Talk:Barack Obama

Assassinations

The fact that the CIA went from spies to assassins should be noted. I mean, the fact that the CIA can kill US citizens without due process and in non-combat zones as a result of his authorization should be noted. Sources: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/27/yemen http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/02/04/assassinations http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/25/secrecy Every source is cited on those pages. I'm not sure I could make it simpler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.12.219 (talk) 11:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it (didn´t read all), he´s reffering to an article from Washington Post, but that article now says Oops, that was wrong. Also, this seems to be the wrong article for it, at least until this become a very notable event in his precidency.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/26/AR2010012604239.html?hpid=topnews Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm pretty sure that article has absolutely nothing to do with it whatsover. I don't mean any offense, I just can't seem to see a link with what you're talking about and the document posted. All it seems to say is that Obama has authorized more strikes than Bush has in the past 3 years compared to 1 year of his time. The links I provided are updated information, with updates at theend of the page whenever he finds new sources of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.12.219 (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You cite one webiste. This is poor evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.184.30.134 (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Fine, how about a video that's been out for months? http://seeingredradio.org/2010/04/14/wikileaks-video-vile-massey-ceo-blankenship-obama-orders-assassination-of-us-citizen-2-4/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.18.87 (talk) 07:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, good one. The tag line for the video site is "Seeing Red Radio is radio with a Revolutionary Socialist perspective airs on Valley Free Radio 103.3 FM and online every Tues 2-3PM & Thurs 8-9PM". Somehow I don't think that it will pass muster as a reliable source. Please stop. Tvoz/talk 07:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Really? You didn't watch the video because you assumed the tagline was bias? Here's a direct quote from the NY times:"The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen..." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?_r=1

Does THAT one do it for you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.18.87 (talk) 07:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least that source would not be rejected out of hand as the previous one would be. However, this is a biography of Barack Obama - his life and career - not an article about US policy or CIA authorizations. You haven't provided anything that suggests that this is a significant matter in Obama's life or career, suitable for his bio. Maybe you should look at other articles where this would be more germane. Tvoz/talk 07:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Nobel Medal icon

{{Edit semi-protected}}

Perhaps we should add the next to his name like on pages where other laureates have it, Yasser Arafat for instance.

NedVed20 (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at some of the Wikipedia articles where this has been done already, and IMO it looks completely ridiculous. Is this something that was done recently? Was there any sort of discussion somewhere about whether or not it is a good idea?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarc (talk • contribs)

Agree with Tarc. Is there a central discussion where we can get them off the other pages instead of adding it here?--Cube lurker (talk) 14:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, I think its interesting... Your right, it doesnt look great.NedVed20 (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

There was a discussion here over 2 years ago, I suppose MOS Talk could be a good starting point for another.--NortyNort (Holla) 20:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

← Any progress on this? I wouldn't say this exchange is any kind of consensus one way or the other, so invoking it as was just done isn't really the best way to proceed. Tvoz/talk 00:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The icon is at best tacky. The text makes his Nobel clear and puts it in proper context. PhGustaf (talk) 00:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It's completely inappropriate where it was placed. It makes it seem as if the honor is the paramount aspect of his biography, equal to his very being, right there beside his name. We should be having this conversation in a forum where it can affect the placement across the project, because out of curiosity I visited a couple of biographies of Nobel recipients and it strikes me equally inappropriate for each, regardless of the individual and the circumstances of their awards. Because it goes beyond that, I would say the same if it was an Oscar icon for an actor or a Pulitzer icon for a writer. It's more akin to an Olympic medal icon for an athlete, as in many cases athletes owe their encyclopedic notability to nothing else than their Olympic placement. On the other hand, it would be inappropriate there as well, because there are all manner of athletes whose Olympic experience is a small chapter in their careers, for example Olympic basketball. So I think we should have a policy not to equate an individual with their greatest award, beyond the question of determining whether that would be accurate in every case. I have no problem with icons in general or this icon in a table at the end of the article, or even someplace much lower in the main infobox, for example, beside the link to the article about that award.

