag=artBody;col1 | org7 = ] |
|
|
| title8 = Clinton's entry in Misplaced Pages has a watchdog | author8 = Kelly Heyboer | date8 = May 28, 2008 | url8=<!--http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-13/1211949334324290.xml&coll=1--> http://blog.nj.com/digitallife/2008/05/hillary_clintons_wikipedia_wat.html | org8 = ] |
|
|
| title9=NJ Man Appoints Himself Misplaced Pages Watchdog | author9 = Paul Murnane | date9 = May 28, 2008 | url9=http://www.wcbs880.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=2400703 | org9 = ] |
|
|
| title10 = Updating a Reference Site on the Fly | author10 = Noam Cohen | date10 = November 9, 2008 | url10 = http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/technology/internet/10link.html | org10 = ] |
|
|
| title11 = Obama Misplaced Pages page under possible security attack | author11 = Adrian Bridgwater | date11 = January 22, 2009 | url11 = http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,1000000567,1001960o-2000458459b,00.htm | org11 = ] |
|
|
| title12 = Misplaced Pages scrubs Obama eligibility | author12 = ] | date12 = March 8, 2009 | url12 = http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114 | org12 = ] |
|
|
| title13 = Obama's Misplaced Pages Page Distances President from Wright and Ayers | author13 = Joshua Rhett Miller | date13 = March 9, 2009 | url13 = http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,507244,00.html | org13 = ] |
|
|
| title14 = Barack Obama 'receives preferential treatment on Misplaced Pages', report claims | author14 = Mark Coleman | date14 = March 10, 2009 | url14 = http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/wikipedia/4965132/Barack-Obama-receives-preferential-treatment-on-Misplaced Pages-report-claims.html | org14 = ] |
|
|
| title15 = Misplaced Pages May Be a Font of Facts, but It’s a Desert for Photos | author15 = Noam Cohen | date15 = July 19, 2009 | url15 = http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/arts/20funny.html | org15 = ] |
|
|
| author16 = Staff | date16 = August 17, 2009 | url16 = http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6043534/The-50-most-viewed-Misplaced Pages-articles-in-2009-and-2008.html | title16 = The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008 | org16 = ] |
|
|
| subject17 = article |
|
|
| author17 = |
|
|
| title17 = Misplaced Pages co-founder Larry Sanger says online encyclopedia scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics |
|
|
| org17 = ] |
|
|
| url17 = https://www.foxnews.com/media/wikipedia-co-founder-larry-sanger-says-online-dictionary-scrapped-neutrality-favors-lefty-politics |
|
|
| date17 = 2020-05-21 |
|
|
| quote17 = The first example pointed out by the ] is that President Barack Obama’s page “completely fails to mention many well-known scandals” such as ], the ], the ] and the so-called ] operation. |
|
|
| archiveurl17 = |
|
|
| archivedate17 = |
|
|
| accessdate17 = 2020-05-22 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 75K |
|
|
|counter = 84 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Barack Obama/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{tmbox |
|
|
| image = ] |
|
|
| text = '''Bookmarks:''' |
|
|
{{Columns-start}} |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
{{Column}} |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
{{Columns-end}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Banner holder|collapsed=yes| |
|
::::I'm still trying to parse the meaning of "Obama hawks". I thought Obama followers were leftists. I thought hawks were right-wing. This is very confusing. I think I'll have a cigarette, and I don't even smoke. P.S. Be careful, though, senses of humor are a rare commodity on wikipedia. <strong>] </strong>|<small> ]</small> 06:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{All time pageviews|155}} |
|
|
{{Top 25 Report|Jan 20 2013|Jul 24 2016|Nov 6 2016|Jan 15 2017|Nov 1 2020|Nov 8 2020}} |
|
|
{{Annual report|], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
|
{{Section sizes}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{pp-move-indef}} |
|
|
{{Spoken Misplaced Pages request|Catfurball|Important}} |
|
|
__toc__ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Request to replace Obama portrait == |
|
::::That's the ironic part. Despite my troll-like language, I'm trying to make a serious point. Discussing this information just paints a more complete picture of the man. It might even help people identify with him. But there's no way I'm doing the work to research and write about these issues, only to have the secrete police delete my work. ] 06:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{atop |
|
|
|
|
|
| result = {{nd}}. It is hard to make this clear without being mean, but this does not matter in the slightest. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 05:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::::Troll like language and behavior you mean. ] 06:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
::::::Yes, the funny thing about it is that it does make me identify with him, a bit. The more politicians try to paint themselves as saints, the more your B.S. alarm goes off. Obama seems at least more genuine- he's made some of the same mistakes that I have.--] 07:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::<s>All right let's stop discussing trolling stuff here. Keep focused on improving the article. thanks </s>--– <font style="border: solid 1.5px #63B8FF; background-color: #D0E7FF">]]]</font> · <sup><small>] · ]</small></sup> 05:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Oh come on, there's no harm done. Sometimes one needs a break from said improving activity. <strong>] </strong>|<small> ]</small> 05:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::well, I have to admit I was angry while typing that, sorry and no problem. see ya'll around. --– <font style="border: solid 1.5px #63B8FF; background-color: #D0E7FF">]]]</font> · <sup><small>] · ]</small></sup> 23:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== 2008 not 2010 campaign fund == |
|
|
|
|
|
The article refers to Obama raising money for a 2010 campaign - surely this should be 2008? <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 05:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> |
|
|
|
|
|
:I'm not sure what section you're talking about and am too tired to hunt, but if he is not nominated in some fashion, then he will in all likelihood re-run for his Senate post in 2010, which is likely what it is referring to. Until he set up his exploratory committee, any monies contributed would have gone towards that campaign and could not have applied to his Presidential campaign. —] ] ] 05:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:: of that campaign. —] ] ] 05:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Osama == |
