Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Contradiction

Which one is it?:

• That same year, he became the first man of African descent[1] to win election to the United States Senate as a Democrat.[2][3]

• He is not only the sole African American currently serving in the U.S. Senate, he is but the fifth in U.S. history, the third since Reconstruction, and only the second Democrat.

Trovare 07:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no contradiction.

• He is the sole African-American currently in Congress.
• There were four other African-Americans elected before him (so he is the fifth African-American elected to the Senate).
• Three of those four were elected as Republicans (so he is the second Democrat).
• The only other African-American Democrat elected to the Senate was a woman.

Therefore, Senator Obama is the first African-American man elected to the Senate as a Democrat.

I apologize for not being clearer before. (Check that—Was that explanation clear? It is clear as crystal to me, but your judgement on clarity is what counts, not mine. Let me know.) Unschool 08:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Above: "*He 'is' the sole African-American currently in Congress." Should this not read that Mr. Obama is the sole AA in the US Senate?

First of...

Clarity was also my concern when I suggested this reduced version. Fully agree that political prominence in the US of a person born to a father of Kenyan nationality is notable, but the forced language of this version (saying first "of African descent"--a confusing designation--, who is not appointed, who is not female, who is not Republican) trivalizes his Senate election as a historical event and will likely mislead the reader into construing a historical first that is not accurate. Let's keep trying for something better.--HailFire 17:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I've tried for something better. I hope it satisfies more than it displeases. Improvements welcome.--HailFire 01:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Obama's ethnic identification in the article's lead paragraph was changed back to "of African descent" after several days and an apparent consensus that the text stay "African American". I have returned it to African American as this is Obama's self-identification. Let's strive for WP:NPOV and look to (Wikipedia's own guidelines on this: WP:MoS#Identity. The African American article also contains many useful insights that can inform our consensus building. --HailFire 06:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have anything to add, other than to say that my thoughts mirror HailFire's. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Would it be feasible to put, "self-identified African-American"? That way the neutrality of the statement agrees with both sides. Technically he is not African-American, so the "self-identified" prefix should be added. If George Bush claimed to be member of a secret occult, would the article read "George Bush is a member of (some random occult name)" or "George Bush has stated he is a member of (some random occult name)." (I'm sorry that was a bad example, but you get the idea.) So, I believe the article should be changed for clarity and a neutral point of view with truth. Shakam

Shakam, thanks for bringing your input here. I think it may be useful to be as precise as possible about the self-identification itself, so I'm reproducing here in full a paragraph from Obama's 2004 preface to Dreams from My Father in which he talks about it in detail:

A few months ago, I won the Democratic nomination for a seat as the U.S. senator from Illinois. It was a difficult race, in a crowded field of well-funded, skilled, and prominent candidates; without organizational backing or personal wealth, a black man with a funny name, I was considered a long shot. And so, when I won a majority of the votes in the Democratic primary, winning in white areas as well as black, in the suburbs as well as Chicago, the reaction that followed echoed the response to my election to the Law Review. Mainstream commentators expressed surprise and genuine hope that my victory signaled a broader change in our racial politics. Within the black community, there was a sense of pride regarding my accomplishment, a pride mingled with frustration that fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education and forty years after the passage of the Voting Rights Act, we should still be celebrating the possibility (and only the possibility, for I have a tough general election coming up) that I might be the sole African American -- and only the third since Reconstruction -- to serve in the Senate. My family, friends, and I were mildly bewildered by the attention, and constantly aware of the gulf between the hard sheen of media reports and the messy, mundane realities of life as it is truly lived.[1]

I think next we need to define our goal. Are we trying to reach a broad consensus on what is true, or are we trying to write a short and simple lead paragraph for this article that conforms to guidelines found in Wikipedia's Manual of Style? I favor the latter approach, and this is why I think the current lead text works best. That said, I would agree with you that controversy over Obama's self-identification as African American is notable and may be appropriate for brief discussion elsewhere in this article. Again, thanks for engaging the discussion here. --HailFire 07:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

So, is that a proposal for a subsection in this wiki? As long as it is found in the article that he is not technically African-American but only chooses to self-identify as one, (eventhough he is bi-racial) I'm happy. Shakam

Yes, I was thinking to add some neutral text and references about this, and also some other frequently debated topics that don't easily fit elsewhere in the article. --HailFire 09:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, well be my guest and make the subsection and we'll verify the neutrality together.Shakam

I've added the new section. I think it informs without taking sides. Hope you agree. --HailFire 07:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It's great! However, if I remember correctly, in his book, doesn't he say he has a white mother? That was my main basis for the argument, because he can't be "African-American" if he is only half black. So I was thinking there should be a little additional note saying that he can't be "African-American" not only because his "black ancestors" were not slaves, but more importantly, he isn't all "black".

So, he virtually isn't African-American in two ways and both should be noted.

Shakam 23:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? Check the discussion further down on the page. Jasper23 03:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am serious. Why would I not be? Furthermore, what/where are you talking about?

He isn't African-American (period) I don't really care what is in the first paragraph (at this moment in time), but I want it to be noted that his mother is white and that he self identifies as African-American (demographically maybe?). The phrase African-American is quite ambiguous and will give many users the wrong information due to its connotation in the US. Shakam 03:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What is your logic? Because his mother is white he is European-american? Demographically? What do you mean by that? What wrong information? Jasper23 03:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Barack Obama self-identifies as African-American (a euphemism that is used to be "politically correct" but in actuality gives most people the presumption that 1. the person is American (which in this case Obama is) and 2. that person has African ancestors (which in this case Obama has), however due to the connotation of the term African-American in the US, anyone with certain pigmentation, hair texture, and facial features can be perceived as African-American.)

Argument 1. His father is Kenyan, he knows where his "black" ancestors are from. Thus he is "Kenyan-American".

Argument 2. His mother is "white", he should be acknowldged as mixed-race in the subsection. African-American is associated with the "black ethnic group". When Halle Berry was considered to first African-American to win (whatever the award was), the statement was technically wrong in the sense that she wasn't mainly "black"; however if she had been African-American would have been fine seeing as she doesn't know her "black ancestry".

I'm not asking the entire article be revamped but at least let users know this pertinent information in a small subsection. Shakam 04:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

From your argument: 1. Barack Obama self-identifies as African-American (what should he identify with?) 2. His father is Kenyan (Isnt Kenya part of Africa? I am pretty sure it is.) 3. He is "Kenyan-American" (See part 2) 4. His mother is "white" (It doesnt matter what color she is-arent we talking about geography-however if you are talking about color-it really doesnt matter anyway) Your argument really doesnt make much sense. Jasper23 04:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I feel as if you are not adhering to the NPOV policy (no offense), it feels like you are letting your own biased opinions interfere with thinking rationally.