If there is a discussion about this elsewhere, please direct me to it, and if there is not, I would welcome someone starting one. We have a policy against elevating the noting of such an award to the opening sentence of the lead, why would this not extend to the opening image of the infobox. Abrazame (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with removal and hope this trend doesn't continue to the point where other articles get decorated with all sorts of little shiny things. Jonathunder (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It might make sense to put shiny little things at the bottom of bio infoboxes, although that would require some standardization. We could have a symbol for live versus dead, nationality, etc., but then shiny icons aren't a great implementation of the semantic web. Categories, templates, and such are more useful. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It's inappropriate and ridiculous. Why not the Presidential seal? the Senate seal? a Grammy Award? the DNC logo? the Harvard coat of arms? the Illinois flag? the American flag? a picture of his dog? a golf ball? a little animated cartoon of his face? Being a Nobel laureate is not the reason he's notable. It's not even in the lead paragraph. Furthermore, the icon is absolutely meaningless. I had no idea what it meant until I clicked it. No other source uses an icon to indicate "Nobel Prize winner"; this is some Wikipedia user's invention. The icon should be removed from all the infoboxes it appears in. If a person is notable as a Nobel winner, that can be included in text later in the infobox. This is an English-language encyclopedia, not some Japanese video game. Let's not start putting colorful icons all over the place. —Designate (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and I wish I had said that. Johnuniq (talk) 06:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: there was an extended discussion here of this practice generally. There used to be a template to add this little icon. It was deleted. Jonathunder (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

← I don't like the icon either, and am happy to have it off. I just thought we should have a real consensus discussion to point to. Seems to me we are in agreement to leave the icon off. Ask, and you get response - that's what I (usually) love about this page. Tvoz/talk 18:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Fugly icon not required. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Policy/Stance

I find it interesting (to say the least) that his opposition to equal civil rights for gay citizens is not mentioned in the slightest. He has proven (by his own actions) time and time again that his stance is against equal rights. My understanding was that wikipedia is supposed to be a non-biased, factually based reference site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SweetPrince1989 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable reference for that?--NortyNort (Holla) 04:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Really now???? Just google ANYTHING relating to gay civil rights and Obama. I'll make it easy for you. Start with his appeal of the court ruling repealing don't ask don't tell. Go from there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SweetPrince1989 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope, haven't found it. There is no obvious reliable source that states as a fact that Obama opposes equal rights for gays. With respect to Wikipedia content, I suggest you review WP:SYNTH regarding making broader conclusions from the facts at hand. With respect to off-Wikipedia politics, this really isn't the place but being less supportive of something than one might hope is not the same thing as being entirely unsupportive. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, when an editor asks for a reliable source to a claim, it's not appropriate to lead him or her on a wild goose chase doing Google searches, etc. The burden of proof lies squarely with the editor making the claim, not with other editors who would otherwise be forced to independently verify unsourced/poorly-sourced claims within an article.  Amit  ►  12:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Does THIS work for you guys? And how did you not find this? It's been out since 2009...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/opinion/16tue1.html

The NY times... so good. "The Obama administration, which came to office promising to protect gay rights but so far has not done much, actually struck a blow for the other side last week. It submitted a disturbing brief in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which is the law that protects the right of states to not recognize same-sex marriages and denies same-sex married couples federal benefits." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.18.87 (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It is common for Presidents to defend a federal law's Constitutionality even when believing that law is unwise or immoral. I believe this is the case with President Obama. SMP0328. (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

What about that is constitutional? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.18.87 (talk) 00:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe President Obama believes DADT and banning gay marriage are Constitutionally permissible, but unwise and immoral. That would make his stance in court not be contrary to his views on those issues: court is about those laws Constitutionality, not their wisdom or morality (or lack thereof). SMP0328. (talk) 00:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You forgot to read my quote? Goddamn! "The Obama administration, which came to office promising to protect gay rights" This is the NY Times. Either he flip flopped, or lied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.18.87 (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Did he define "gay rights"? Maybe he doesn't believe DADT or gay marriage bans violate "gay rights". Just because someone at the New York Times believes they do does not means President Obama must as well. SMP0328. (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Since clearly reading about him is too much for you, try actually reading the article before making another excuse, maybe? "In the presidential campaign, President Obama declared that he would work to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.18.87 (talk) 05:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times link is an op/ed opinion piece, and as such is not a reliable source for the conclusions it is arguing. We don't reprint opinions as facts. Please do not make personal attacks on other editors. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Obama has signed an anti-discrimination bill, right? DADT is already almost a year into the process of being repealed by the military, a process preceded by the more logistically difficult integration of women onto nuclear subs. And submitting a brief regarding DOMA means it moves further through the legal appeals process, which in turn means the decision rendered is more watertight, and the administration not simply tossing a softball means one more argument against it is likely to be debunked by lawyers in the eyes of the law. All three of these things are advancing the practicability and legal underpinnings of these rights to be more well-established. It is also ensuring that the establishment comes from across the spectrum of government and is not merely at the whim of the individual. Gay rights aren't helped by him making this about him, and something people can say he shoved down others' throats or something a new occupant in the White House can simply sign a statement to repeal. Drawing the conclusion that he flip-flopped or lied is, as Wikidemon notes, the POV of an Op/Ed, and as I am pointing out, it is one that fails to take this other, practical perspective into account. Abrazame (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