|
|
|
|
|
The Democratic presidential debate in Nevada was cancelled because the chairman of Fox News made a joke about the words "Obama" and "Osama" sounding similar. This is notable. Together with the CNN "Where's Obama?" headline, this merits a section about people confusing the two names. ] 08:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It merits its own section in the ] article. It doesn't merit its own section in this article. Discuss this on ]. Same thing with CNN's "mistake". --] 09:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Misplaced Pages doesn't need to tell people that "Osama" and "Obama" sound similar, nor does a typo on CNN's part justify an entire section in Obama's article. Attack jokes on Roger Ailes' part belong at ], nor does Ailes win himself a sentence on his target's article every time he makes a joke. Ailes didn't "confuse the two names" as you assert -- he swapped them deliberately. ] 14:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Someone added a section about the Fox News controversy to ]. Should it stay? - ] 20:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== The exhaustive controversies survey. == |
|
|
|
|
|
Without question, Sen. Barack Obama's actions have come under intense scrutiny since announcing his bid for the White House. Allegations of controversy have arisen concerning many elements of Sen. Obama's life and person, including on this article's Talk page. Some dispute whether or not many of these elements even qualify as ''controversial'', and many dispute these elements based upon ]. It's the goal of this survey to gather a snapshot of consensus concerning the notability of these many elements. |
|
|
|
|
|
If you are a subscriber to the opinion essay "polls are evil," you're in no way required to participate. No one's forcing you, I simply ask that you not go out of your way to disrupt those who don't mind using a snapshot format. |
|
|
|
|
|
I gathered most of these items from Talk page archives, and tried to present them as accurately and neutrally as possible. In some cases, I could not find extensive sources, but used the sources listed by past Talk participants. If I have missed any items/elements, feel free to add them in a sub-section with format similar to those below. |
|
|
|
|
|
:''Please add *'''Notable''' or *'''Not notable''' following each item, based upon whether or not you feel each item is notable enough for inclusion in the article, then sign your vote with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>''. |
|
|
---- |
|
|
=== 2004: Denied 'unequivocally' running for president in 2008 === |
|
|
''"I was elected yesterday," Obama said. "I have never set foot in the U.S. Senate. I've never worked in Washington. And the notion that somehow I'm immediately going to start running for higher office just doesn't make sense. So look, I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years, and my entire focus is making sure that I'm the best possible senator on behalf of the people of Illinois." '' |
|
|
*'''Not notable.''' Changing one's mind is not inherently controversial; he is entitled to changing his mind without it be construed as a "controversy." Also, this detail is already prominently noted at ]. ] 17:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*Not even close to notable, and a mile from "controversial". --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not notable''' Any senator running for election or newly elected will deny their intention to run for future office. ] 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not notable''' Unfortunately, this is a standard politician lie. ] 03:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not notable''' Covered at the presidential campaign page. - ] 20:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Notable''' - Shows his admitted lack of experience. Will definately be noted in the race! - ] 20:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not Notable''' It is not uncommon for politicians to deny they will run for office days before they announce they'll run for office, I don't see why him saying he would not run in 2004 is applicable. Especially not in the main article, it might warrant a sentence in the campaign article in the History/Background. --] 21:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not Notable'''as a controversy. However, it probably should be included in a campaign article or a campaign section. Briefly ] 19:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Race and "blackness" === |
|
|
''Since his Senate race in 2004, some American politicians and commentators, many African-American, have asserted that Sen. Obama is not "African-American" or not "black like me" because he was not descended from American slaves. His "blackness" has been questioned. |
|
|
*'''Notable.''' Sen. Obama's racial identity is a notable, widely discussed, reliably sourced, controversial matter. ] 17:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Notable''', though it does lead to some remarkable circumlocutions, wherein it's not suitable in some circles to refer to a man whose father was African and whose mother is American as African-American. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Notable''' Though I believe this is more of a campaign issue than a personal issue. If it was first brought up in his Senate race, I concede it belongs here. Making this debate balanced will be tricky, because someone saying a man of African descent is ''not'' African American is news, while someone saying he is African American is not. ] 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not Notable''' I just don't think it should matter personally. It would detract from the article a bit IMO unless it was discussed just masterfully. --] 02:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Notable''' Given that he may become the first black US president. ] 03:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Notable''' Played roles in his campaigns. - ] 20:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Notable''' - for obvious historical reasons - ] 20:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Notable''' It would have to be handled carefully as the people bringing this up generally aren't questioning if he's African-American, but if he has had the "African-American experience" and can relate to the trouble African-Americans face in this country. --] 21:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Notable''' and given due weight (with sources from varied perspectives) in the article's ] section. --] 22:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree that this would be a good place for it. Would you care to give it a shot yourself, HailFire? ] 21:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think the most notable info has already be added by previous edits citing commentators ] (The Nation), ] (New York Daily News), and ] (Houston Chronicle) <click on author's names to see where each is cited and to read their articles>. The reader is presented with sharply contrasting viewpoints ("Black Like Me," "Not Black Like Me," and "...Silly Question") and can decide for him/herself what's ''controversy'' and what's just useful, notable information. There's certainly other sources we could add, but I'm not sure they would offer anything new beyond what's already eloquently addressed in these three articles. --] 22:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I should have clicked before I typed—the links to both the Crouch and Page articles are now broken. If they can't be recovered (just tried), we should come up with alternative wording and sources. For starters, and . --] 22:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC); Also , possibly , and certainly . --] 11:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Notable''' But for the fact that he is biracial, not that he isn't descended from slaves.] 16:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Notable''' Yeah, it's time for this to be written up. I suggest that Shakam takes the first crack at it. ] 19:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== ] real estate === |
|
|
''In November 2006, Barack Obama acknowledged his participation in a real estate deal to which Antoin "Tony" Rezko, an Obama campaign contributor, was a participant. Under the deal, Obama and Rezko purchased adjoining properties, with Rezko later reselling part of his parcel to Obama. No laws are alleged to have been broken and Obama is not under investigation. Obama acknowledges that the exchange may have appeared improper, and said "I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it." '' |
|
|
*'''Not notable.''' No laws broken, no wrong-doing alleged. A minor "appearance of impropriety" at best. ] 17:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*Not even Caesar's wife. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not notable''' All of the pertinent information is write there in the description: "No laws are alleged to have been broken and Obama is not under investigation." ] 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not notable''' Like previously stated, no wrong-doing or laws broken. --] 02:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Notable''' Obama's close personal and business ties to a man indicted for extortion is notable. The phrase "no laws are alleged to have been broken" is a typical sleezy politician non-denial. ] 03:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not notable''' Nothing wrong's been done. - ] 20:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Notable''' - This article should provide an answer to controversial issues, so as to provide an accurate account of issues, especially those that have the "appearance of impropriety" - ] 21:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not notable''' An associate got taken down for events not related to Obama. If it were similar to ]'s associates going down, then it'd be notable. --] 21:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Notable''' because censoring it implies lack of a neutral view. Supporters of Sen. Obama may take comfort that he provided an explanation, i.e. in retrospect, he wouldn't have done it. Actually, this is the reason that I visited the Obama article...to find out what the heck the fuss was about but now I see I have to go elsewhere to find it....that makes wikipedia look bad. |
|
|
|
|
|
=== George W. Haywood stock investing === |
|
|
''Sen. Obama purchased more than $50,000 worth of stock in two speculative companies whose major investors included some of his biggest political donors. Obama said he “did not see any potential conflict in getting advice, in terms of a stockbroker,” from Mr. Haywood. The senator said he told the broker he wanted an “aggressive strategy” for investing, but he did not identify stocks, and has referred to their arrangement as a ]. Obama later sold the stocks at a net loss of $13,000.'' |
|
|
*'''Not notable.''' Blind trust which Sen. Obama liquidated at a net loss. ] 17:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*The whole damn point of blind trusts is you don't know what's in them. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Wait and See''' As of now, this is just election news. If talk of it persists or escalates, it will be notable. But not until then. ] 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not notable''' Not something he was aware of and he had a net loss to avoid conflict of interest when he found out about it. --] 02:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Wait and See''' I agree we should see how this plays out. ] 03:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not notable''' It seems to have died out already. - ] 20:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Notable''' - if it comes back up. Remember, financial responsibility is a major point in the elections - Wait and see - ] 21:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Wait and See''' Too early to tell what affect this might have as far as the "notable" meter goes. During campaigns anything remotely interesting is front page news and this falls under that header right now. --] 21:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Criticism of ] and ] support === |
|
|
''Sen. Obama is a vocal supporter of ]. He has criticized Wal-Mart's labor standards, including pay rates and allegedly diminished benefits. '' |
|
|
*'''Not notable.''' This is a political position, and belongs at ]. Editors cannot claim every single contentious political position, such as labor/union views in this case, as a "controversy." ] 17:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not notable''' Italiavivi nailed it. ] 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not notable''' Agreed. Should be in his political views page. Not his biography. --] 02:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not notable''' ] 03:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not notable''' Belongs at political views page. - ] 20:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not notable''' Who cares? :) --] 21:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Notable''' and already in main article's ] section. A political position, not a controversy. --] 22:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Voting "present" as Illinois state senator === |