In response to: 1. He may identify as he wishes, but that does not make it true. 2. Yes you are right but African-American does not connotatively mean Kenyan-American. African-American is reserved denotatively for those who do not know where there ancestors are from. How often is European-American used if the individual knows his heritage. ie Irish-American, German-American, Sicilian-American, etc. 3. I don't really know how to respond to that, since it did not really say anything. 4. She is white (Scottish and English to be exact, so by your logic European-African-American maybe?), which makes him 50% black and 50% white (give or take from each). Even though he self-identifies as African-American (which many readers will presume to be black, (WHICH IS MY MAIN REASON FOR BRINGING THIS INTO THE DISCUSSION SECTION AND NOT STARTING AN EDIT WAR) he is not one and it should be added in the article.

I am trying to be civil and discuss this orderly, but you seem to tune out what I say. I hope this does not escalate into an edit war. Shakam 04:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Your words: "it feels like you are letting your own biased opinions interfere with thinking rationally." Dont ever talk to me like that. Jasper23 05:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I said no offense, but it seems like this is going nowhere. If you have no more input then I guess "we" will have to come to a conclusion on our own. Shakam 05:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont care if you put a qualifier on an insult. I believe that this conversation is going to go nowhere and that an edit war is exactly what you ("we") may be looking for. Please read downthread for more information, or go to the african-american article on wikipedia to gain a better understanding of the term. Lets leave this conversation as is and no hard feelings. Thanks. Jasper23 07:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem lies in the ambiguous definition of "African-American". Shakam, you argue that Obama does not meet the technical definition of the term. However, it's quite difficult to even nail down a workable definition of "African-American" at all (I believe the African-American article has gone through many discussions on this subject and is revised often). The definition currently used in the African-American article (I know, WP:ASR, WP:RS, but it is instructive) is preferable in my opinion. It says, "An African American is a member of an ethnic group in the United States whose ancestors, usually in predominant part, were indigenous to Africa. Many African Americans possess European, Native American and, to a lesser degree, Asian ancestry as well." Obama obviously qualifies per this definition. But basically, we're dealing with an absence of proof of a universal, technical definition. I don't know what definition you're working from or what the proof of it is, but it seems too restrictive. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

We're dealing with connotations and not denotations. The dictionary.com definition is (sorry I don't know how to link) "a black American of African descent". Does his mother's heritage have no signifigance in his "racial classification"? I don't want to revamp the article but I want to (and quite possibly will) add a subsection that deals with this controversy. Also, may it be noted that the wiki definition you gave of African-American does not have a source. The term is quite ambiguous and a neutral point of view should be utilized by adding the subsection.

And to Jasper: I did read most of the pertinent information in the African-American article, maybe you should read it as well. Shakam 18:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, it clearly states in the African-American wiki, that when Asians, Causasians, etc. tried using African-American (eventhough, they were from Africa and are now in America) for Affirmative Actgion benefits, their claims were not upheld.

Are you saying that Obama is asian and cannot receive affirmative actgion benefits? Jasper23 22:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's kinda cute how you intentionally made that typo. To the point: No I am not saying that, seeing as you two have closed your ears to all reason, I'll take matters into my own hands. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shakam (talk • contribs) .

Please. Wikipedia works by consensus, not taking matters into one's own hands. Try to assume good faith. I have not closed my ears to all reason. You keep saying "technically he is not an African-American", then claim that this discussion is "dealing with connotations and not denotations". It seems you have a well-defined definition of the term that you're using, and it happens to exclude Obama. Thus, perhaps it is more about denotations than it seems to be? · j e r s y k o talk · 03:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any issues with this? · j e r s y k o talk · 03:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is even worse. It sounds like it came right out of a racist's mouth. (I'm not talking about you, I am talking about the vibe) I have a question, why should we only focus on his father's heritage? His mother is half Scottish and half English, so by your reason, wouldn't he be able to be classified as European American? Shakam 04:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

His father is from Kenya (African) and his mother is from the U.S.(American). I dont think we have focused on his fathers heritage, only the heritage of Obama. Does that help? Jasper23 04:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, what is this vibe you speak of? Jasper23 04:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

My mother is from Germany and my father is from the U.S. so should I classify myself as European-American?

Sure why not? Race is not an issue in a situation like that. German is German and American is American. Jasper23 04:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is portraying Obama as a part of the "black ethnic group" by saying he is African-American. Even if he so chooses, he is not "black". Shakam 04:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont know if the article is portraying Obama as anything of the sort. Is it implied or infered? So you are saying he is not part of a black ethnic group? What is the litmus test for that? 100% black blood? Going back for how many generations? Who counts as black? Who decides who is black and who is not? I honestly want to know what you think. Jasper23 04:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, what was that vibe that you mentioned? Jasper23 04:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No one can decide, thats why it should not be there. Why not use non-Caucasian, instead of using the term African-American.

Also, how would me identifying as European-American not have any racial issues? Furthermore, if German is German, then isn't Kenyan-Kenyan? Shakam 04:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you answer the questions I posed in my query? I am quite curious as to your reasoning about why he is not black. Here it is: So you are saying he is not part of a black ethnic group? What is the litmus test for that? 100% black blood? Going back for how many generations? Who counts as black? Who decides who is black and who is not? I honestly want to know what you think. I really do want to know why you do not believe he is black. My ears are open. Lets try to get through this point by point. Thanks. Oh, and I didnt revert that part because it wasnt sourced. Please take note of the edit summaries I have left. Thanks. Btw, what is this vibe you speak of? Jasper23 04:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, nationality does not equal race. Many people presume when the term African-American is used, that the person is of the "black racial group" (sorry I didn't mean ethnic earlier, but racial). Obama has a "white" mother, he is bi-racial, black and white. "We" are stuck using prefounded subconscious racism when we assume that a 50% black person and a 50% white person is a part of the "black racial group" when the person is cleary not if you are using logic.

By the way, back to when you said that If I identified as European-American that race would not be an issue in a situation like that. I can nearly guarantee, that you inferred I was of the "white" race. Do you see how simple words can be ambiguous if not explained?

I actually assumed you werent white. Who says you cant be black and european-american. Not me. Jasper23 05:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

And to the question, Who decides who is black and who is not?, noone can. So, if all of his heritage/race/ethnic group, whatever you want to call it, cannot be noted then none should be noted (especially if it leads users to infer the wrong thing). African-American leads users to believe he is a "black" man, when in fact, he is a bi-racial (black and white) man.