First of all, the white house and the DOJ is required to defend challenges to standing laws, so pointing to an OPINION article demonizing him for it is a bit stupid. And no, I don't think that's too harsh considering my second point: people need to stop pointing to opinion articles as though they were legit references. They are absolutely NOT. Yet half the articles I see people pointing to on this talk page are opinion articles. Well want to know why no one is putting in your great point? That's probably reason number one. An opinion article is and will never be a legit reference.It's not even a maybe, just no. 173.26.55.253 (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Miah

Edit request from 100vsMe, 27 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Hello. I am 100vsMe. I would like to set a request to remove the protection for the Obama page. The reason for this is that some believe that his birth place is not valid and would, if anyone would, change or put 'Unreached'. Thank-you for your time reading this letter. I hope you see my understanding and take hold to it. Thank-you, 100vsMe

100vsMe (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean unreached? Are you implying he wasn't born in Hawaii? Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This issue has come up many times. Every piece of reliable information we have says he was born in Hawaii. If you have information contrary to this, please bring it up on this page. PhGustaf (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Please refer to FAQ 5 in the list above. Your request was closed by another editor. I don't know what you mean by "unreached", but if you mean whether an official assessment or conclusion has been certified and confirmed on the incontrovertible data point of Obama's birthplace, then this has been reached. Abrazame (talk) 02:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Especially as the State of Hawaii seems to think he was born there. That seems a reliable source.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section

Now that we have a criticisms section for Ralph Nader, I suggest one is added to Barack Obama. There is a very compelling NY Times article "Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate" written by Mike McIntire about Obama's ties to Exelon, that would be good for starters. I would like to propose such a section. 99.93.195.221 (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Not going to happen. If Nader's article has a criticism section, then it should be removed, and any notable criticism can be worked into the body of the article as appropriate. Tarc (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Criticism sections usually, if not always, end up giving undue weight to those criticisms. If an article has a criticism section, why shouldn't it also have a praise section? Any criticism in an article, especially a BLP, should be placed in a part of that article where the criticism would be germane. SMP0328. (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

"Not going to happen"? I thought this was a group effort. At any rate let's add the content. 99.93.195.221 (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ha, the "Criticism" section on Nader's article is laughable. Grsz¹¹ 23:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's interesting. But I thought we were talking about adding adding content here. I think the Exelon information and Times article is significant and bears mention. Can I remove the above comment as not "germane", as SMP0328 puts it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.93.195.221 (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

"Not going to happen" is shorthand for "this has been discussed dozens, even hundreds, of times and always reaches the same conclusion, which is that 'criticism' sections are not encyclopedic and we don't do them." SMP is completely right, as I've argued too many times to count as well - if we had a "praise" section, wouldn't there be howls from the peanut gallery about our "pro-Obama bias"? Same if this was done on, say, Sarah Palin? If there is notable criticism that can be verified and is not just the complaint of the day, but is something that has had an effect on the subject's life and/or career - this is a biography, after all - then we work it into the text of the article in an appropriate place and manner. We don't set up "criticism" sections. Or, as SMP Tarc said, "not going to happen". This is also explained above in the FAQs, under "Controversies, praise, and criticism". Tvoz/talk 23:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the reason there's a criticism section in the Nader article is because there is a 'recognition' section. Mystylplx (talk) 09:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Clarifications: Tarc wrote "Not going to happen". And since a) I'm new and b) the section was added to another article, I naturally thought it would be well-placed here, without being privy to the history of discussions your describe. That said, I've added a section to discuss the adding the article and content in a new page section below. But, a good point has been made. I think those whose strong support or lack thereof of the subject of an article would help by refraining from participation. It seems personal Pov often gets in the way 99.93.195.221 (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Tarc said "not going to happen" which I unpacked for you, but SMP made the comment about "praise" sections with which I was also agreeing. As for the rest of your comment, if you are referring to my mention of "pro-Obama bias", please note that the phrase was in quotes, meaning that it is a hypothetical accusation that could be made if we had a "praise" section here or - as I went on to say - the same way "pro-Palin bias" could be claimed if the editors on that page added a "praise" section there. I was not suggesting anything about refraining from participation. Tvoz/talk 00:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