|
|
''As a state senator, Sen. Obama voted "present" on some bills related to abortion, concealed firearms, and strip club zoning. Obama's campaign has explained that in some cases, the Senator was uncomfortable with only certain parts of a bill, while in other cases, the bills were attempts by Republicans simply to "score points." '' |
|
|
*'''Not notable.''' Senators are entitled to voting "present," especially when faced with bills that contain poison pills. ] 17:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*Might be notable; who says it is other than that blog? --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not notable''' I'm still unclear as to how a state senator exercising his right to vote 'present' is notable or a controversy. ] 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not notable''' Not a controversy or anything out of the ordinary. --] 02:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not notable''' ] 03:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not notable''' Not even a ]. --] 22:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Notable''' as note (re anti-abortion opposition to Obama's speaking at ]) and already ]. --] 22:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Hussein === |
|
|
''Due to America's familiarity with ], some have drawn attention to Sen. Obama's middle name also being Hussein. Polling indicates that many believe Obama's middle name will hurt him in a presidential election , and Republican Party supporters have drawn attention to his middle name (referring to Obama in full as "Barack Hussein Obama") on several occasions. '' ] 17:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Notable''', despite this being fallacious race-baiting smear at its absolute worst. Right or wrong, his middle name is controversial to Americans, and Republican Party operatives are openly waving his middle name about as a tactic. Decidedly notable, for better or worse. ] 17:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not notable''', or at least not a controversy. (How can someone's given name be controversial? What it is is a place where idiots can attack; that's not controversy, though. Minor point of vulnerability.) --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not notable''' We very clearly include his middle name right up there on the top. It's the second word of the article. Any attempt to use his middle name as a campaign issue belongs on the person doing the campaigning first, on his campaign page second. ] 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not notable''' for the well-articulated reasons above. ] 01:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not notable''' Hmm, I could see a ] being made for things like people using his name against him, heh. But I don't think it belongs in his biography, along with the Fox News madrassah controversy. --] 02:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Notable''' His name is not "controversial," but it is certainly interesting. People want to know what his name indicates about his background and heritage. This is a perfect example where the people trying to protect Obama may be hurting him by suppressing discussion of this issue. ] 03:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not notable''' The first sentence in the article covers it. - ] 20:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Notable''' - again, this is an issue that Americans will want to look into, and the information about the "controversy" of his middle name should be listed so as to provide a more thorough account. If he loses because of name recognition you can guarantee it will be listed, so why not take note of it now - think outside the box. - ] 21:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not notable''' Especially not in regards to Barack Obama, put it under ]. --] 22:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Kinda Sorta''' Obama does make mention of it in The Audacity of Hope, but that was regarding to his Senate career. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Obama/Osama === |
|
|
''CNN mistakenly used Obama's last name instead of "Osama" in the headline of a report on the hunt for al-Qaeda's leader. Yahoo News mistakenly attached a photograph of Obama to a caption which read "Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida." Both CNN and Yahoo! have issued apologies/explanations. Fox News chief ] has deliberately switched Bin Laden's name with Obama's in jokes. |
|
|
*'''Not notable.''' Typographical/technical errors ''might'' be warranted on the news outlets' articles, but decidedly not here. Roger Ailes' remark belongs at ] alongside a section on the Nevada Democratic Party canceling a Fox-hosted debate due to the "joke." ] 17:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*Maybe notable in an article about CNN's copy editors or whoever writes the headlines. Roger Ailes' very funny hah hah jokes might have a place as an example of Republican cheap shots, but that's about it. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not notable''' See above ] 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not notable''' While I disagree that they were "mistakes", it would seemingly need to belong only in the respective articles for CNN and Yahoo either way. --] 02:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Notable''' Better to address this than stick our heads in the sand and pretend it's not an issue. This mix-up has happened over and over. ] 03:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not notable''' But does it merit mention at the presidential campaign page? (Someone recently added it there) - ] 20:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Notable''' - Ted Kennedy even made this mistake on the campaign trail, or senate floor, or something... I remember... It keeps happening, and it will stick in people's mind. The issue is very notable - ] 21:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not notable''' Same as Hussein being his middle name.. ]. --] 22:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Effort to quit smoking === |
|
|
''Sen. Obama is a smoker , and is in the middle of a public effort to quit smoking . His effort includes the use of ], a nicotine replace gum. Michelle Obama agreed to her husband's presidential campaign on the condition that he cease smoking for good, and calls herself "the one who outed" her husband's smoking. Fox News' ] covered Obama's smoking as a "dirty little secret" during a Fox News broadcast. A "Quit Smoking with Obama" effort has been assembled by participants on Obama's campaign site. |
|
|
