Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 1

Barack Obama

Current talk page

Archive 1

This is an attempt to write an article on this candidate, Barack Obama. It attempts to be a biography, not a day to day account of his campaign, nor a campaign advertisement. Disclosure: I am a US citizen. I am not registered to either party as a voter. Larry Yount 21:58, 26 July 2007 (CDT)

Steve has complained (privately) that Richard reverted his edits without explanation. I agree that that is simply unacceptable, particularly in light of recent discussions. Well, as a very imperfect stopgap measure, here's what I've decided: Steve, feel free to redo your edits, if you want. Then, Richard may not touch them; others will have to do so, if they are flawed. If he does edit them, then tell me, and I will ban him from working on this article. --Larry Sanger 21:34, 10 January 2008 (CST)

Steve was the one who changed my edits. with, as you can see, no explanation on the talk page.Richard Jensen 21:48, 10 January 2008 (CST)

The facts are here:

1. http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Barack_Obama&diff=100246909&oldid=100246908
2. http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Barack_Obama&diff=100246910&oldid=100246909
3. http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Barack_Obama&diff=100248705&oldid=100246914

On what Larry stated I could do, what I'm choosing is, "sometimes the polite way is to let the other person undo his or her own work, once a mistake is pointed out."

Stephen Ewen 22:22, 10 January 2008 (CST)

How about:

Obama, a charismatic speaker,[1] repeatedly criticized Clinton for her 2002 vote supporting war against Iraq, and for her alleged ties to lobbies and old-fashioned politics.

Warren Schudy 23:47, 10 January 2008 (CST)

I don't have any problem with the new text of Richard, as it seems clear that Clinton is part of the old way of doing politics in the USA. What I do have a problem with, is that Richard removed the improvements made to other parts of the text by Stephen. Please reinsert them, Richard, because they are needed. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 23:56, 10 January 2008 (CST)

I'm happy to restore Steve's innocuous changes. But let's get the rhetoric clear: elections are fought like wars and politicians attack each other, soi attack" is the correct term. see [1] Obama did not use words like "alleged" and to insert them in a paraphrase distorts his position. The theme of "change" versus "old politics" is basic to Obama's "Many Iowa voters have responded to Obama's message that he is a fresh face who can unite a polarized electorate and move the country away from what he calls the "same old" politics. at [2] CZ is not endorsing Obama's attacks, it is explaining them. Richard Jensen 00:12, 11 January 2008 (CST)

At least to my ear, "X attacked Y for Z" says not only that X said Y does Z, but also that Z is true. I suggested inserting "alleged" to remove the implication. Another way to fix it would be to use "X accused Y of Z" or something like that instead. Warren Schudy 00:30, 11 January 2008 (CST)

No, I don'e agree with either proposition, Warren. First, a political attack is a political attack -- regardless of its veracity. Secondly, this usage of the word "alleged" is a piece of legalistic nonsense, designed to allow people to report allegations of a criminal nature without being sued for it. If the allegations under consideration here were of that sort, I could agree, but they are not. We could end up with nonsenses like: "Clinton allegedly attacked Obama for allegedly being too clever..." There is no need for this legalese outside of allegations of a criminal or other serious nature. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 03:04, 11 January 2008 (CST)

It seems Richard reverted all of the edits (a bunch of Stephen's edits) between one of his edits and his next edit. Perhaps Richard is working on it in an external text editor and forgot to download Stephen's changes before making his own? Warren Schudy 00:18, 11 January 2008 (CST)

Not that anyone has asked me, but my opinion is that we should not be quoting anyone's rhetoric about anyone else during this campaign. I'll admit I'm a Hillary supporter, but I'm not going around trying to attack Obama. If we go down that route, it would be madness. Please, just stick to reporting the guy's background, and let the public press quote the rhetoric. Quoting rhetoric from years ago seems more justified, but anything that was spoken since the current presidential campaign began does not, in my opinion, belong in here. It would literally never, ever end.Pat Palmer 13:41, 16 January 2008 (CST)

law practice

I emailed the firm Miner, Barhill and Galland to ask them to verify our statement about his law work. Richard Jensen 00:32, 11 January 2008 (CST)

OK. I took it from Obama's online CV.I cannot imagine he would take any risks with an internet source for which he is responsible:-) Martin Baldwin-Edwards 02:58, 11 January 2008 (CST)

well there is an ambiguity. The firm does not list him on its webpage, which seems odd. Is he on the firm's payroll? I assume not, that his status is on hold.Richard Jensen 03:34, 11 January 2008 (CST)

I imagine so, too. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 04:10, 11 January 2008 (CST)