One other point, which I made above as well - the FAQ section is here on this page to assist people who are new here in understanding why things are set up the way they are. "Criticism" sections is one of them. There are other matters discussed there as well which might illuminate things for you, so I recommend that any new editor here read them. Many of the questions repeatedly raised, like the "African-American" question also raised today, are well covered there. Tvoz/talk 00:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

African American

See FAQ #2. Tarc (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I posted this once before and it got revered within the minute so I didn't bother again. But he is Kenyan and has a white mother. He is NOT "African-American", he is an American president whose ancestors were both white and from Kenya, therefore it is wrong to consider him an African American. Would you call a Jamaican an African American, or someone from the Dominican Republic? 24.247.174.132 (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Again (and again and again), African-American is a heritage not some poorly conceived idea of race. Let's take our page for example. "African Americans (also referred to as Black Americans or Afro-Americans, and formerly as American Negroes) are citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa" Does that mean every one of his ancestors has to be from Africa for him to be considered African-American, don't be foolish. Obama has more African heritage (his father was from Kenya!) than many. Grsz11 22:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC) I think that someone is using a bot to remove any edit that I make because immediately after I hit save it disappears on an edit conflict, before the page even loads. This is why I gave up before, but he is no more an "African-American" than I am a Dutch, Swedish, French, German, English and Native American American. "African-American" is a stupid term and should not apply. 24.247.174.132 (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.174.132 (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Well then you'll have to take that issue far beyond some internet website, we can't help you with that opinion here. As for your edits, edit conflicts mean somebody edited the page since you tried to, so it doesn't save your edit. Grsz11 23:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC) I'm having the same problem, and I've read that removing other people's talk page comments is against Wikipedia's rules. 99.93.195.221 (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Right, but edit conflicts sometimes cause strange things to happen. Generally speaking when experienced editors remove comments from a talk page as not germane, they say so - as has been done a few times today. Any other deletions of comments appears to have been as a result of edit conflicts gone bad. Please keep the paranoia level down - I don't think rules are being broken here on this. Tvoz/talk 23:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC) I for one would appreciate other editors not removing my comments, which I've read is against the rules. I'm sure most would hold the same position. 99.93.195.221 (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Did you read what I just wrote? Edit conflicts are the likely cause for the inadvertent - i.e. unexplained - removal of comments today. The other removals were explained. Please read up on Wikipedia policy about what a talk page is for and not for. You could start with this: WP:TALK which reminds everyone that the talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not a place to discuss the topic itself - like whether an individual editor thinks the subject is African-American or not. Tvoz/talk 00:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

NY Times article

Okay, so back to NY Times article "Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate" written by Mike McIntire about Obama's ties to Exelon, I would like to add that into the artcile. 99.93.195.221 (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's see - you're talking about one article written in 2008 about a position Obama took as a freshman senator in 2006, critical of the nuclear power industry's lack of disclosure of nuclear leaks and asking for mandatory reporting of same; then he sponsored a weaker bill about this matter that was a compromise with Republicans who didn't want to "mandate" that the industry do anything, and then in fact that bill didn't ever come up to the full Senate for approval? What's the criticism - that Obama tried to work across the aisle? I don't think so, friend - this is neither notable nor controversial, so unless I'm missing something, please stop wasting our time. Oh - and next time you have a suggestion like this, could you take the extra minute to get the link so people don't have to go searching? Have a nice day. Tvoz/talk 00:04, 29 October 2010

(UTC)

