Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 71

Archive 65

←

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

→

Archive 75

Oval Office Picture

This picture seems very unprofessional. They need a more respectable one. 3dec3 (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Theresi more than one image of Obama in the Oval office in the article. Which one? Tarc (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Business International Corporation known to be a CIA front

Should it be mentioned briefly that this company which Obama worked for as a 22-year old is also a known CIA front organization? __meco (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is considered unless sources are provided. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The article about the company appears to have this referenced. __meco (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

This seems like an issue of extraordinary low importance. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You mean, like the would-be fact that as a child he preferred to eat pears instead of apples? I don't see the logic in dismissing an unacknowledged possible connection between the incumbent US President and the CIA with that kind of reasoning. __meco (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Where's the source making that connection? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the article, you'll see the citations, from 1977 and 1987. I would expect that if a company had it's cover blown as a CIA front six years before he arrived, that any connection between the company and the CIA would either have been severed or been useless to CIA. --Habap (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. What is curious though is that both his father and mother also worked at CIA front companies. __meco (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

With all respect, the fact that you find this curious is irrelevant to the writing of this article. This is OR/synth, incredibly low weight for the man's bio, and kind of Alias-ish to suggest that working for a CIA front company has a genetic component. Tvoz/talk 15:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool down, I was only making a comment. __meco (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

And I was only asking that we not digress into speculation - it's a bad week on this talk page for that. No offense intended. Tvoz/talk 17:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"Obamacare" legislative process section?

Inasmuch as Obamacare essentially involves federal supervision of 1/6th of the economy, it would seem essential for any ideologically neutral article to delve into the extremely controversial process of vote-buying, votes at midnight, votes in a blizzard, votes on Christmas Eve, etc. by which Obamacare was pushed through. Ignoring this is really tantamount to covering up salient facts about an extremely important new role for the federal governmental in the economy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.149.170 (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Because it's not relevant to the biography; compare George W. Bush and its treatment of Medicare Part D, the tax cuts, or even Harriet Miers, where they're just mentioned, without listing the loopholes in legislative procedure used. Same should apply here. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You can find discussion of it in Obamacare and Health care reform debate in the United States. If it were to discussed here, it could only be about his role. Since Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and a cast of millions are involved, it's covered in articles about just the topic in question, not in each biography. --Habap (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't his birth name, fist name, be included in the introduction?

Shouldn't the introduction somewhere include that his birth name, or first name is Barry Soetoro? I thought this was fairly well known in the mainstream community, and was suprised to discover it isn't even mentioned in the introductory paragraphs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.12.252.111 (talk) 05:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC) |}

Article length FAQ

The #10 question in the FAQ talks about the article as it was on 22 June 2008. By now it is considerably outdated and the article is bigger than it was then. Would someone do a new check of the article and update the FAQ accordingly? Christopher Connor (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Economic policy

The article is very slanted and is not much different from advertising for him. Wikipedia should be neutral. The most common thing is to cherry pick, particularly on a claim of being "bipartisan" and use this in this article. The current authors should be fired for such a bad article.

One example (of many) is the slanted claim of helping the economy. The economy is shit. To blame him is partisan but having him take credit is partisan, too.

Try inserting that Obama claimed unemployment would be 9% if his plan was not passed. So they passed it and unemployment got worse. There are many sources for that.

Again, don't smear the guy but stop having a fluffy ad for him.

Absent a source, I cannot consider your proposal. However, I suspect that there are few if any reliable sources that would purport to say what the American unemployment numbers would have been had a different policy been taken. It would merely be a source that says a certain study, or expert, made that assertion. For every article that says that there are others, probably more, that say that the economic stimulus and other economic initiatives prevented the economy from getting worse that it did, and yet others that describe unemployment as a measurement that lags economic recovery. To report on all of these would give undue weight to differences of opinion among economists, although there may indeed be articles where this information is more appropriate, e.g. articles on the recent recession, or on the economic policies themselves. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

major problems

I find it very troubling that this article is being controlled by one faction of political supporters, rather than being neutral. Wikidemon already admits that "I cannot consider your proposal".

I disagree with both the original post and Wikidemon, so much so, that I must write a dissenting opinion.

The economic policy section does not belong in this article the way it is written. For several reasons. One, this is a biography, not a history of the nation during his presidency. Two, this is biased. It says that he helped the economy. The neutral way would not to make that assessment. See http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/10/unemployment-labor-market-jobs-opinions-columnists-thomas-f-cooley-peter-rupert.html This is opinion but it is also opinion when some people say the stimulus helped.