One more thing, Charlize Theron was born in Africa, then became a United States citizen, so technically that makes her African American doesn't it? Shakam 05:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, your answers are always just all over the board. This makes it nearly impossible to respond to any one thing because the conversation jumps all nambly pambly from one place to the next. So in essence what you are saying is that there is no litmus test for being black. There is no percentage of black heritage blood that makes you black. Former generations of "black" ancestors make no difference. No one decides who is black. So no one is black. We are all mixed race. Correct me if I am wrong. But please only respond to the issue of being black as I have laid it out here for the third time. Thanks Jasper23 05:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

He is not black because his mother is white. Thus, he is bi-racial. I don't believe I can make it any simpler. Shakam 05:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That is not an argument that is a claim. Also, any more reverts to the page and you will have violated the 3RR rule. Could you please answer my questions? Jasper23 05:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Technically wouldn't you have violated the rule as well? Are you some moderator or something? Answer what questions, you believe what you want to believe anyway, saying a 50% white and 50% black person is black is sheer ignorance. Shakam 05:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You didnt see the questions I asked? Here they are: So you are saying he is not part of a black ethnic group? What is the litmus test for that? 100% black blood? Going back for how many generations? Who counts as black? Who decides who is black and who is not? I honestly want to know what you think. I really do want to know why you do not believe he is black. My ears are open. Lets try to get through this point by point. Thanks.---I really am just trying to figure out what you believe. Who is black and who is not. Thanks again.(not a moderator or administrator) Jasper23 05:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

First and foremost, you will tell me to cite something that cannot be cited from any reliable source. 1. He believes he is, because the black/white (I'll use mulatto from here on out) people have been cast into/absorbed by the true African-American community.

2. and 3. Probably atleast 75%.

4. Grandparents, one person with one white grand parent and 3 black grandparents, should have the right to not be identified as black.

5. I can't answer that question, it is based on a person's biased perception.

6. Noone can set a definition because it is quite different according to each individual's perception. (However simple logic tells us that 50=50 and 50 is not greater than 50) I gave a conceding statement for now that if it the article could say non-Caucasian, like the article on Colin Powell, I would drop the subsection argument for now.

(Sorry, I'm kind of new, but when I violate the 3 revert rule, who blocks me? the system?) Shakam 05:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Shakam. Your last comment helped explain your position much more clearly (in my mind, anyway). In fact, I'm sympathetic to to some of what you're saying, especially #1 above (number 4 is more troublesome to me, but I'll move on). Perhaps my disagreement with you comes more from the emphasis we put on Obama's self-identification (if he self-identifies as Af-Am, we should ID him as Af-Am here as his identification is not patently unreasonable vs. we should note that he self-identifies as Af-Am because he's not technically Af-Am if he doesn't have greater than 50% African heritage) Your "non-caucasian" idea is a good thought, but it might cause more problems (it's not clear whether Daniel Akaka, for example, should be included in this group). Perhaps the best thing to do at this point is to file an RFC? If no one objects, I will do so soon. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The verdict could still be biased do to my first response. (And I said 75% or more black blood not more than 50%) Let's look at it this way, if you never heard of Charlize Theron and I told you she was an African-American, you would assume she was "black".

Could we perhaps say non-Caucasian with African heritage? Or something of the sort? I would still like to see a sub-section because people should know that he is not a true "black", which has been connoted to the term African-American. I do not know what Obama's motives are for self-identifying that way, but it can be related to how Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Dubois were so prominent and successful.

One last example, if a Wikipedia article was done on myself, it might lead to controversy. If someone labeled me as the first African-American to be president, technically it would be wrong in two ways. One, my mother is German and my father is American, thus European-American (since Africa-Kenya then Europe-Germany). People would assume I was "white" due to the label European-American. Two, my father is African-American. This reverts back to a person with 50% "white" blood and 50% "black" blood is not the connotation of African-American.

P.S. (Black people, referring to people of African descent with dark skin. See also: African American.) That came off of the disambiguation page of black.

Shakam15:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Why not simply say that he has a white mother and a black father to end this? After all, he does. The only reason why Obama identifies as "African-American" is b/c he thinks that they're all "mingled" anyway. Swirly 11:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I want it be stated that way, but I don't know how to revise it to say that, and it will probably be reverted by someone. Shakam

---

Trying this version. --HailFire 10:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This discussion astonishes me, particularly the repeated assertion that Obama is "technically" not African American. The use of the word technical leaves the false impression that there exists some extremely precise, quasi-scientific definition of the term African American. (According to Merriam Webster online, technical means "based on or marked by a strict or legal interpretation.") No such definition exists. In the nineteenth century, the "one drop" rule held sway in the United States, especially in the South—meaning that if a person had any African ancestors (i.e. if a person had "one drop" of black blood), he or she was considered black and treated accordingly. Times have changed, but the legacy of that definition persists.

The wikipedia article for African American features a cogent subsection entitled "Who is African American?" which begins like this:

"To be considered African American in the United States of America, not even half of one's ancestry need be Black. The nation's answer to the question 'Who is black?' long has been that a black person is any American with any known Black ancestry. This definition reflects the long experience with racism, white supremacy, slavery, and, later, with Jim Crow laws."

It also states:

"While the one-drop rule holds its legacy to a degree over the American populace in general and the African American populace specifically, the contemporary standard of who is considered or assumed to be black or African American in the United States is more a matter of generally perceived 'black' physical traits (such as hair texture, skin pigmentation, lip formation, and/or nose shape etc.) in any visible degree with recent black heritage as opposed to the original one drop rule standard of any trace of known African ancestry for generations rendering a person black, many times despite physical appearance."

I believe this describes the consensus about the term African American. Some people with a "mixed" heritage prefer to identify themselves as biracial, or might even use other words. But there is no rule that disqualifies someone like Obama, who has one parent of African descent, from laying claim to the term "African American ." Ironically, Obama's picture is featured in this wikipedia entry.

To recap: 1. Obama identifies himself as African American. 2. By the standards of wikipedia's article on the topic, he is African American. 3. He is widely perceived as African American and has been described as such in literally dozens of articles published nationwide. Thus, "person of African ancestry" seems to me not only awkward but ludicrous. My change reflects this view. trulyvery 03:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What is perceived by the masses isn't what is always right.

Recap of Recap 1. So does Halle Berry and many more people subjugated by the public. 2. Are you the interpreter of these "standards"? 3. So has Tiger Woods. Thus, it should be scratched. Obama is the only African American currently serving in the U.S. Senate. It's not very noteworthy is it? Shakam 04:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just wanted to comment, that I believe African American to be an accurate and appropriate definition: [Google's Definitions]. Beyond that, to be considered African-American, a person must be both of African descent, and also be American. Both of you make good arguements though. Kopf1988 23:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Barack Obama's Heritage

Why is it not acceptable to explain Barack Obama's heritage further instead of just leaving it at "African-American"

what differnce does it make? kenya is in Africa.

his father is kenyan, and his mother is white, not sure what nationality, though. Colorfulharp233 02:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the right way is to say Biracial (European, African-American) Fnln6050 (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Kenyan-American

Barack Obama is a Kenyan-American. The term African-American is used by descendents of slaves who do not know what nation in Africa their family originates from.