*'''Notable.''' Michelle Obama's reluctance for her husband to run for president was widely covered prior to his announcement, and that his agreement to quit smoking played a part in assuaging her concerns is decidedly notable. He has been public and open about his effort to quit smoking, despite attempts by political opponents to use it as an attack. Multiple reliable sources, including primary source interviews with himself and his wife specifically on the subject. ] 17:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Notable''' While I agree that smoking in general, even in a politician, is not notable, his campaign staff have made it notable with the "Quit Smoking" group. ] 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Notable to an extent''' I agree that the Quit Smoking bit is notable, but I think referring to him as a "smoker" is false, especially if he's quit. So we'd have to be careful. --] 02:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*What's quite fascinating is that there seems to be more concern for his status as a wannabe ex-smoker thn there is for his African ancestry. The times they are a-changing. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Notable''' For reasons described above. ] 03:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Notable''' It's playing a role in his campaign, one article I read talked about him chewing Nicorette gum. His effort to stop smoking has become extremely open and public. - ] 20:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Notable''' - With all the current smoking backlash, including states banning smoking in places of business across the country, his smoking habit is a big deal... Remember the Dole campaign in 1996? The cigarette costume guy was everywhere... still a big deal! - ] 21:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Notable''' - But only as a sentence in the 2008 Presidential election section and only in regards to him promising to quit smoking in exchange for his wife letting him run. --] 22:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Criticism from Australian Prime Minister ] === |
|
|
''Shortly after Sen. Obama officially announced his candidacy for president, Australian Prime Minister ] unleashed a scathing attack of Obama's stance on the Iraq War. Howard said "I think that would just encourage those who wanted completely to destabilise and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for (an) Obama victory," and that "If I was running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats." Obama brushed aside Howard's criticism, characterizing him as a close personal friend of ], and highlighting Australia's comparative troop contribution in Iraq. Howard was harshly criticized by Australian opposition leader ], Republican U.S. Senator ] of Texas, and several others in response. |
|
|
*'''Notable,''' including in the main article. This is a highly unusual partisan attack from a foreign head of government. The notability of this is ''undeniable''. ] 17:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Notable''' But briefly. It was big news when it happened but it remained big news for all of a week. We should make sure not to give undue weight. ] 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Notable''' Agreed that it's pretty notable criticism. But like Mykill42 said, let's keep it brief. --] 02:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*Notable, as above. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Notable''' Especially given the importance of the Iraq issue. ] 03:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Notable''' Also covered at the presidential campaign page. - ] 20:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Notable''' - ] 21:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Notable''' But already mentioned in the campaign article, so doesn't need to be included in this article. --] 22:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== False "madrassa" report/smear/attack === |
|
|
''See ]. A false report originating from Washington Times-owned ] accuses one of Sen. Obama's elementary schools in Indonesia of being an Islamic seminary (a "wahhabist" "madrassa"), and alleges Sen. Obama to have been a ] in the past. The report bears a resemblance to a false email forward that has been in circulation for some time. The report also claims to have received their information from operatives of Sen. ]. The claims against the school itself are debunked by a CNN investigation in Jakarta , claims of Sen. Obama having ever been a Muslim are refuted by himself, and Sen. Clinton denies any involvement with Insight Magazine whatsoever. Fox News issued a retraction, warning their reporters to take care with information retrieved from the internet. '' |
|
|
*'''Notable''', but must be written in full compliance with ] and ]. Must note that the report was fully debunked, wholly false, and originated from a right-wing outlet. Only warrants a summary, with full details belonging at Insight, Fox News, or a scandal-specific article. ] 17:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not notable''' I think reporting this on Obama's page opens up a very frightening situation. Any story could be fabricated, distributed, broadcast, and then merit a mention in an article. The incident is news and, I believe, already has its own article. I recommend linking to it in the Further Reading section and leaving it at that. The same story could have been written about absolutely anyone, it has nothing to do with Obama. ] 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not notable''' Not in this article anyway. A link to the article about it might be acceptable though. --] 02:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Notable''' Better to clear the air. ] 03:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Non notable''' A link to the madrassa article is all that's necessary. - ] 20:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Notable''' - yes. People have questions about the issue, so it should be noted, with the quote about it as written in his book. - ] 21:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Notable''' It has its own article. However, having said that, it shouldn't be included in this article as its more in relation to poor reporting by Insight than anything Obama did. Maybe a link in the See also section. --] 22:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Notable''' as note and already ]. --] 22:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Mother's ancestors owned slaves === |
|
|
''Two of Sen. Obama's ancestors, a great-great-great-great grandfather and great-great-great-great-great-grandmother on his mother's side , each owned two slaves.'' |
|
|
