Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles.
[Vandalism] 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)
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)
I'm pretty sure he's Catholic but I don't have anything to prove it. Pimpalicious 10:04 pm (EST)
- 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)
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.
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.