This is an encyclopedia. I suggest you take the time to read African-American. It also wouldn't hurt to brush up on Barack Obama at his official website where it specifically claims (and I can't believe I'm being forced to point this out) that he is an African-American. [2] K1Bond007 05:13, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Anyone can claim to be whatever they want, that doesn't make it so.

Can you come up with a better arguement than that? It appears you have none. K1Bond007 05:17, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Politicians will lie in order to get votes. Are you that gulliable?

Here is my argument. His father was born in Kenya. Barack Obama knows his heritage is Kenyan. He doesn't say Kenyan cause Kenyan won't get you as many votes as African-American. John F. Kennedy wasn't known as European-American, why not? Because he knew of his roots in Ireland so he was an Irish-American. Barack Obama knows his roots just like JFK did. Barack Obama can try to hide from them, but why should wikipedia help Barack Obama hide from the truth?

I see my argument was too good for you to respond to.

I don't see a reason too. We can debate this ignorance all night and it won't do me any good. K1Bond007 05:27, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

You are supporting ignorance to help a politican. What have I said of Barack Obama that is not true? Nothing! You however keep on deleting the truth.

You are disrupting this article. Stop it. Rhobite 05:38, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

I want to put in facts about Barack Obama. Why are you against it?

There are many things that Barack Obama is not, and obviously we shouldn't point them all out. You may think the "slave" remark is necessary because otherwise people will assume that he is descended from slaves. We can't answer everyone's assumptions. If we're in the business of addressing prejudiced assumptions, why not cut to the chase and note that Obama is also not an entertainer or an athlete? Rhobite 06:07, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

This "Kenyan American" business is not going anywhere. Obama identifies himself as African-American. The issue should be settled and any further edits treated as vandalism, in my opinion. --Malathion 14:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is foolishness. How many of you writing this are even Black? Are you gonna be so ignorant as to sit around and argue about what you are gonna decide to call us? He is Kenya-American. KENYA is a COUNTRY, AFRICA is a CONTINENT. Local minded clowns. America's European descendents created the term African-American to degrade and disrespect the people and land that they have finished raping and pillaging, for now. Obama cannot say what he truly wants to say. He can't be upset like all of us have a right to be, because then he is the angry African resorting to his primal monkey ways. All Black people are treated this way when ever the subject of racism comes up. We will never have a legitmate argument or reason for our feelings, its just all ways "lazy Blacks whining about all we do for them..." He can't be Kenyan because then he's a terrorist. Never mind the important fact that his was born in Hawaii!!! Have you learned anything yet? Is this still a discussion? Everyone has heard some inbred racist sheep rapist make some terrorist-related quip. In a way, this page is worse. At least that republican aforementioned is honest about his hatred of Black people. Thats why I can't fault Bush completely. He showed the American public exactly what kind of man he was and who was gonna suffer for it for four years, so New Orleans (My Hometown) wasn't really a shock to me, or anybody that is aware of this country's distaste for us. Watching noone show up to help for FOUR DAYS puts things in perspective. I might be wrong, but I think we were in Iraq in less than four days, cross the ocean and all. Everybody can get to New Orleans when they have to start living again, a three day paradise away from your boring, Main St., cookie cutter building cluster. The only city let with any style, or culture goes to hell just because most of its citizens are Black and poor. Once again, THIS IS NOT A SUPRISE TO ANY BLACK PERSON WHO ISN'T WRAPPED IN A COCOON OF LIES AND ASSUMED KNOWLEDGE. You people sicken me. You come under the guise of being not like the rest. You Google for an hour and listen to a 2Pac cd and all of a sudden you 've grown an afro and can wax philosophiclly about the current state of those poor minorities. Put down your books and go actually know Black people. And I don't mean the three Black kids in your school who are there because their family has crossed-over into "White Acceptance", I mean the vast majority of others that you claim to know enough about to comment on. Keep in mind that White culture is no secret to us. You force it on us early, and keep everything else down or outright steal and claim it as your own. We live in White Culture. When we work, go to school, legally. When ever you've had enough "ethnic" flavor, you can retreat to your familar, hopefully all-white area of town that is upscale, unlike that almost all-Black part that's destitute... You know nothing about us. I really hope this is just some cover website for a Klan or Nazi hate page, because if not, us "African-Americans", "Kenyan-Americans", "Haitian -Americans", and every other half American (that is our current status, half of an American.) are in real trouble.

I'm sorry for your hardships, good sir, but you have to keep in mind that this is, after all, an encyclopedia. The rant that you've given above is irrelevant to your previous arguments (assuming this is one person, because there are no signatures to show otherwise). Now, while Mr. Obama is a Kenyan-American, he is also an African-American, because Kenya is obviously in Africa. Since he is both of these things, it's really up to him what he decides to call himself. It's not up to you to determine what reasons Mr. Obama may have for using the general term; in any case, it's clear and well known that he is Kenyan, and if anyone would actually read the article, it would be quite clear to them.

What is troubling about your above rant, is that you exhibit more racist vitriol than many of those you blindly condemn for the same reason. What does his designation really matter? You say that black people's status is "half of an American", but earlier you referred to JFK as Irish-American. You're unjustly angered by a terminology that was designed not solely for black people, but for all immigrants; a neutral, politically correct term that really is of no importance in the first place.

I know you support racial pride, and that's great; however, it seems that if other races were to exhibit your same zeal, you would be offended and deem their own pride as an encroachment upon your people. I partly agree with your last statement, in the sense that everyone would be better-off if we lost the prefix, and remained simply Americans.

Please, don't feel like Wikipedia's community is trying to attack you. We operate by a series of guidelines, and determine through communal agreement what may or may not be appropriate.--C.Logan 21:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Barack Obama is half white. Instead of calling him African American or Kenyan American why cant http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability verifiablewe refer to him as mixed race or having a mixed background instead of putting an ethnic label on him that is not 100% accurate.

What, exactly, is white culture? Does Barack Obama's 'crossing over into white acceptance' make him a sellout?