*'''Not notable.''' That's four "greats" and five "greats," for those too lazy to count. ] 20:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not notable''' Not the slightest bit notable or relevant to him and would likely only be included as an effort to smear him. --] 02:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*As, somehow a criticism? No. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not notable''' Ok, I admit this is not significant. ] 03:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not notable''' Not notable. - ] 20:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Notable''' - Seeing as how a great number of our historical leaders are now (noted) as being slave-owners, should it not be fair to mention that his bloodline is tainted as well? (sarcasm intended) - ] 21:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not notable''' Even if true, his mom seems to have made up for any past transgressions of a distant relative by marrying an African-American and producing a child. --] 22:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Parking tickets at Harvard === |
|
|
''During the exploratory phase of his candidacy, Obama paid off $375 worth of parking tickets and late fees that he incurred during law school at Harvard. '' |
|
|
*'''Not notable.''' Pardon my brevity, but give me a break. ] 17:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not Notable''' But fun on the talk page! ] 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not Notable''' I don't see this as much of an issue. Who cares?--] 20:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not notable''' Considering HLS's hefty tuition costs (today at $110,000 for three years), I think Senator Obama's action was rather admirable. ] 01:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not notable''' Funny stuff, but not notable. --] 02:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not notable''' Silly. ] 03:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not notable''' Trivial matter. - ] 20:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*Notable - If $375 was not the total cost, but rather a plea deal??? I smell conspiracy theory... any takers :) - ok... '''Not Notable''' - ] 21:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Not notable''' Yet again.. Anything remotely interesting regarding a candidate is front page news. --] 22:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''unnotable''' take this to fox news. --– <font style="border: solid 1.5px #63B8FF; background-color: #D0E7FF">]]]</font> · <sup><small>] · ]</small></sup> 05:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*Notable in the context of things that he's doing to clear his name. (It's only not notable if the incident is isolated. However, Obama has also done other things to clear his name, such as by investing in mutual funds and money market accounts, not individual stocks, after he was accused of buying stocks then proposing funding that would benefit those stocks).] 23:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::He was never accused of buying stocks and then proposing fundng that would benefit those stocks. There are no allegations of illegality or ethics violations. ] 23:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== removed paragraph == |
|
|
|
|
|
"Senator Obama has taken positive steps to eliminate actions which might be deemed improper. In an agreement with his wife, Obama agreed to stop smoking in exchange for her helping him run. He has said that he will only invest in mutual funds or money market accounts after critics accused him of buying individual stocks which would benefit from government funding that Obama was proposing. Obama also paid 15 parking tickets which were issued to him 17 years ago." |
|
|
|
|
|
This is an absurd paragraph and I removed it. Is he stopping smoking because it "might be deemed improper"? Gee, I would have thought it was a health issue. Or maybe an image issue. But not a matter of propriety. And neither of the other two items are notable. Even consensus on your own "survey" here (a method I don't particularly subscribe to because we don't do these things by vote) says they are not notable or we should wait and see. NOne of this belongs in the article. If people insist on including something about his trying to stop smoking - and the importance of this escapes me - then come up with some better wording than that it mught be deemed improper. My opinion, as a long time editor of this article, is that including it gives it undue weight, and I see no need for it at all. There is a whole lot that has been left off of this article, for space reasons, and because you can't include every detail. This is one I'd pass on. <strong>] </strong>|<small> ]</small> 09:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:I didn't write the paragraph you removed, nor do I approve of its wording, and I don't appreciate you attributing it to me. I'd note that the paragraph includes mentions of the blind trust and parking tickets, which I (along with Talk consensus) opposed here as being notable enough for inclusion. Again, if you don't like surveys, don't participate; they're plenty useful. This is not "voting," Tvoz, this is examining consensus. ] 20:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Whoa- hold it - where did I attribute it to you? I know you didn't add that paragraph - it was added by an IP address ] - and I never suggested that you had anything to do with it. In fact my comment says that the paragraph is ''not'' what the survey results revealed, and although I don't like the idea of the survey I didn't do a thing to disrupt it - I didn't participate, but I also didn't comment on it until now. You owe me an apology for that snide edit summary and your accusation above. And by the way - the survey was introduced here without your signature attached to it, other than in the edit summary, for whatever reason you had. When I said "your survey" I actually was talking to all of the participants in it - in fact, I hadn't even noticed who posted the opener. My comment about a survey not being a vote was precisely speaking to the point that we attempt to edit here by discussion and consensus, not majority rule. <strong>] </strong>|<small> ]</small> 21:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Then why does your criticism of an anon's insertion belong here, in this survey? You're boycotting all surveys, but your criticism of some anon's shoddy insertion belongs in a sub-section of this one? You've owed me an apology for your repeated snideness ever since you were overruled on calling Cat Stevens ]; I'm not holding my breath, nor should you hold yours, where apologies're concerned. Anyhow, you are correct: Misplaced Pages happens via consensus. Surveys can