If there is any heat here, to my mind it is more personalized than content-driven (although there are content issues involved). I am trying to mediate these in an informal way. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 10:59, 11 January 2008 (CST)

I don't intend to get involved unless there's a fundamental sticking pointGareth Leng 11:41, 11 January 2008 (CST)

It seems to me there's a slight pro-Obama bias in Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Note that Obama is my favorite front-runner. For example, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton discuss how Obama criticizes Clinton, but not the other way around. Warren Schudy 11:34, 11 January 2008 (CST)

Clearly, that should be remedied. I haven't looked at the Clinton article since she and hubby started attacking Obama :-)Martin Baldwin-Edwards 12:00, 11 January 2008 (CST)

very good point and I will fix it. Richard Jensen 14:46, 11 January 2008 (CST)

Reiterating my statement in a different section above, I think we should be careful to avoid trying to report on the ongoing campaign while it is occurring. Someone will always be offended. In my opinion, these articles should be restricted to a rather dry reporting of background facts for the time being, and they should be as neutral as the clear blue sky.Pat Palmer 13:44, 16 January 2008 (CST)

See my comment on the Forum thread, which basically supports this idea. My concern is not so much about offending people with facts, but about how ephemeral these facts really are. The day-to-day reporting of the Presidential Campaign should be on the article of that name, and not here. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 06:45, 17 January 2008 (CST)

I think we can purge the ephemeral stuff after the election is over (by which time we will have a better idea of what is epheemeral and what is of permanent importance. See the flare-up over race last week: permanent or transitory? I think it's too early tro say.). Meanwhile people interested in Obama will expect his relationship with Clinton to be treated here. (and vice versa, for people interested in Clinton going to her article.) yes there will be duplication, but a few hundred words of duplication is harmless, compared to the risk of going to the Obama article and not finding the info you weant on his relation with Clinton. Richard Jensen 06:56, 17 January 2008 (CST)

law firm will respond to CZ

10:23 PM 1/14/2008, Dear Dr. Jensen:

Thank you for contacting us. There are some inaccuracies in the proposed Obama entry listed below. We would like to get back to you in the next few days with corrections.

Jeff Cummings

Jeffrey I. Cummings Miner Barnhill & Galland

Richard Jensen 23:50, 14 January 2008 (CST)

Interesting.--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 01:27, 15 January 2008 (CST)

yeah, it was posted at 10:23 pm....they work their associates till midnight. Richard Jensen 01:42, 15 January 2008 (CST)

campaign reporting

I have consolidated the analysis of the presidential campaign tactics used so far in the section called "presidential campaign". I have also replaced what I considered to be "spin" words (i.e., implying either positive or negative traits) with less hot button words.Pat Palmer 19:58, 16 January 2008 (CST)

I notice that the "presidential campaign" section is almost an exact duplicate of the section by the same name on the Hillary Clinton article. Therefore, it makes sense, if this analysis must be in Citizendium at all, to move it all out to a separate article called something like "presidential primary (2008)". anybody want to tackle that?Pat Palmer 20:19, 16 January 2008 (CST)

Referee statement

The Citizendium Executive is discussing proposals for a Dispute Resolution process. These are not yet finalised but will involve a system of “referees” for disputes.

A referee will be an uninvolved member of the project who will play no significant active part in a disputed article, but will be empowered to make certain types of decisions about a disputed article that will be provisionally binding on contributors to that article. The purpose of such decisions will be to call a halt to disputes with a decision that enables article development to continue. The decisions will be on the basis, where appropriate, of Citizendium policy, and there will be an appeal mechanism if decisions are thought to be in breach of this. The referee will not make judgments on matters of expert knowledge that lie outside their expertise, but may make judgments on style, tone, balance, neutrality etc. The referee will attempt to make a swift decision that is fair and reasonable and in the best interests of the Citizendium project; swiftness means that decisions will be imperfect, but authors will be expected to abide by them rather than extend a dispute. The referee has no disciplinary powers, a flagrant breach of his or her guidance will be a matter for the Constabulary.

As this article is the subject of apparently heated dispute, Larry as Editor-in-Chief has asked me to act as referee here as part of a trial of the process.

At present I intend to stand well back here. If there is any specific issue that needs my attention, please state it in a message on my Talk page.Gareth Leng 08:31, 11 January 2008 (CST)

Referee intervention

I have been asked to help resolve the issue of whether "ephemeral stuff" should be kept off the candidates' webpages. I've read the thread in the forums, and on this and other Talk pages, and thank all contributors for stating their views clearly. There has been a related discussion also in the executive committee. There are good reasons for keeping articles hot and topical as they attract interest to Citizendium and lively interest amongst Citizendium participants. However there are also problems: 1) the imperative to keep all biographical articles of living people scrupulously fair while 2) balancing the overall coverage and 3) frequently updating

This poses a need for Citizendium editors to be continually alert both to the individual articles and also to the overall coverage, and that is a challenge. So let me propose now the following:

1)This article (and the other individual candidate articles) should each contain a section (as they do) on the Presidential Campaign, and all "ephemera" should be strictly confined to that section.