I am going to use the same comment i made below: If I may, I am not one to edit things I merely come here for information that I hope is accurate and spot-checked (I know that makes me bad too). As an African American, I simply wanted to interject my thoughts on this situation and you all can take it and change it as you will. I feel that it is equally racist than anything else to call him African-American only. There was (in some places it is still) a time where one drop of "black blood" made you black and most people would argue that that is racist. Mr. Obama is multiracial not just black. To identify him as African American is equally as fair as to identify him as white in that he is equal parts. Because the media and in my humble opinion the Democratic party chooses to (for political gains) show his African family and in many cases hide his white family (I can Google and find pictures of his African family who he only met recently but if I look for his white family who he grew up with they are nearly non existent), does not mean that he is black or African American or whatever else. I'm not saying as a black person I would "kick him out the club" I'm saying if we are going to be accurate then tell the truth he is multiracial otherwise its equally correct to call him white. One can identify as they choose (a white person from South African who naturalized to the United States claims to be an African American that would be true but to read that on paper would in people's minds at least invoke other feelings and thoughts that may be inaccurate) but for the sake of the truth and accuracy for those who may not know better I would hope that you all take this into consideration. Thanks Jasev01 00:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Jasev01 07:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above user wholeheartedly. This reminds me alot about Tiger Woods. Woods is multi-racial and the media initially only referred to him as "black" even though he is half thai. The media would consitently say he is the "first black" to accomplish this or that in golf when he in reality was the first thai to do so as well. Eventually Woods got pissed off and said that he is multi-racial and doesnt like labels. I believe this situation applies here, Obama is half white and he is just as white as he is black. For me to refer to Obama as a white man would be just as bogus for me to refer to him as a black man. He is multi racial and it should be left at that. I guess if you look more black then white when you are mixed, then you are black, and vice versa. --Scapone 02:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Article vandalized by someone or the other, I didn't bother checking, replacing 'Osama' with 'Osamabama' in numerous places. I corrected every occurence I could find.

---

This article was vandalized by 65.12.139.43 at 23:46, 12 Jan 2005. I reverted it. We might want to keep an eye on it, and if he keeps at it mark him on Vandalism in Progress. -69.156.159.233

---

This article reads like a commercial, not an encyclopedia article. Cf. Talk:Carol Moseley Braun.

Looks good to me. Could somebody add something about his wife and children? RickK 23:43, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

OK, I added what I could find. RickK 23:54, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

This line: "If successful, Obama would be only the third black senator since Reconstruction." Seems like it might be misunderstood (US vs IL) senator. Otherwise, I like the article. If I figure a way to reword it, I'll stop back. Lyellin 13:44, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

Simple fixes are often the best, IMHO. Lyellin 13:55, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

Details for the photos used in this article have been added to the several image pages. --Gerald Farinas 16:10, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

To the user who deleted the paragraph on Obama's bearing and tone during the DNC speech... please think again. You say the paragraph is POV and emotional. But really it is conveying why his delivery was so well thought of, which is mighty hard to do without using some of the superlatives most observers themselves used. The NPOV policy is admirable, but it can't be used to drain all humanity out of human subjects (such as why a particular politician is a rising star in contrast to the hundreds who are not). JDG 01:55, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi! Your paragraph was very kind, but I deleted it because it did not comply with the NPOV policy. Here's why:

• Barack's delivery may have been "well thought of" by you, and others, but that is your and their opinion.
• The question of whether Barack is a rising star is subjective. In addition, the "hundreds who are not" rising stars may disagree with your claim that Barack is a "rising star" and they are not; other persons may disagree with that analysis as well.
• Barack's speech may have "struck many viewers as impressive", but it may also have offended viewers, angered viewers, delighted viewers, saddened viewers, bored viewers, enthralled viewers, etc. Describing the emotional impact of a speech is a very personal task; that is best done in a forum rather than an encyclopedia.
• Whether Barack's tones were "modulated and intimate" is very subjective, and whether they allowed for a "greater range of feeling" is very much your personal opinion as well.
• Your observation that Barack had an "excited pace and volume towards the end" seems reasonable to me and I recommend you fit that in somewhere. But whether it had "the effect of a true crescendo" extremely subjective.

I recommend you save the paragraph and place it somewhere worthy, such as this discussion area. Regards, ~thejackhmr

Jack, I think you need to get a little less gleeful in your deletions, and a little stronger in your arguments. Are you saying the many viewers who described themselves as impressed by Obama's speech are not being objective in reporting their own reactions? Is a real objectivity possible when discussing or describing something like a political speech, as opposed to, say, the effect of benzene on ammonia? And, if a pure objectivity is impossible in these human-to-human topics, does it mean they should never be addressed in an encyclopedia? Give it some thought, Jack. I'll be reinstating the paragraph pending a few more supportive comments like Khanartist's. JDG

I feel that I need to qualify my support. While I agree that the address is important to include in the article, and that Obama knocked it out ofd the park, Jackhmr is correct that your commentary is NPOV. While I feel that the article currently understates the reaction to the speech and the enthusiasm surrounding Obama in general, I don't really see any way to communicate it to my satisfaction without violating NPOV. I stand by my defense of Obama as a rising star, however. Is there any convention regarding perception of public figures? Khanartist 04:27, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

While I agree in principle with the NPOV policy, I think we need to come up with a way to communicate Obama's current status. Saying he's not a "rising star" in particular is a matter of fact, and merely noting that some will disagree is unhelpful - you can disagree with just about anything, but that doesn't make it NPOV. How else do you explain all the attention focused on this mere state senator? Khanartist 02:54, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If a particular POV is objectively significant (widely held, or held by people whose opinions matter), it's perfectly NPOV to report the existence of that POV, although of course without endorsing it. An example is the current text, "The address was generally heralded as a great success...." Amplification of the manner of the speech, along with its content, could be done in the same way, though the text of the speech is of course an objective fact so that part is much easier. I also think it would be perfectly NPOV to add something like, "He was promptly hailed in the media as a "rising star" of the Democratic Party." In fact, that phrase has been attached to his name so often in the last couple weeks that it already borders on cliché. JamesMLane 14:07, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Obama's Religion

No mention of religion. There's a rumor going around that the guy is Islamic - can anyone confirm/deny?