And you as well. I also found it interesting that Barack Obama shifted his position after accepting campaign dollars from Exelon. The article is quite compelling, I agree. 99.93.195.221 (talk) 03:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you, 99. It's not very compelling at all. He tried to get a strong bill passed. It got watered down and then never passed? That's not odd, whether Exelon contributed to his funds or not. Happens all the time. If there were dozens of articles indicating a pattern of such behaviour, it might be relevant, but there's just the one article on one event and it isn't particularly damning. --Habap (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Resigned

Somebody vandalized the article by saying that Obama resigned. I can't fix the article because of a lock. 76.92.255.42 (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Where? It says he resigned the Senate to be President. Grsz¹¹ 22:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It says he resigned from the Senate which he did. Marcus Qwertyus 22:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

"elitism" and "vitriolic nonsense"

In this edit, one editor (Sir Richardson) removes a section titled "Elitism in 2010 election" with the edit summary "Undid revision 394036722 by Rjensen vitriolic nonsense".

I'm unsure of the referent here of "vitriolic nonsense". Is it (a) what Republicans say about Obama (alluded to in the first half of what's removed), (b) Obama's rejoinders to this (as summarized by Peter Baker and quoted in the second half of what's removed), or (c) the section when viewed as a whole?

Whether it is (a), (b), (c), or some combination thereof, perhaps Richardson could explain more informatively and persuasively. -- Hoary (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I reverted it previously, perhaps an overreaction....mainly due to the section title being "Elitism" rather then "Claims of Elitism".--occono (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Such information may be better placed in Public image of Barack Obama as well which has such a section already.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree. -- Hoary (talk) 10:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Obama Muslim cartoon

Per the BBC, maybe this [4] deserves a mention in a mention of how the Obama campaign reacted to the press? It seems a fairly notable incidence of the Obama campaign's response to the media.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 07:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That was a joke, and it was two years ago. PhGustaf (talk) 07:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Religion wording

I suggest changing "Obama is a Christian..." to "Obama professes to Christianity..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckd83 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Why? Surely this would be incredibly ambiguous, given the primary meaning of "professes" suggests falsehood? Is it possible that you have not made this suggestion in good faith? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

the meaning you linked: Affirm one's faith in or allegiance to (a religion or set of beliefs) which is what Pres. Obama does. Certainly there is some ambiguity to the suggested change, but even the religion the President professes to claims there will be people deceived into thinking they were something they never were Matt. 7:22; Gal. 6:3. I am by no means suggesting the President is or is not declared Christian by his God, but simply pointing out it is possible that some in the visible Christian church are not declared just by the Christian God. Moreover, until the latter part of the 20th century, "professor" was a much more common term used in theologians' writings referring to those who profess to the Christian religion.Chuckd83 (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• The word Christian is defined as "One who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ." If he professes to Christianity he is by definition a Christian. Your two sentences are synonymous. —Designate (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

They are not synonymous since a "Christian" is declared one by their God, and "professor" is declared one by man. If not, there would be no room for deception which the Bible teaches (see above for examples). Objectively, there are countless of people who declared themselves as Christian who now declare themselves as atheist. By Webster's definition, these people are still considered "Christian" since God will continue to sanctify them until the judgment day (e.g. Phil 1:6, John 10:28). If the Bible is considered God's word, then no other evidence including Webster's dictionary would be able to substantiate it and therefore it's definition is considered subjective to the Bible's definition.Chuckd83 (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

"Barack Obama is a Christian". Full stop. We don't need any word mincing beyond that. Tarc (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Chuck, what you're suggesting is a change that would need to be made to virtually every biographical article of Christians on Wikipedia, in which case this is not the place you want to be proposing this. Unless you mean to be singling out Obama, in which case I am forced to ask "why?" If this is about the standard of the terminology in general, take it to somewhere like Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless God chimes in on this conversation (and I don't believe He even has an account), I'll take Obama's word on this and Webster's definition. --Sam (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If He exists, I'm certain He will have an account with a whole slew of sock puppets too. One must also consider His meatpuppets disciples. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It would really depend on the biography. If you are speaking about Paul of Tarsus, it is indisputable he was a Christian since even we atheists would attest to that. However, considering only 38% of Americans think he is a Christian, I think this gives support to making the change. If tomorrow the President declared he was a Republican, and only 38% of Americans agreed, the statement "Barack Obama is a Republican" would need to be revised to a more ambiguous statement. For those who ask why the change, I would ask to prove Barack Obama is a Christian. Keep in mind declaring himself Christian is not enough. See my one example out of countless (Matt. 7:22) above.Chuckd83 (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The word Christian is defined as "One who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ." If he professes to Christianity he is by definition a Christian. —Designate (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