2)That section should be the identical copy of a section within a new article on "Candidates for the 2008 Presidential election" and all editing of that section should be confined there. This will confine discussion of balance etc. to a single article, and allow editors and authors to reflect directly on the comparative way in which other candidates are handled.

3) On this article, the relevant section should open with a statement expressing its ephemeral nature, referring the reader to the "Candidates for the 2008 Presidential election." article.

4) Anything that appears in the ephemeral section should not in itself be a reason to alter anything else in this article, precisely because it is ephemeral.

This is not something that I'm willing to impose without any discussion. I don't want prolonged or detailed discussion on this, just an indication of whether this seems reasonable and workable, bearing in mind that we must resolve this issue swiftly to allow work to proceed happily and efficiently.Gareth Leng 11:20, 17 January 2008 (CST)

Good idea. I suggest since we already have an overview article on the 2008 election therefore we don't need a separate one on "Candidates for the 2008 Presidential election." Richard Jensen 16:21, 17 January 2008 (CST)

My proposal (on the forums) suggests separate articles for the Democratic and Republican primaries (which I haven't actually started yet, pending some sort of decision). That avoids having a behemoth article for all 20 candidates (ok, we're down to 10ish now) --ZachPruckowski 16:47, 17 January 2008 (CST)

Bear in mind that if you want to ensure that the text of discussions is exactly the same in both cases, you can use templates to do that. It's not hard. For example, you could create Template:Barack Obama 2008 primary campaign (or whatever) and then include the template on the two different pages. --Larry Sanger 13:03, 18 January 2008 (CST)

template = useful idea. How does one create it? It is a new article titled Template:Barack Obama 2008 primary campaign and located somewhere?? Richard Jensen 13:06, 18 January 2008 (CST)

Yes. One could do it that way. Our you could write it as a sub-page of the primary's page ( 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary/ephemera or something) and then transclude it into each article (the code would be {{:2008 Democratic Presidential Primary/ephemera}} ). That would give us one section to edit which would then mirror itself in all the candidate articles. I would, however, suggest a better name than "ephemera". --ZachPruckowski 14:33, 18 January 2008 (CST)

The normal terminology would be "news update" or something. I started using the word "ephemeral" for purposes of argumentation, and it seemed to catch on! :-) Martin Baldwin-Edwards 15:17, 18 January 2008 (CST)

Provisional Decision

It seems that this is a decision that we can make; I've seen no dissent here or elsewhere and heard at least cautious welcome.

So, let us follow Richard's suggestion of using the overview article on the election as the sole way of introducing the dynamic, ephemeral elements of coverage, using a template as an automatic way of copying a section onto the candidates' pages. Let us try to do this within that single article (which will let us keep an eye on fairness between Republican and Democrat coverage), but if the article becomes too big and unwieldy we will follow Zach's suggestion and split the coverage later. Let's see how it goes; a split should be easy.

The intention is to restrict the recurrent issues of neutrality and bias to the Talk page of a single dynamic article. I hope therefore that the other candidate articles should become more stable, solid, "academic" biographies, and not subject to the type of controversy that the overview article will inevitably entail from time to time.

I think the general expectation is that while Citizendium should be a lively and readable follower of history "as it is being made", it should also know the difference between such coverage, which must involve momentary judgements, and sober retrospective analysis. I hope this proposed solution is effective in achieving both aims without confusing the two.

So, as soon as we can achieve it, we need candidate sections in the overview article to become the live foci of editing, then we kill off the corresponding sections in the candidate articles and replace them with templates.

Thanks to everyone here. I know there are some "policy" issues to be addressed on the overview article, but let's take things one step at a time.