Not authoritative, but pretty highly suggestive: http://www.suntimes.com/output/falsani/cst-nws-spirit05.html Mgmei 00:13, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Obama is an evangelical Christian (ever since birth) and attends various churches in the southside of Chicago throughout the year to be with his constituents he represents in the Illinois General Assembly. A smear campaign was devised by various independent bloggers during the primaries mentioning Obama as a member of the Islamic faith hoping that it would damage his campaign. Obviously it didn't work but the rumor is once again being circulated to try to cut his lead in the polls. --Gerald Farinas 15:42, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In the "College and career" section it says he joined Trinity United Church of Christ, which is liberal Protestant denomination, so I don't think he's either Muslim or Catholic. Whether's he's evangelical greatly depends on your definition of that word. --Angr 15:25, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For God's sake, the man thanked his pastor in his victory speech on Election Night. His Senate bio says he attends Trinity United Church of Christ, a predominantly black congregation in Chicago's South Side. RadicalSubversiv E 05:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, he's Christian. I'm a native Illinoisan and I recall in one of his debates against Alan Keyes, when Keyes said Obama wasn't doing enough to support evangelical Christian position X or whatever, Obama responded with the brilliant line resembling, "I'm not running as minister of Illinois." He then went on about his Christian background. MondoManDevout 10:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, his father was agnostic, but his paternal side was Muslim. His mother remarried a non-practicing Muslim man in Indonesia, where Obama attended a Roman Catholic school. Later, he began attending the church that he does now. Just wanted to clarify.--C.Logan 22:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The best source on this is Obama himself. Read his 'Call to Renewal' Keynote Address of 28 June 2006. HailFire 07:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

front-page features

It seems not-quite-consistent with our neutrality policy to give the front-page feature to a political figure presently engaged in what could be a close race. Shimmin 12:06, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

It's nowhere near a close race, so don't worry about that end ;) Besides which, I don't think a neutral encyclopedia article could be construed as advertising. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 12:51, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)

I am not very familiar with Illinios' senate race and have nothing against Mr. Obama, but in my opinion his presence on the front page before polling day could reasonably constitute an endorsement and is completely inappropriate. Whether the article is in fact neutral is irrelevant.

Wikipedians come from throughout the political spectrum. If Wikipedia wants its neutrality policy to have any credibility then it needs to maintain strict non-partisanship when selecting featured articles.Rupertslander

Seconded. The timing is really unfortunate and is bound to give people the impression of partisanship. AFAIK Obama is a politician who doesnt even hold office. The only other politician to make it to the front page was President Bush. Why wasnt this issue raised before the FA selection? Deepak 15:37, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I also agree that Obama featured on the front page during an active race is highly inappropriate, no matter how close or not close the race is. There should be a policy not to feature active candidates for political office from any country. Since Obama has been featured, I think it's only right that the Alan Keyes article should be featured as well for NPOV purposes. --Gerald Farinas 15:46, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Although I'm a Democrat, I agree that the timing is bad. As a partial palliative, I'm adding Keyes's campaign website to the external links here. Normally, I'd think the wikilink to the article on the opponent would be enough, but if this article will be featured, I think we should bend over backward to accommodate Keyes. I'll also list the Alan Keyes article as a candidate for Article of the week in the hope that we can feature it after it's been widely reviewed. JamesMLane 16:04, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In retrospect, I should have foreseen this objection. Ah well, live and learn. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:33, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC)

P.S. The best place to go for this is Wikipedia:Tomorrow's featured article--there, anyone can raise objections to an article being on the main page. HTH.

He says in his book that his father was born to muslims but became an atheist, and that he was an atheist as of the time of Obama's birth.-Muslim to Atheist editor.

I added a section on his religion, using mostly his own words gleaned from the Call to Renewal speech. This I believe sums up his religious views quite nicely, though it may be a violation of NPOV.

Heruka2006 22:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

US Senator

With Obama looking to have won the vacant Illinois senate seat easily, I've put in some holding edits to reflect a victory, and changed some present tense statements concerning the campaign to past tense. -- Minority Report

Over time, it may also make sense to prune some of the stuff in this article that is very specific to this campaign and this year.

Perhaps we should save it, put it in it's own page? I think it is good information and has historical value. Any ideas? is there precident? Pdbailey 18:43, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I thought the intro looked pretty shabby, so I made a few revisions; look 'em over and make sure they were for the better and not the worse. Everyking 04:38, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The reference to Paul Simon in the Illinois Assembly section was linking to the musician. It should link to the Illinois politician now.

Caption

1. Is it appropriate for an encyclopedia entry to refer to "rousing applause" in response to a politician's speech at a convention? Is it POV?
2. Does it add anything to say a politician's speech called for "national unity" when everyone seems to do that, including Jesse Jackson and Pat Buchanan. Ollieplatt 06:57, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, both, but I'm going to reverse myself here - they don't need to be both in the caption and in the Keynote address section. Mea culpa. —Korath (Talk) 07:05, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

In the absence of further discussion, I'm reverting this to Ollieplatt's version; not for POV issues, but for conciseness and to reduce redundancy. —Korath (Talk) 05:01, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Clarity

I didn't want to edit this because I'm not sure how it should read:

Barack Obama was born at the Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii to Harvard-educated economist Barack Obama, Sr., a native of Kenya, and S. Ann Dunham, of Kansas. Ms. Dunham is both a distant descendant of Jefferson Davis, the first and only president of the Confederate States of America and part Cherokee Indian.

Is the last sentence saying that Ms. Dunham is a descendant AND part Cherokee. Or is it saying that Davis is part Cherokee? --Glaucus 05:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The former. I've changed the wording to clarify this. Best, Meelar (talk) 18:09, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Where is the proof that Obama is a descendant of Jefferson Davis? Not that I dont believe you, just need some verification.

Sure. Here's the article that was the source, from the Atlantic Monthly: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200409/lizza

Best, Meelar (talk) 23:41, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I hate to be a stickler...but isn't this kind of redundant? "He won 52% of the vote in the March primary, more than the combined support for the other six candidates." If he won 52%, obviously the rest of the votes will add up to 48%. I don't think this is nearly as profound as the original author may have though.

Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. Further reading is not the same thing as proper references. Further reading could list works about the topic that were not ever consulted by the page authors. If some of the works listed in the further reading section were used to add or check material in the article, please list them in a references section instead. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when a few references have been added to the article. - Taxman 18:10, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

If this article still doesn't deserve to stay featured now, then the selection process is seriously flawed! --Harro5 04:25, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Reference re:2008 election

The article only says that Obama is rumored to be interested, but flatly says he denies the claim. We need a link to show who is speculating, otherwise this is original research. Harro5 00:55, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I've heard his name mentioned dozens of times for this in the media, however, I can't find any information that says he's actually interested in 2008. See [3] for a supposed quote by Obama saying he won't run, although I can't find the quote in any actual news article. K1Bond007 01:33, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Obama's Work After Columbia and Before Chicago

Is this where I cite sources? I added text to make Obama's post-Columbia pre-Chicago work more specific. I replaced the phrase saying that he worked "in the financial sector" with the name of the company where he worked and what the company did. The company was called Business International and it published newsletters on - take a wild guess - international business.