He is a Christian by wikipedia standards. As OuroborosCobra states above, if you want to change Wikipedia's definition of the word "Christian" this is neither the right place nor the right article to start with. --Sam (talk) 14:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Sadly this whole conversation is falling into what we call original research and personal opinion. All the verifiable reliable sources call him a Christian and not "professed Christian." This idea that he may not be a Christian because a few deem him not a Christian is laughable and insulting. If the man says he's a Christian and the reliable sources report that, then the case is closed and this conversation is moot. If you feel he is not a Christian or want to try and represent those who do not feel he is a Christian, then this is not the place to argue that. I believe there are hundreds of forums that you can go to discuss the use of "professed" and Obama's religious views at quite length. However Wikipedia is not a forum for this sort of discussion. Thank you very much for your understanding. Brothejr (talk) 16:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I want to randomly interject here to note that WP:BLPCAT pretty explicitly that in terms of religion, self-identification is what WP goes by. Hence, if BO calls himself a Christian, WP calls him a Christian. Don't matter what other people think..... NickCT (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it safe to leave his signature in a png file?

Is it safe to leave his signature in a png file? I mean anyone could use that for whatever they wanted. I don't think the signature of a current politician should be on wikipedia or any other website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.11.103 (talk) 16:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, they are, and Obama's is apparently from his official Senate website. But to alleviate your fear: No, people cannot use this to make plausible fakes. Signatures are are very weak security feature, and are always used in context, with witnesses, proper procedures, and a clear path for the document. The actual signature is mostly ritual. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Poll data

I've had to remove the poll data added (again) by User:Sasha best, despite pleadings on Sasha best's talk page from several editors not to. There's no place for transient poll data, specific to Obama's presidency, on a biography describing the man's entire life. There's also a concern this editor may be related to User:Multiplyperfect or User:Grundle2600 because of various editing/style similarities. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe polls around a mid-term election transient, particularity with how historical this past one was. I think the rvrt'd edit should be included but should be put into better context. Also, here is not the place for sock puppet suspicion and that shouldn't effect this discussion.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The poll is indeed transient. The poll quoted was the President's approval rating, which is only tangentially-related to the mid-term elections at best. And this is the biography, not Presidency of Barack Obama (where approval ratings might conceivably be more relevant). The question of socking is important because Sasha best has been conducting a slow motion edit war with this data, having added back the same text 4 times in 3 days. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a constant push to add the latest polling data to this article, and it periodically has to be removed lest we get overwhelmed with polls from random sources and dates. This is the main biography article, not the article on Obama's presidency, public image, or popularity, so it's questionable whether any polling data is relevant to the article in the first place. The only way it affects Obama regards the political winds that indirectly and eventually affect his election and the political environment in which he operates. It will probably be worth mentioning the overall arc of his popularity as President from the beginning to the end, and perhaps an inflection point or two in between, but it is far too early to know which events are significant. Removing a poll of the moment added without context is correct, and edit warring to insert more polling info definitely out. Even in an article that pays detailed attention to polls, they have to be reported in a consistent way rather than a series of dates and numbers. A reasonable suggestion on how to recast or update the popularity information is a good idea. Socks get summarily reverted without discussion and their suggestions good bad or indifferent are ignored, per WP:DENY. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm a great believer in the notion that BLPs need to be written from an historical perspective. I can envisage a time in the future when an overview of Obama's presidential approval rating over the term of his presidency may be of value, particularly if it is notably different from that of previous presidents, but otherwise I see no biographical value at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