"Ephemera" is not the right term to use Zach, I agree. We're talking about coverage of current events, events that may be more or less important in retrospect than they seem now, coverage that we expect to be politically charged, analysis that may prove to be hasty in retrospect. So long as we all know what we're talking about, we'll find the right words.Gareth Leng 15:30, 18 January 2008 (CST)

How do we set up multiple template (one for each major candidate) so that only the templates are edited and the system automatically copies it to the appropriate articles? Richard Jensen 17:53, 18 January 2008 (CST)

We needn't wait on that technical solution to shift to the overview article, but Zach, are you willing/able to set up the templates needed to make this work as envisaged?Gareth Leng 03:05, 19 January 2008 (CST)

I've manually shifted some of the articles. Richard Jensen 03:10, 19 January 2008 (CST)

I'll do it once I'm clear on what we want. Do we want the editing to occur on a subpage page off the candidate's page, or in a dozen subpages off the main election page? They're technically equally easy. -- ZachPruckowski 10:38, 19 January 2008 (CST)

I assume we want one template-page per major candidate. (Clinton-Obama-Edwards; McCain-Romney-Giuliani-Huckabee-Paul-Thompson) As I understand it, when the Obama template gets edited the edits immediately appear on both the Obama page and the Election 2008 Page--is that right? Richard Jensen 13:35, 19 January 2008 (CST).

At the risk of seeming grumpy here, why do we need this duplication at all? Why not just have the candidate articles link prominently to the campaign article (or perhaps the subsection of it for this candidate)? It seems to me that having the campaign aritlce duplicated here does not solve the problem at all, but rather duplicates the material most likely to be controversial over several pages. In all other cases I've ever heard of, we settle for a link. Why now duplicate?Pat Palmer 09:00, 20 January 2008 (CST)

Developing this idea a bit more, I notice that the "campaign" section of this article has been moved from the bottom to the middle. As the campaign article grows in length, it's copied contents may well swamp and dominate this article, and since it contains the material most likely to be objectionable (to me anyway), I feel we are actually taking a step in the wrong direction. The point for me is for a reader to be able to go and find out who a candidate is, what their voting record is, what their history is, without have a sales pitch made at them. So an we move the stuff off this page altogether? I'm willing to keep pretty much hands off the campaign page if so, because then, it would be clear to readers which kind of information they are accessing.Pat Palmer 09:04, 20 January 2008 (CST)

the editors do not allow any sales pitches, and there are none. Re duplication: CZ made a policy decision that we are trying to implement. Richard Jensen 16:22, 20 January 2008 (CST)

CZ did not make a policy decision at all. Gareth asked here if there are any objections, and apparently [somewhat late] Pat is objecting to the proposed arrangement, or at least to the 'duplication of material' element in it.Martin Baldwin-Edwards 16:35, 20 January 2008 (CST)

My objection is only to the proposed duplication. I actually quite like the campaign page as it now stands (my compliments, Richard et al). Just don't think it should be mirrored directly into the articles, but rather, linked to prominently. I think readers are quite capable of clicking the link if that is where their interest lies. This is just my opinion; I am not the decider here and will bow to what a majority of people agree on.Pat Palmer 16:58, 20 January 2008 (CST)

Decision, clarity

I've thought carefully about Pat's points. I'm led by several things 1) the need to keep our efforts focussed 2) the need to keep a sense of balance and fairness between candidates and parties

These lead me to believe that at the moment a common forum for presenting current events is the best answer

3)the need to keep the candidate articles topical. We do not want surely a candidate article to be oblivious to current events; it will make those articles look dated, and I don't see how we would be able to keep all current information off them - which would lead us again to dispersing our efforts to maintain balance.

So the solution I am now deciding (for the moment, to let us get on) is the mirror link via a template. The "current events" relevant to each candidate will be edited on subpages of the Presidential campaign article, and mirrored as sections in the candidates' biography pages. Pat is concerned that this might come to dominate the candidate articles. If that happens, then an easy solution would be to use a show/hide bar to suppress the template on the candidate page.

So the editing should all be done on subpages off the main election page, all text will appear on the main page, and all Talk on the main article Talk page. Let's keep all the controversy there if we can, and let's get guidelines agreed there.

I'm sorry to be authoritarian here; I'm here just to try to facilitate progress, and that needs some decisions, or we'll be talking for ever. Let's move on from this and then address agreement on the kind of guidelines that may be needed for the Presidential campaign article. If that article is balanced and fair we can all smile and relax.Gareth Leng 04:06, 21 January 2008 (CST)

it's a good solution but how do the mechanics work out? When will the templates be ready? Richard Jensen 04:39, 21 January 2008 (CST)

I think we can start writing into the sections in the article and then move them into subpages; we needn't be held up by the need to get everything in place first.Gareth Leng 06:44, 21 January 2008 (CST)

Once we get set up, is there any reason not to re-direct the candidate talk pages to the 2008 talk page? D. Matt Innis 19:48, 21 January 2008 (CST)

Instructions here are easy. For example, edit {{Barack Obama candidacy}}. Suppose you produce three paragraphs on that topic. Then, to insert those three paragraphs in the campaign article or in the Obama article, or both, simply place this exact text where you want the paragraphs to appear: {{Barack Obama candidacy}} Then changes you make to the template (not a subpage) appear automatically in the two articles. --Larry Sanger 20:13, 21 January 2008 (CST)

Where is the Christianity?