A few of the newsletters were on finance, but most were not, so I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that he worked "in the financial sector." At the very least, it suggests that he had a financial job, when in fact he was more like a copyeditor at a sweatshop publisher. (A job which, in my opinion, he was way too talented to be doing.)

The company was sold to The Economist Group a few years after he left. I know about Barack Obama's role at the company because I worked down the hall from him. The company's name is also on his resume, which you can find easily on Google.

Name

The etymology of Obama's name is irrelevant. There is no reason to go in depth into where his name comes from, just as other individual's names are not explained in depth, etymologically, or ad nauseum on their pages. If you feel the need to explain where Obama's name comes from, you should feel a similar need to explain all other names which appear in wikipedia. Why is the etymology of Obama's name important when, say, the etymology of Arlen Spector's name doesn't even appear on his page? Shsilver 12:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If the etymology is irrelevant, why does your latest edit include it? Either delete the line entirely or let it be accurate. I would support either of these options. Barack does not mean "blessed" in Swahili. No Swahili word is spelled with a ck. Obama's paternal family are not even Kiswahili speakers; they speak Dholuo. The name does come from the past participle of Arabic baraka "to bless" through the intermediary of African languages and spellings, but it is not simply "Swahili". This type of simplistic etymology is typical of baby-name books, and has no place in an encyclopedia. Satyadasa 22:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. Shsilver 12:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

"Baraka" means "blessing" in Swahili as well.65.113.40.130 16:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Barack Obama's given name really is unusual as far as the politics of the United States is concerned. No other current U.S. Senator has such an unusual name, and describing the etymologies of unusual given names that belong to prominent figures is hardly unprecedented in Wikipedia. A fitting comparison may be to Condoleezza Rice, whose article discusses the meaning of her highly unusual given name. However, based on what you've said, the etymology of "Condoleezza" appears to be less complicated than that of "Barack", and I agree that the etymology of "Barack" should be either correct or absent. NatusRoma 22:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

True, and etymology if included, and, perhaps, the genealogy, should probably go in a Trivia section rather than in Early Life Satyadasa 08:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Rah-rah

Okay, I like this guy. But step back, and re-read this article as objectively as you can. It's tremendously rah-rah. The presentation of it is that Obama is basically a saint - it could be something issued from his PR. department.

actually, there has been an ongoing case of senators cleanning up their pages on wikipedia (not personally, that is). Perhaps Obama is one of the many who have been doing it, he has a lot of reassons to do this considering that he is one of the possible democrat contesters for the presidential race.

Perhaps there isn't a lot of negative stuff here simply because Obama hasn't spent a long time in Washington in which to build a record that can be attacked? Just a thought. - Jersyko·talk 01:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

On use of the term "late"

First of all, Folksong, thank you for your edits on the commentary on Obama's convention speech. You are correct, it was POV. Your edit, and the edit since then, were both much better than what I had written.

On the subject of calling someone "late", I have long wondered how we decide when to use this term (as well as another term, 'then-', such as 'then-Senator Peter Fitzgerald'. My thinking is that these terms need to be used sparingly, and only when they are needed to avoid confusion and misunderstanding. For example, if I were to go into an article about, say, Edwin Stanton, and change references to Abraham Lincoln to say "the late Abraham Lincoln", we would all agree that that was unnecessary.

Perhaps this is different because US Presidents are more famous than senators? Then what about Lyman Trumball? A US Senator from Illinois while Lincoln was president. If I mention him do I need to say "the late Lyman Trumball"? Is it a matter of how long ago ther person lived? Then what about Everett Dirksen, US Senator from Illinois (and Senate minority leader) for three terms, who left office in 1969? Do I really need to say "the late" when talking about a man who died (I think) around 1972?

I just think that the term is superfluous, except in that rare case when someone might legitimately be confused. For example, let's say that one was writing a (news) story immediately after Obama's election, and wanted to provide the narrative of his campaign. We might see the line (and I'm just making this up—I have no idea if this is true), "Senator Obama only decided to get into this race because he was urged to do so by the late Senator Paul Simon", which would be necessary so that the reader would know that this person, who had an impact on something current, had nonetheless died since providing this impact.

I guess (and I'm just thinking of this as I write, right now), that the term "the late so-and-so" probably has almost no place in an encyclopedic work, insofar as it is more of a historical record, than a journalistic one.

Sorry I rambled so. But am I becoming clear? Unschool 21:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

What is trivia?

Kevin (K1Bond007), I sincerely empathize with your desire to keep trivia out of the introductory paragraph of this and other articles. But of course, first we must try to determine what is trivia.

To my way of thinking, the first thing we should do with an article's introduction is to say, in shortest terms, who the person is or what the thing is; your edit improved the article in this regard. And then, I believe, we should point out what sets the person or thing aside from the rest (if there is anything) and makes him or her or it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Senator Obama offers many such possibilities. But when history is written, what will be remembered of him? Actually, of course, we can't know. I personally think he has a better chance than anyone ever has of being the first US President of African ancestry. But what if (God forbid), he simply passed away tonight of natural causes? What would be remembered in the history books fifty years from now ?

I think his keynote was the best I've heard in my life (and I say this, despite the fact that I disagreed with about 60-70% of what he had to say); it was remarkable. And it made him a national star. But I'm a bit older than you, and I can tell you that quite a few stars have come onto the national stage through the invitation to deliver the keynote (Barbara Jordan is the first that comes to mind, but there have been others.) So that's not really what makes him unique.

I think that what is most singular about Senator Obama is that he is the first successful male candidate that the Democratic Party (the party that has since 1932 won the vast majority of African-American votes) has fielded for the office of US Senate. That is, simply put, a "first". I don't think it's trivia (despite the fact that it will be included in some future edition of Trivial Pursuit), it's history.

Unschool 05:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

(Fellow ISU alumnus)

The point of that edit was to properly define who he is before discussing what he has accomplished. Obama is a Senator. This is proper. Obama made history by doing whatever, is not. That was the point to it.

• And if I was not clear above, yes, I definately agree with this point, and your edit. Unschool

Perhaps removing that piece of trivia (which I do believe it is - he wasn't the first, second, or even third African-American man, nor the first African-American woman, he was the first African-American man from the Democratic party, which is less notable than the others listed) was wrong. I probably should have moved it to the second paragraph where this fits in better:

"He is the only African-American currently serving in the U.S. Senate, the fifth in U.S. history and the third since Reconstruction."