First, I have only one wikipedia account. Second, I believe that it's better to update poll data, than to have outdated information in the article. Third, we should develop some universal criteria for the inclusion of approval ratings in the article. For example, when Bush was President, his approval ratings were constanly updated and nobody objected to it. Sasha best (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You have missed the point, I'm afraid. Firstly, current poll data is not biographically relevant. Secondly, the "outdated" poll data you refer to relates to an historical comparison of the early days of other presidencies (nothing to do with current trends). Finally, what goes on in the George W. Bush article has no bearing on what goes on here. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "has no bearing"? If approval ratings of one President were constantly updated, the same thing should be done for every other President. Otherwise, it clearly is a double standard, which should be avoided. Sasha best (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia works. The activities at one article do not dictate the activities at another. Furthermore, the policies and guidelines (not to mention the consensus of editors) may change over time. And once again, the transient approval ratings of a president are not significant in a biography describing the subject's entire life. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be wrong to modify Wikipedia policies depending on your political position. Moreover, the statement about "similar trend" is one-sided. It's neccessary to mention other facts from the article as well: that his approval rating is lower than G.W.Bush had during his first year in office. Once again I insist on mentioning current approval ratings, as they are important indicators of public image. Public image of a politician is always more or less defined by his approval rating. Current approval ratings may not be important when his presidency ends, but until then they are important. Sasha best (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggest you read WP:IDHT. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Let's put this to rest, and stop insisting on having your edits included. It's not going to happen. I will try to explain the reasons in more detail, despite the suspicions of who you are. Here is the sentence you describe as "old news":

  According to the Pew Research Center, Obama's approval ratings dropped from 64% in February, 2009 to 49% in December, a trend similar to Ronald Reagan's and Bill Clinton's first years.

  There is nothing "old" about that right now, as the trend continues(more or less). After the 2010 election Obama's approval rating went to 47%, and continues to be a bit higher than either Reagan or Clinton, but there is no reason to make any change. There is not enough of a change in the current climate to even consider updating poll data. That may be more appropiate(showing how Obama continues to follow the trends of Reagan and Clinton) on the Presidency of Barack Obama article, and is already updated all the time on the United States presidential approval rating article. Of course in January going into the second year of both Clinton and Reagan, the poll numbers deviated. Clinton's rose to a 49% average, while Reagan's plummeted to 35%. Now, perhaps if Obama plunged to 35% we could add that Obama began to trend with Reagan's numbers and not Clinton's. It would be something to discuss here. But as of now, the "insisting" is just getting tedious. Dave Dial (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You see, DD2K, I beleive approval rating information is important for the Public Image section, much more important than the rating of Clinton, Bush, Reagan etc., as this section concerns Obama only. However, I do not insist on deleting the comparison, I only want to combine these 2 approaches, thus making a compromise between them. You and Scjessey disagree and you have a right to do so. But that's not a reason so revert my edits. If I deleted all the information I disagreed with, the article would have to be largely rewritten. Let the other people have their say too. P.S Your suspicions are of no interest to me. It's absurd to think that only one person may disagree with your opinion. Sasha best (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The comparison of presidential approval ratings is of biographical value because it helps to put Obama in context with the previous presidents at a given (and significant) point in the presidency. The current rating is of no value to this biography, and attempting to combine these disparate details will make a mess. Please drop this now. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd concur with Scjessey on this. Daily, weekly or monthly updates of polling data would not be approprite in this article, since it is about his life, not just his current popularity. Sasha, if you have sample text of what you'd like it to say in a 'compromise' approach, post it here for evaluation. I don't think there's a way to include constantly-changing ratings and broad historical comparison. --Habap (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

To my mind, encyclopedic article about a living person shouldn't compare him or her to another person. How can you speak about Obama's presidency in historical perspective if it's not over yet? In historical perspective, his current approval rating may not be important, but right now it is important. The aim of encyclopedia is to provide facts, not to analyze them. But all I want is just to add current data alongside the historical comparison Sasha best (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The comparison we are discussing compares a specific point in the past (yes, that means "historical") that is common to all presidents, so the article compares Obama with recent presidents for this specific time. At this point, by the way, we've gone way beyond the reasonable endpoint of this discussion into the realm of madness. I recommend that this discussion be closed. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

But, wait, George W.Bush is even more recent, so why not compare them? Reverting my edit is inconsistent. Sasha best (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