The article makes two mentions of Obama's connections to Muslims, one being his father (who was not a practicing Muslim at the time of Obama's birth and upbringing) and the other being a school that he attended as a toddler. Yet the article makes no mention of the fact that Obama is a Christian, and has been a member of a Christian congregation for over twenty years. This kind of imbalance lends unfortunate support to the thoroughly discredited (but most certainly libelous) smear campaign that seeks to paint Obama as some kind of secret Muslim, by burying evidence of his Christianity. Brian Dean Abramson 03:54, 8 February 2008 (CST)

good point and I fixed it. Richard Jensen 04:27, 8 February 2008 (CST)

revisions

I rewrote some of the pre 2005 material to focus more on Obama himself (and less on minor GOP opponents), and add dates. Richard Jensen 15:04, 8 February 2008 (CST)

Decapitalizing Black

Ro had removed all caps from Black, with the explanation that it is "not a religion." In Canada, the official style guide explicitly calls for the capitalization of race or nationality, such as Black. Is it not the case in the U.S.? Before we start changing all the references to Black in CZ, I just wanted to check. Shawn Goldwater 12:01, 11 February 2008 (CST)

I have edited a lot of jazz articles in Wikipedia, and I don't recall seeing 'black' capitalised there. Ro Thorpe 12:08, 11 February 2008 (CST)

Charles Mingus, for example - Ro Thorpe 12:14, 11 February 2008 (CST)

Yes and I just checked the Smithsonian web site, for their new African American museum, and they don't capitalize black either. My bad. It's a Canadian thing, I guess. I'll undo my undo.Shawn Goldwater 12:16, 11 February 2008 (CST)

I had an earlier comment disappeared in an Edit Conflict, but that gave me time to take a quick look at the New York Times -- they use the small-letter black throughout except in cases such as names: the Black Students Association, for instance. But "Obama would be the first black president etc. etc." Hayford Peirce 12:21, 11 February 2008 (CST)

By the way, you say Canada has an "official style guide" -- the Canadian gov't?Hayford Peirce 12:22, 11 February 2008 (CST)

Thanks to Shawn, hehehe to Hayford. Ro Thorpe 12:30, 11 February 2008 (CST)

Yes, it is indeed published by the Canadian government. You got a problem with that? ;-)See Cheers, Shawn Goldwater 12:43, 11 February 2008 (CST)

I suggest discovering how the person referred to uses the word and using it that way. Stephen Ewen 12:49, 11 February 2008 (CST)

Are you really suggesting that each time CZ has an article that refers to somone as black we have to research to find out how they use it? Sorry, I think that's an impossible idea. Shawn Goldwater 12:52, 11 February 2008 (CST)

I have never seen "black" capitalised, and I read a lot of race relations literature. To my mind, regardless of the Canadian position on it, there are two serious problems with that: the first is simply that it makes a really Big issue out of it, like being Muslim or Jewish or British or... The second big problem is that for equality reasons, all ethnic minority descriptions would then have to be capitalised: it brings us back to another debate about "oriental", except now it is even worse as "Oriental". If we need a policy on it, I would insist on no capitalisation as a norm: if someone writes about him/herself using the capital, I would accept that as self-identification and therefore valid. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 13:00, 11 February 2008 (CST)

Okay, well, I'm not going to even touch the implication that being black isn't as Big an issue as being British or Jewish. Other than that, I think we agree. We'll keep black a lowercase, per the US norm. Unless, as you say, there's a quote that has it otherwise. Shawn Goldwater 13:08, 11 February 2008 (CST)

Martin, here in the States there was definitely a period, oh, 20 years or so ago, in which *many* people capitalized Black -- I think it was more often capitalized than not. Probably because people didn't know how to deal with it. I can certainly find books in my library that use caps. Now, however, I think the use of the cap. has just about vanished. Hayford Peirce 13:14, 11 February 2008 (CST)

I suspect it may have something to do with the emergence of the capitalized "African American" as the preferred formal term (per the Smithsonian museum website, etc.). 13:19, 11 February 2008 (CST)

Shawn - I noticed that one of your edits involved a quotation. In general, the quotation should be exact - if the source text breaks our style rules, the quotation should, too. If a book talks about "being Black", we should not change it to "being black". The fact that we are quoting directly should be made obvious, so that people don't go back and edit out "mistakes". Anthony Argyriou 13:28, 11 February 2008 (CST)

Yes, that's what we have been saying, above. My only "edit" to the article was to undo all of Ro's edits, then undo my undo. 13:37, 11 February 2008 (CST)

1. Capitalizing "Black" in the U.S. has some roots in the Black Power movements that emerged in the late 50s/early 60s and the usage is still pretty common today within that meaning. For example, see http://www.blackcommentator.com/ - whose editor is a former Black Panther - where you will find it capitalized. Black and black have different meanings in that context.