be used to reach and re-examine consensus, as this one has, nor does your dislike of the format (or those who wrote the "polling is evil" opinion essay) alter the very valid results. ] 00:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Italiaviv, I think Tvoz just put it in the wrong header is all. It's all good here. ] 01:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::There ya go. Moved the header out so that it's not part of the survey. As far as Tvoz's actions. The quitting smoking is notable because Obama made it notable and a sentence saying he made an agreement of his wife to stop smoking in exchange for her helping him run is hardly undue weight. The Obama's made it notable by including it in every interview they gave in the weeks following his announcement. Now, concentrating it in a paragraph along with the non-notable parking tickets and stock purchases and preceding it with the "might be deemed inappropriate" is a bit much. So getting rid of the paragraph was probably a good thing. Just need to figure some way to work the quitting smoking sentence into the article somewhere. |
|
|
:::::The only thing evil about "voting" is if all you do is count noses. Going by pure discussion is often more contentious as a vocal minority can often out talk a majority, which is just as evil. That's why you take surveys. Not only is the "agree" or "disagree" important(but to a far lesser degree), you also get the most important thing, why people feel the way they do.--] 01:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Non-U.S. views == |
|
|
|
|
|
The article could be improved by adding links to non-American articles and media coverage.] 06:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Do you have any of those readily available? ] 06:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*Anyone want to add some Australian article! |
|
|
|
|
|
== Obama is not muslim == |
|
|
|
|
|
This was debunked rather well at snopes.com, at the link below. The opening paragraph of the Wiki page on Obama states that he is the only practicing muslim in the Senate. No where else in the article is it mentioned. |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp |
|
|
::Yeah.. It's called vandalism. --] 02:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Punahou School == |
|
|
|
|
|
ok, you win. We'll let the sharp reader click the links and figure out that Punahou School is a very expensive and famous school and we'll let the point slip by the dull reader by not commenting on how great the school is. Frankly, I think that is being biased, not neutral, but I'll let it slide. ] 20:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== 20060926 p092606kh-0093-515h.jpg == |
|
|
|
|
|
<nowiki>{{editprotected}}</nowiki> The caption for 20060926 p092606kh-0093-515h.jpg should read "only Tom Coburn's hair is visible behind Rep. Henry Waxman of California." {{unsigned|Bradywahl}} |
|
|
:{{done}} ] ] 01:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ], ] edits == |
|
|
|
|
|
Today's edits by one user has seen a deletion to a paragraph with citations in it. Cited material should not be deleted without discussion on a talkpage. ] 20:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I've had stuff deleted even if there was a citation. There was no discussion about it, just someone deleting it. Therefore, a citation does not prevent deletion. We need to clean up the article and eliminate irrelavent stuff. So what if Obama cosponsored a bill. Senators do that thousands of times during their senate term. What is relevant is if Obama's bill is passed as was the case in the Congo bill. Also relevant is if he has a bill jointly with the GOP, such as with Senator McCain. Also revelant is when he submits a bill about his pet subject, withdrawal in Iraq. |
|
|
|
|
|
Why is the pastor that married him so important. It just detracts from Obama. Why not list which airlines he's an elite frequent flyer or what brand of tires he uses? ] 20:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Stuff deleted without a citation does not fly on this article. You need consensus which is why your edits have been reverted. Your deletions are throwing off the POV of this article. If material is properly introduced into an article with citations, deleting it because it "does not seem important" to you becomes opinionated editting. As for mundane info, there are enough editors on this article that if one or more had objected to it, it would have been deleted. Not every piece of minutia will be introduced into an article but some things like who married whom are present in many other articles. |
|
|
:Please also learn how to sign your name on a talkpage. The four tildes occur after your last sentence as here ==>. ] 20:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::This user's continued deletion of material does not meet consensus with me. I will, however, not engage in an edit war. ] 20:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Consider deleting fluff == |
|
|
|
|
|
For example, "In September 2006, Obama supported a related bill, the Secure Fence Act, authorizing construction of fencing and other security improvements along the United States–Mexico border." under the legislation section. He simply voted on the bill. This is not newsworthy. 80 senators voted for the bill. The bill was not Obama's idea. If he wrote a bill with McCain, that's worthy of wikipedia. If he has a pet issue, such as not fighting in Iraq, that's worthy of mention. If you mention a bill that he voted yes or no, then you should list all the hundreds of bills that he voted on. If one includes the Secure Fence Act trying to fool the reader to thinking that it's Obama's idea, this is fraud. For a neutral viewpoint, I think the sentence should be deleted. If not deleted, there should be a note that Obama was simply voted on the measure, one of hundreds of votes, and that it wasn't his idea.] 20:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== new section on controversies (neutrally worded) == |
|
|
|
|
|
Shouldn't wiki be neutral and allow neutrally worded descriptions of controversies about Obama. If you don't have this, then wiki is not being neutral but hiding information. North Korea and Iran are countries that hide information from the public and '''Misplaced Pages is not a mouthpiece of North Korea'''. Do you favor neutrally worded mention of controversies in a new section or do you favor censorship like in North Korea? <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 20:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> |
|
|
|
|
|
== to dereks1x regarding major edits == |
|
|
|
|
|