This steaming pile of non-neutral cherry-picking utterly fails to account for George W. Bush's staggering leap in approval rating following the September 11 attacks mentioned in the source. Those attacks make a meaningful comparison impossible, which is why Bush is not mentioned. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, a fair comparison would be George Bush on September 10, 2001 (51%) and Barack Obama on September 10, 2009 (52%). -- Scjessey (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey, actually comparison with Reagan and Clinton is handpicking facts and POV. If you use an article as a source, then mention other facts from the article too. The words I added were taken from the article, right before the comparison with Clinton and Reagan. While September 11 attacks are mentioned, the authors of the article clearly considered this comparison meaningful and possible. If you want to make comparison, let it be broad. Selective comparison is only an attempt to make Obama rating look better. I'll request a third opinion on thisSasha best (talk) 08:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"Better" than what? The biography focuses on what Obama is, not what he is not, and we are comparing his ratings to recent presidents in like situations, not in unlike situations. The source is a lengthy technical piece by a pollster, purely about poll numbers. The comparison therein is not selected for biographical relevance, it's simply a window on the past five occupants, which as others have pointed out can be found at our own articles on presidential poll numbers, such as Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States and United States presidential approval rating. The source of course indicated that Bush's ratings shot up because of the 9/11 attack, which from a biographical standpoint is an anomaly that makes that comparison irrelevant. Obama inherited a massive recession and high unemployment; Reagan created a deep recession and even higher unemployment early in his term and Bill Clinton inherited a moderate recession, which is what makes the comparison with their ratings relevant to Obama's bio. The only point in putting in a Bush comparison, which would then require taking a sentence to point out the irrelevancy of that comparison, would be to name-check Bush. I would remind you that Bush's approval numbers upon his exit were 25, and Obama's even after last year's decline are about twice that — a contrast we don't currently make anywhere in the bio, because I would argue that that, too, is both simplistic and irrelevant. You are wrong that the comparison is meaningful (and you suggest no meaning to us in your argument) and you are missing the point that it is possible only with the 9/11 anomaly caveat.

Finally, you do not ask for a third opinion when there are already four editors arguing against your edit. I am the fifth, and the seventh opinion in the thread. Abrazame (talk) 09:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

3 editors (mostly 2 ) were arguing with me on a different edit, i.e including current poll ratings, so that doesn't count. Finally, if you think comparison is irrelevant you should leave comparison with G.H.W.Bush then. His situation was similar. It'd also be a good idea to mention comparison criteria, like "who also had a reccession in their first term". Bush Jr., by the way, also had to deal with mild recession, when he came. Sasha best (talk) 11:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This is just getting ridiculous. None of your proposals have received support. We have been extremely patient with you, despite your edit warring and unwillingness to see reason. It is becoming clear that you are not here to improve this article. Again, I recommend we close this thread. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I have removed the 3O request from the 3O queue because this is a dispute already involving more than two editors. Happy editing,—WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

International popularity

I restored the content removed with a misleading edit summary by Sasha best. I checked the sources within the cited content, and found all statements to be properly referenced. Something needs to be done about this disruptive editor. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

There are no words about the defining factor it the article. I've read it several times. It doesn't say that the international appeal is key to the public image, it only says that he enjoys strong support abroad, which is stated in the next line, so the reference probably belongs there.If you've found the words in the article, please mention where you found them. Sasha best (talk) 08:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I have not been able to find "defining factor" in the reference. It looks like it might be a bit of original research. My bad. I will self revert -- Scjessey (talk) 13:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

A perhaps deeper problem is that the primary source here was written just before the election and shows only that at the time Obama was very popular in a number of foreign countries at the time. Popularity polls are only indirectly important to begin with (as has been discussed repeatedly with respect to polls of Americans), and are only a weak proxy for gauging influence, political power, and so on. Are there sources that better assess Obama's ongoing image, influence, and what he represents, internationally? Or how this affects other countries' ongoing perception of America? - Wikidemon (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the USA Today article was 4 months before the election, which I wouldn't refer to as "just before the election". I thought I had heard that the handling of the BP spill in the Gulf had hurt his popularity in the UK, but can't find anything to support that. Of course, that wouldn't have had an effect on his popularity in other countries, as it was only in response to what some Brits were referring to as his "bullying" of BP.

Also, Scjessey, I think you ought to do a strike-through on the "misleading edit summary" comment, as there was nothing at all misleading about Sasha's edit summary, nor was it evidence of disruptive behaviour. --Habap (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries cannot be re-edited as page comments can. They can be deleted by admins, but that is usually reserved for the egregious and the personally offensive. The error has been acknowledged, and I think we can just move on. Tarc (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I've failed to find updated information on Obama's foreign perception. I think that nowadays this topic is not interesting to foreign pollsters. Sasha best (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)