2. From a summary of the APA manual of style:

Ethnic labels can be tricky, and the manual has a lot to say about them. 
For example, "American Indian" and "Native American" are both acceptable 
usages, but the manual notes that there are nearly 450 Native American 
groups, including Hawaiians and Samoans, so specific group names are far 
more informative, such as Hopi or Lakota.

* Capitalize Black and White when the words are used as proper nouns to 
refer to social groups. Do not use color words for other ethnic groups. 
In racial references, the manual simply recommends that we respect current 
usage. Currently both the terms "Black" and "African American" are widely 
accepted, while "Negro" and "Afro-American" are not. These things change, 
so use common sense.

* The terms Hispanic, Latino, and Chicano are preferred by different groups. 
The safest procedure is use geographical references. Just say "Cuban 
American" if referring to people from Cuba.

* The term Asian American is preferable to Oriental, and again the manual 
recommends being specific about country of origin, when this is known (for 
example, Chinese or Vietnamese). The manual specifies that hyphens should 
not be used in multiword names such as Asian American or African American.

* People from northern Canada, Alaska, eastern Siberia, and Greenland often 
(but not always!) prefer Inuk (singular) and Inuit (plural) to "Eskimo." 
But some Alaska natives are non-Inuit people who prefer to be called Eskimo. 
This type of difficulty is avoided by using geographical references. For 
example, in place of "Eskimo" or "Inuit" one could use "indigenous people 
from northern Canada, Alaska, eastern Siberia, and Greenland."

* In referring to age, be specific about age ranges; avoid open-ended 
definitions like "under 16" or "over 65." Avoid the term elderly. Older 
person is preferred. Boy and Girl are acceptable referring to high school and 
and younger. For persons 18 and older use men and women. 

In general, call people what they want to be called....

3. See http://www.poynter.org/dg.lts/id.58/aid.51320/column.htm for how the Associated Press deals with the matter.

This is a perfect issue to discuss and submit an proposal for an EC vote!

Stephen Ewen 15:37, 11 February 2008 (CST)

I do not welcome an EC vote on this. Nor is the APA manual of style of great interest, since CZ is not an American encyclopedia. They appear to be very much in the past: "Boy" and "Girl"?? This is Victorian English.

Insofar as the AP article is concerned, the discussion mostly reflects the global usage of lower case, in order not to reify skin colour and race concepts. This is where CZ should be, and I assure you that the world, as I know it, also is. Some quaint usage from the American 1950s is neither here nor there: if someone wants to write about that period, fine, but the terminology is not valid today.

My point about whether or not skin colour is a big issue [and I am amazed that Canadians talk about "race"] is that this has to come from the black community itself. It cannot come from me, although I would reject being called "White", and it cannot come from any western government. In the same vein, quotations which capitalise "Black" must respect the source, especially if is someone of that skin colour. From an official government publication, I would quote it exactly, with [sic]. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 15:57, 11 February 2008 (CST)

I have no objection to voting. Maybe it isn't possible or even necessary or vital to have one way of writing it, as we accept variants of English spelling (US, British, Canadian etc.) In an article on Barack, the APA is of great interest. If we ever get to an article on Black Canadians, then I'd suggest that the Canadian Style Guide be taken into account, and so on...? Shawn Goldwater 16:06, 11 February 2008 (CST)

It would be unnecessarily controversial to vote, and only the EC members would vote, and as the EC member who is expert on migration and ethnicity I would have to explain everything to everybody--- what a waste of time this would be, I think. Secondly, I don't see why the APA should get to decide anything at all: We didn't elect them, and you can be sure that black Americans didn't either. Thirdly, if there is an article on black Canadians, the official government position should be stated as such: the self-defined position of the subjects is what matters, but I am not able to comment on that specifically for Canada. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 17:19, 11 February 2008 (CST)

the Obama article of course should use US usage. I strongly prefer the lower-case-b. Note that was big fight in 1930s about replacing "negro" with "Negro" (which was done), and maybe we have an echo of that debate.Richard Jensen 21:15, 11 February 2008 (CST)

I will certainly use lower case wherever possible. (Frankly, I'm a little sorry I ever brought it up.) Shawn Goldwater 21:32, 11 February 2008 (CST)