Dereks1x - I am sure you mean well in your editing of Barack Obama, but there is a problem with the way you are doing it. Some of your edits are not careful, and introduce errors in language and wording; some of them are taking an article that many editors have worked hard to keep NPOV and making it less so. Also the article has been given featured status, and we have recently undergone a review of that featured status, and one of the criteria is stability - that means, once wording has been established for sections that are not current events, for example, editors are supposed to try to keep that wording as it is without making lots of changes. His early life, for example, has been gone over and over and the wording is fair, accurate, and not changing, so there's no need to edit it further beyond an occasional tweak. Also the reference style has been under scrutiny and editors have worked hard to keep it consistent and in compliance with standards. PLease believe me when I tell you that the regular editors on this article are diligent and non-partisan. We're not pushing any agenda, pro or anti the Senator regarding his Presidential ambition. What we want is for there to be a fair article, with a reasonable level of detail but not too much - that's another issue in Featured status - with reliable references, and a consistent style. If anyone has ideas for additions or major changes, we try to discuss them on the Talk page before implementing them. I'm asking you, then, to do that. I'm speaking for myself here - as one editor of the page - and one of the ones who has reverted some of your multiple edits yesterday and today. It's very time consuming to do this over and over - you are today reinstating things that were removed yesterday. Please stop doing that and come over to talk instead and say why you think your changes are needed, and I assure you that fair changes will get a fair hearing. I'm posting this on your user talk page and on ] where it can be discussed more. I hope you don't take offense, and I hope you will be a cooperative editor on this highly-visible featured article. Thank you. <strong>] </strong>|<small> ]</small> 21:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, didn't know it was a featured article] 21:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
And also, please don't edit other people's entries on article talk pages. <strong>] </strong>|<small> ]</small> 21:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Dereks1x, I removed your addition to the legislation section because it was an uninformative list of non-notable bills that Obama has filed in 2007. The point of this article is not to act as a legislative record for Obama, but to record only the notable legislation that he's a sponsor on. None of those were particularly notable and none of them have even made it out of committee yet. Also, links to Thomas do not work once you close your browser session. They are unique to your browser session and will not work for anyone else that tries to follow those links. Additionally, including the full bill title is not informative as they don't say what the bill actually does. If you want to include Obama's legislative record for this year, find a ] that explains what the bills actually mean. --] 22:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Concur. Comparing editors to being from a foreign country is the best ] edit summary. ] 01:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== law firm == |
|
|
|
|
|
Obama's former law firm was described in the article as "civil rights law firm". This is biased so it's against wikipedia policy. It's also false. The firm does a whole lot of plaintiff stuff. Originally, I summarized it in one phrase. However, someone edited it out. As a compromise, I placed a link and just refered to it as a law firm. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
His hairline is uneven in 2012 portrait. ] (]) 04:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
Before people edited out the description of Punahou School as being well respected. If you're going to edit that out, then you should agree that "civil rights" law firm should also be edited out. There's an even stronger case because Punahou is well respected (no dispute) but it's a lie to say that the firm is primarly a civil rights law firm. Furthermore, wiki editors said people could just click the link to Punahou to see how good it is. The same now goes for the law firm. |
|
|
|
{{abot}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Obama identifies as a chair, please note that in his biography == |
|
The neutral POV is not to lie and mischaracterize the law firm. Either describe it in its entiretly (got edited out) or give a link and just describe it as a law firm. |
|
|
] 21:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:From the Miner, Barnhill, & Galland website... the "About Us" section. . "The firm has acquired a national reputation in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development work." Referring to something as a "civil rights law firm" is not giving it a POV. Calling it the "''renowned'' civil rights firm" would be. Which is why that isn't what we did. Referring to the Punahou School as a private school is not POV, referring to it as "the famous and well respected private Punahou School" is. I hate to not assume good faith, but this appears to be more of a vendetta against us for disagreeing with the Punahou descriptor than a genuine intent to improve the article. ] 22:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have witnessed him saying "Im a chair" multiple times - source me ] (]) 10:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
*As someone who stumbled on this page, I looked at the law firm's website. It looks like that do a whole lot more than civil rights. They also don't appear to be funded by donations. I suspect that civil rights is a small part of the firm's work. So my two cents are that it would be inaccurate to call it a civil rights law firm unless one wants to paint a false picture (perhaps as a campaign tactic). There's nothing wrong with a law firm doing other kinds of work! |
|
|
|
== "]" listed at ] == |
|
|
] |
|
|
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 11#Baraxk}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 15:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC) |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
faq page Frequently asked questions
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.svg)
Not done. It is hard to make this clear without being mean, but this does not matter in the slightest. Remsense ‥ 论 05:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
The redirect Baraxk has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 11 § Baraxk until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)