---changed to:

"He is the first African-American man from the Democratic Party to be elected to the U.S. Senate. Additionally he is the only African-American currently serving in the U.S. Senate, the fifth in U.S. history and the third since Reconstruction." — something to this effect, but perhaps more elegantly written. K1Bond007 06:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• That the sentence that I have written is "inelegant" is, I think, incontestable. I was rather uncomfortable with it, to be honest with you, and would welcome a revision. But I still think that this "first"—while mitigated by the points you made—is nonetheless more noteworthy than the fact that he delivered a keynote address, something that was not only not a first, but which of course obviously takes place every four years. Unschool 07:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't saying your edit wasn't elegant. :) I was saying that about my example. Anyway, as the intro states, Obama got nationwide recognition from that speech. That is noteworthy and far more notable, IMHO, than being the first African-American man from the Democratic party. Just my 2cents though. K1Bond007 20:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree (hey, but at least we're civil). I think the most important thing about the first paragraph was your edit of the first sentence. It crisply states the single most important thing—that he is a Senator. Unschool 20:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

EXTREMELY CONFUSING: He won the Senate seat when he was on leave from University of Chicago Law School? State Senate or U.S. Senate? It reads like he hasn't even graduated from law school yet.

Middle name

See this Associated Press story for a reference. NatusRoma 21:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't Obama once a drug-using homeless person?

This isn't a troll post. I could have swore I heard Obama talking about how when he was younger he made a lot mistakes and ended up on the streets using drugs. Is this true or did I dream him saying that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.35.15.107 (talk • contribs) .

I certainly haven't seen any source to indicate that. NatusRoma 01:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

In his autobiography, written in 1995, Obama talks about his drug use as a teen. I haven't seen anything about him making a lot of mistakes or living on the streets. He insists that he has not used any illegal drugs in more than 20 years, however. - Jersyko·talk 03:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Racial description

In this edit, User:Rjensen removed some POV about Obama's relationship with Richard Durbin (quite right to remove it) and added a qualifying statement about Obama's "self-identification" with African-Americans in the intro to the article. I edited the "self-identification" statement here, stating that "'African American' is accurate, his father is Kenyan, the qualifying statement gave the appearance of questioning Obama's self-identification." Later, Rjensen re-added the qualifying statement, without the "although." His edit description was "Obama's voluntary self identification is important. (He is not descended from American blacks)." The article discusses Obama's heritage later (actually, in the first section following the intro). The African-American article states the following, "An African American . . . is a member of an ethnic group in the United States whose ancestors, usually in predominant part, were indigenous to Africa. Many African Americans have European and/or Native American ancestry as well." I would like to get other editors' comments, as I still feel that the qualifying statement added to the intro by Rjensen gives the appearance of questioning Obama's "self-identification" (which presumes that Obama is actually self-identifying instead of simply . . . being an African-American). - Jersyko·talk 06:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not attacking Obama I like him a lot. My point is that Obama has no African-American ancestors and was not raised in the African American community. It reminds of Al Smith (who had one Irish grandparent but chose to identify himself as Irish). Compare John Kerry who left his ancestry deliberately ambigious--5 years ago his press secretary and staff all though he was Irish, though he has no Irish ancestors at all. So no, it is not true that Obama is automatically an "African American"--as he has explained himself he was raised in a multiracial Hawaii and Indonesia and deliberately chose his identy. Compare Tiger Woods. Rjensen 08:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, but his father was Kenyan (African) and his mother was a Kansan (American), thus the John Kerry comparison is inappropriate. I would also note that you have added this to the African-American article. - Jersyko·talk 16:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

He could just as well call himself Indonesian or multiracial (like Tiger Woods does). He is the first af-Am leader who has no Af-Am ancestors and was not raised in an Af-Am community. Now that is distinctive. My point is that he chose his identification--as for example Walter Whiute did. Rjensen 16:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should put our discussion on hold. I've forgotten about Carol Moseley Braun. Obama was not, in fact, the first African-American Democratic Senator. I removed the sentence from the article. - Jersyko·talk 16:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen is right for once. 75.3.4.54 06:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Please remove the racial description, he is NOT African American. He is mixed race and since this is a non biased site it should portray that.

Again i agree with the above statement for the reason stated previously. Mixed race does not make you exclusively african american, that is a racist and offense statement in that 1. if infers that if you are a part black then you are all black a throw back to reconstruction and slavery and 2. that is dismisses half of his heritiage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.207.163.147 (talk • contribs).

I feel that this is a fairly tricky issue. The biologist in me wants to say that race is all a social construct and should be completely absent. However, socially it is important to note his racial background in the context of his life, especially since it is an intrinsic issue for him. He is quite technically part African and an American which is arguably "African American." However, in the colloquial terminology he would be an outsider in the "African American" community as it is popularly known. I have three suggestions:

1. Come up with a "better" term to describe the racial/social status that he holds
2. Keep "African American" since the article very accurately describes his heritage and people can decide for themselves whether that fits their view or not.
3. Remove the racial references completely allowing for the objective description of his heritage to be interpreted how it will (this is my personal leaning)

I know that changing the "African American" description would spoil the "only African American" senator section. I thin kthat could be saved by simply saying something like "he is noted as..." and citing. Does this make logical sense and what do people think is the right action? Rtrev 04:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Appeal and intellect

The article states...

"As evidence of both the appeal and intellect of Senator Obama on a national scale, former Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton enlisted Obama to join them in New Orleans" As was pointed out earlier, too much of this article reads like a commercial for Obama. I would like to replace it with "appeal and standing"

No objections within a week and I'll change it Zleitzen 28 Febuary 2006

No need to wait, that's a reasonable change, in my view. - Jersyko·talk 02:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Subdividing "Senate Career"?

It seems to me that the "Senate Career" section is getting a little too long to read, but I can't think of a great way to subdivide it. Can anyone think of a good way? My first suggestion would be to divide it into (1) Overview, (a 2-3 paragraph summary) (2) Policy positions and votes (stuff like the HOPE scholarship and the estate tax); and (3) Other events (stuff like the middle east trip and magazine profiles). TheronJ 15:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a fine idea. Is there precedent anywhere that could be a guide here? - Jersyko·talk 17:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

To answer my own question, sort of, I noticed that both the Ted Kennedy and Bill Frist articles have sections devoted to discussing the Senators' views on the issues (Kennedy here and Frist here). Perhaps now that Obama has a few votes and public statements on the issues under his belt, it would be appropriate to split off a new, similar subsection here. - Jersyko·talk 18:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I just gave it a try. --HailFire 02:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks for the work, HailFire. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

My recent edit

To explain why I called this edit "POV" in this edit, Obama didn't "campaign to allow" anything. Prayer by voluntary public shool groups is constitutionally permissible already per the First Amendment and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it. It's already allowed. Also, the use of the word "campaign" is overboard, as he merely made the statement that no one should feel threatened by voluntary prayer groups. Hardly "campaigning" for them, if you ask me. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 14:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)