Just to maybe close the subject forever, I was reading today's NYT a few minutes ago and there was a sentence like "All across the United States black voters have now come to believe that perhaps a black can be elected president." Which, to me, is important in that they are making no distinction between the adjective and the noun as being capitalized or not. *Both* of them are lower case. But, of course, I do agree with earlier writers here who have said that in a direct quote the use of "Black" should be retained, possibly with a [sic] attached. Hayford Peirce 22:37, 11 February 2008 (CST)

name

CZ has a naming policy CZ Talk:Naming Conventions and we follow that in the politics and history articles. The Hussein business is stressed only by political enemies who spread false rumors about his religion. (as for pronunciation, we can help our typical users by not using esoteric lingo)Richard Jensen 17:35, 22 February 2008 (CST)

And non-typical users can find him at English phonemes, 2.5 (my own system for foreign learners). Ro Thorpe 18:21, 22 February 2008 (CST)

Unless 'Bah-RACK oh-BAH-ma' is phonetically unambiguous, I think the spelling should use a standard phonetic alphabet or be omitted entirely. A "typical reader" can learn how to use a phonetic alphabet if it really matters to them, but an ambiguous phonetic spelling can mean anything to different people, and I read the one given here in at least two ways. Giovanni Antonio DiMatteo 11:48, 23 February 2008 (CST)

Actually it said/says 'Bah-RAHK Oh-BAH-ma'. The phonetics had schwa at the first Bah, which I think is more accurate. But Ba-RAHK might do it for most people. Ro Thorpe 12:20, 23 February 2008 (CST)

jurist

Is Obama considered to be a "jurist" or qualify this article to the law workgroup? Yi Zhe Wu 20:55, 23 February 2008 (CST)

I don't think so. He was never a judge, & did not aspired to be one. He taught a law course (as an adjunct) but never was on a tenure track and after law school never (to my knowledge) published the sort of jurisprudence that would be expected of a jurist. His Senate committees are not related to law (he is on foreign relations. Health-education-labor, and Homeland security)--he is not on the Judiciary committee. Richard Jensen 23:00, 23 February 2008 (CST)

lede

The opening lede should summarize article --it's all some people read. So I put the very short summary of his presidential campaign back in the lede. Richard Jensen 11:32, 24 February 2008 (CST)

Election material in opening paragraph

Richard Jensen appears to have reverted an edit of mine, in which I moved the last sentence of the opening section, which is specifically about the election, to the election section. I thought we had an agreement to keep election opinions segregated to that portion of these articles. Richard's explanation is that this sentence needs to be there "to summarize the article". I don't agree with that; for one thing, the sentence as it was written pretends that the election has been decided, whereas it has not. No matter who says what, the votes are still very close and the decision is still open. Now, I have changed "probably" to "possibly" in this statement, as it seems to me to be a matter of pundit opinion and not hard fact, and in fact, it seems to me like electioneering to place the sentence at the top of the article in violation of the agreement we've had, until now, about keeping election stuff in the election section. If more reversions of this sort occur, I will ask for help from the community.Pat Palmer 13:03, 24 February 2008 (CST)

I see that the sentence is now in there twice! It is in the election section, where it clearly belongs, but also at the top, where Richard is insisting that it belongs. But it looks out of place to me. The other candidates do not have such sentences in the tops of their articles.Pat Palmer 13:13, 24 February 2008 (CST)

well the sentence should not be there twice, I agree. However the lede should give the main facts about Obama--lots of people only read that part. Richard Jensen 16:32, 24 February 2008 (CST)

The CZ policy proposed and agreed on this issue was as follows:

1)This article (and the other individual candidate articles) should each contain a section (as they do) on the Presidential Campaign, and all "ephemera" should be strictly confined to that section.

2)That section should be the identical copy of a section within a new article on "Candidates for the 2008 Presidential election" and all editing of that section should be confined there. This will confine discussion of balance etc. to a single article, and allow editors and authors to reflect directly on the comparative way in which other candidates are handled.

3) On this article, the relevant section should open with a statement expressing its ephemeral nature, referring the reader to the "Candidates for the 2008 Presidential election." article.

4) Anything that appears in the ephemeral section should not in itself be a reason to alter anything else in this article, precisely because it is ephemeral.

You will kindly note, Richard, that you are in breach of Rules 1 and 4. Please adjust the article accordingly. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 18:33, 24 February 2008 (CST)

Pronunciation of 'Barack'

Just to tip off other contributors, Ro Thorpe and I have been fiddling with the International Phonetic Alphabet transcription of 'Barack Obama'. We are of course trying to give the American English pronunication. :)

I changed it to [bə'ɹæk] (buh-rak, rhyming with 'sack'); Ro says everyone on CNN pronounces it [bə'ɹɑk], with a lower and further back final vowel. My books tell me that [ɑ] is commonly used in New England instead of [æ] (e.g. 'cat' - [kɑt] not [kæt]); the latter is similar to the UK equivalent but the former is like the vowel in U.S. English [kɑt] 'cot' (so do some Americans make no distinction between 'cat' and 'cot', to digress?).