Let's be fair and neutral in this article. S9binator (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It is troubling that you should make unfounded accusations against fellow Wikipedians, ignoring the policy of assuming good faith. Most economists agree that the Recovery and Reinvestment Act was chiefly responsible for preventing the economy from sinking into a catastrophic Depression, and a myriad reliable sources can be found to reference that. Economists are in general agreement that the small size of the stimulus package means it has not had the impact hoped for. Nobody capable of adding 2+2 thinks the package was a bad idea. The Recovery and Reinvestment Act was a pivotal piece of legislation for President Obama that most certainly has biographical relevance as part of the section on his presidency. Incidentally, "fair and neutral" sounds awfully familiar. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

To further Scjessey's commont, it's rather silly to misrepresent another person's statement immediately below where it was made. As I said, I can't consider a proposal for how to characterize this in the article without a proposed source. That's not an admission of anything, that's just waiting for an explanation of how this would satisfy WP:V and some other policies. If someone wanted to add a statement like "Obama has a vacation home in Ohio" that's also what I would say, do you have a source for that? It's up to the person proposing to add content to justify that it's reliably sourced, and in this case I don't know of any reliable sources and I'm dubious that they exist in meaningful number. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with reliable sourcing. We can discuss here how we feel about the economy or how we believe most economists feel about the Recovery Act but it comes down to sourcing. Aside, it is unfounded to say here that those who view the Recovery Act as a bad idea can't do basic math. Jamming close to $900 billion into the economy (and elsewhere) will certainly and has given it a jolt but it still may or may not be sustained. So in the end, it may as well have been a bad idea if the economy gets worse and all the U.S. gets out of it is more debt. It might be hard to find good reliable sources to be the judge on that one right now. As far as the Recovery Act unemployment projection figures, the Act was obviously way too optimistic on employment. I am not surprised though (and I don't think commentators are too) to see that a piece of government legislation didn't meet its claim. With that, in my opinion, right now I don't see much significance for it here now in his bio and am neutral placing it elsewhere. If you can provide a source on economic analysis or figures that isn't included, updates or contradicts, do so.--NortyNort (Holla) 17:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to complete my thought and respond to your comment -- There is nothing wrong with government legislation as long it is executed properly. The problem with the Recovery and Reinvestment act was that it was only about 50% the size it should've been. This was in part due to the fact that the government underestimated the strength and depth of the economic woes, but it was also due to the partisan bickering in Congress that made sure it was a less effective bill. Award-winning economists (like Paul Krugman) said that the stimulus package needed to be well over a trillion dollars in order to do any good, but Democrats knew they'd never get any Republican votes for something of that size. Republicans, incredibly, simply wanted a package of tax cuts. And by continuously portraying the stimulus in a bad light they actually helped to reduce its effectiveness, since the economy depends so much on consumer confidence. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Subinator as far as the economic policy being in this article. This is an article about the man, not about American history 2009-present. The choice of topics is also biased. The economy is in terrible shape, far worse shape than under Bush. This is not to say the McCain would have done any better, but cherry picking positive things is very biased. Unemployment is far higher than Obama said it would be if his stimulus were NOT passed! (There's a reason for that; Obama is seen as highly anti-business so small business is being very cautious and not hiring but that shouldn't be in the article either because it is about economics, not Obama the man). France is the greatest (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

photo

Hatting inappropriate haberdashery diversion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
An important photo of him is missing. That is the one where he is wearing a turban. A new section could be written to say talk about his Muslim problem and that he is not a Muslim but a Protestant. This is valid. But then again, campaign workers for Obama will think of every excuse to censor that photo. Make no mistake, I am not calling him a Muslim.12.40.50.1 (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC) I have a photo or two of me wearing a kippah. It doesn't mean I'm Jewish. PhGustaf (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC) I have a photo of me wearing a condom on my head at a party. It doesn't mean I'm a dickhead. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC) (Actually, this is a complete falsehood. Anyone with a camera to help me remedy this?) Sorry, how can someone with a camera alter the truth of the statement It doesn't mean I'm a dickhead? :) Guettarda (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC) It cannot. But least I'd have a nice picture of me wearing a condom on my head to make my mother proud. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC) I found a picture of Robin Williams dressed as a woman. I'm not sure how that fits in. Let's delete this silly thread when we're done with it, okay? - Wikidemon (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Several editors have continually removed my comments. If this is acceptable, then I will take it as a reason to remove others' comments. The controversy of Obama being a Muslim is a big issue. The truth is that he is not a Muslim and that there is nothing wrong with Islam. However, reporting of Obama being a Muslim is part of being comprehensive. When this is done, a possible picture to use is the turban picture. This does not prove he is a Muslim nor is it a crime to wear a turban. Millions of Sikhs wear turbans and they are certainly not Muslims. Obama follows the United Church of Christ religion. There is plenty of documentation of that. France is the greatest (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hair