I think Ro intends that the second vowel of 'Barack' is like the one in [ɑ:k] 'ark' (without the /r/ if you're an American speaker), i.e. longer... there is a case that we should transcribe it [bə'ɹɑ:k], therefore, indicating a long vowel. However vowels shorten in this context - in 'ark' it's shorter than in 'argh', for example. So, we can leave it as it is: we can argue that the vowel is shorter in 'Barack'. Now, I need a lie down. John Stephenson 01:04, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

Sounds like material for a footnote. Stephen Ewen 03:07, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

Is [ɑ] the same as [ɒ] in IPA? I always hear [bə'rɒk]. --Joe Quick 10:01, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

I'm from the deepest depths of La New England Profonde (Bangah, Maine) and have lived in various places including Bahstan and New York City, plus many many years in the West and the West Coast and I have never never never heard anyone call a "cot" a "cat" nor a "cat" a "cot", at least not if we're talking about the living thing that one swings around one's head and the inanimate thing that one takes a nap upon. Someone is selling you a bill of goods on this particular item.... Hayford Peirce 10:17, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

To me, the usual American (& hence best) pronunciation of Barack is [bə'ɹɑ:k], or Ba-RAHK, as the article has it at the beginning, although some British TV pundits say 'Barrack' or 'B'rack'. [bə'rɒk] is the British pronunciation of 'baroque', (which however American English rhymes with 'spoke'). American English replaces British ɒ with ɑ, as in [hɒt]/[hɑt]. I included Obama in English phonemes, 2.5. Ro Thorpe 10:38, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

OK, thanks Hayford; I admit it sounded odd to me as well. I have added the length marker to make it [bə'ɹɑ:k] now. John Stephenson 00:16, 19 March 2008 (CDT)

Citation for the sentence "Obama heard his controversial remarks for years"?

To be frank, I haven't heard it anywhere and it would be quite controversial to leave that phrase in without a source.--John M. Adriatico 16:35, 7 May 2008 (CDT)

Yes, this is political bias, and I will remove it now. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 16:41, 7 May 2008 (CDT) Actually, I cannot because it is a duplication of the page 2008_United_States_presidential_election. The criticism must be voiced there: it was written by Richard Jensen. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 16:46, 7 May 2008 (CDT)

the statement was made by Obama in his March 18 speech: "Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes." source Obama's earlier denial: "None of these statements were ones that I had heard myself personally in the pews." from transcript of network interview March 14 Richard Jensen 18:18, 7 May 2008 (CDT)

OK. It's always good to source these things, because not everyone hears a certain speech. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 18:53, 7 May 2008 (CDT)

Richard, the sentence still seems to need rewording, at the very least. Right now the text reads,

Obama opponents circulate videos of Wright's slashing attacks on whites and his ridicule and hatred of America as a nation... In a major speech Obama repudiated Wright but attributed his anger to lingering racism in America, and cited his grandmother's distrust of black men; after initial denials, Obama admitted that he had heard Wright's controversial remarks for years.

Given the context, your last words here, "Obama admitted that he had heard Wright's controversial remarks for years," seem to imply that Obama admitted that he had heard Wright (1) making "slashing attacks on whites" as well as (2) expressing "ridicule and hatred of America as a nation." But the evidence you cite, that Obama said he knew Wright to be "an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy" does not imply that he had heard Wright either make slashing attacks on whites or express hatred or ridicule of America "as a nation." In other words, Obama can admit that he heard Wright say various harsh things without admitting that he heard Wright say the things for which Wright has become rather infamous. In fact, this seems pretty obvious, and it would explain why no one else has drawn the conclusion that you have made--an important conclusion that, it seems to me, could constitute original analysis on your part.

Furthermore, the precise phraseology, "after initial denials, Obama admitted..." carries the clear implication that Obama understood or portrayed himself as reversing his earlier statement. This is the crucial point, but you have not given any evidence of that. --Larry Sanger 18:56, 7 May 2008 (CDT)

Yes, I agree on these points, Larry. I have adjusted the text accordingly and will do so for the (not-)identical text on the campaign page. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 19:15, 7 May 2008 (CDT)

Now, trying to adjust the other page, I see that they are not identical. Richard is in breach of the agreed rules on candidates and the presidential campaign page, where the sections are supposed to be absolutely identical. In fact, the other page is much worse than this one... Martin Baldwin-Edwards 19:15, 7 May 2008 (CDT)