Nothing about his hair changing colors? 71.255.94.205 (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

why would that be relevant? He's getting older. Duh. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

For something of this nature to warrant a mention in this article, it would need to be extensively covered by mainstream media sources. Besides, haven't you noticed that all presidents suffer from this problem? Even fictional presidents do! -- Scjessey (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Spouse dates in infobox

I don't work on a whole lot of biographies, but was surprised that after First Lady's name, it listed 1992-present. I checked Bush and Clinton - neither of them had dates for their spouses listed. Is it normal procedure to list the dates? If so, I guess we should modify Bush's and Clinton's articles to list their dates as well. --Habap (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No, this shows that this article is out of compliance and should be fixed. France is the greatest (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm hoping that someone who is not currently banned can have a look at this and let me know if it makes sense to have that entry or not. --Habap (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• I would imagine it's unecessary to have 1992-present there, unless there is a divorce or something. I could see if there were previous marriages like Ronald Reagan(who I believe is America's first divorced President, although I could be wrong), but don't see a need otherwise. Dave Dial (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Dead link

The links to the American Conservative Union's webpage that are supposed to have Obama's ratings are dead. I tried to add a template, but found it was locked, so I figured I'd post it here and editors who know more than I do can take it from here. 76.4.240.95 (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed em'. Thanks for pointing it out.--NortyNort (Holla) 04:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Signing the closing of threads

I ask again that all editors sign their names when closing a thread here on the talk page. It's courteous and also enhances the historical record. Some of you have been really good about doing this, but please, everyone do this. Ikilled007 (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama nao nasceu no Kenya??

Bom minha duvida eh essa, se ele eh um presidende afro-americano, pq eh que colocaram q ele nasceu em Honolulu Hawaii, que pertence aos EUA, sendo que ele mesmo diz em outras reportagens, inclusive postadas no youtube que ele nasceu no Kenya? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.92.225.183 (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You would be better off at pt:Talk:Barack Obama. But the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii and not Kenya is accepted by everyone except a select group of people. Grsz¹¹ 19:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You can find more information about this at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and in the FAQ sections at the top of this page. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Presidential Polls

Just wondering: should we include a presidential job approval graph like other presidential articles have had?--Schwindtd (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Have other presidential articles had that? I just don't remember one for Bush and Clinton predates Wikipedia so I am guessing one was never added to his. If it was ever on Bush's article, it isn't now. I personally am not a fan because there are too many varying surveys that could be used and choosing what data to use and how to weight it would only lead to considerable conflict. However, if such a graph were to be used it certainly shouldn't be used here, it should be used in the article about his presidency. It doesn't make sense to put a graph of his approval ratings into his bio. I could see referencing it in the article if the generally acceptable numbers hit notable highs or lows at particular points. But that's just my thought on it.Jdlund (talk) 05:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't his full ethnicity African-American/Caucasian be included?

Why isn't there anything in here about him being African-American and Caucasian? The terms denote ethnicity, not skin color, and so should both probably be included so as to not give a false impression, as we would write the same thing for someone of two African-American parents, but he is different and so we should use another term to portray that.

Inclusive, I also spoke to someone the other day that didn't even know President Obama was Caucasian and African-American, which wikipedia seems to be perpetuating by not saying at the beginning that he's African-American and Caucasian. He's equally both so we should include that. Otherwise you should just say he's the first dark-skinned president? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatzup45 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you see Q2 in the FAQ at the top of this page? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"The Iraq"

I don't have an account and the page is locked. Someone want to remove the definite article "the" from the captioned picture in the "Iraq War" section? Not that we don't appreciate your contributions, Miss South Carolina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.137.31.108 (talk) 11:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Good eye. I've changed the caption. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"Cultural and political image" addition

This new addition[1] seems to go overboard in the strength of its claims ("without precedent in modern history" - what about Kennedy?), the laudatory tone, and WP:WEIGHT. It's also out of chronological sequence, and unsourced. We already have two paragraphs on the positive international opinion of Obama from his first year in office, so I don't think we need more. It might make a little sense to have an image to illustrate how Europeans or others think of him, but why this particular image by Jorge Rodriguez-Gerada? The person who added this is editing from a new single-purpose account that has done nothing but expand the article about the artist,[2] and add mention of him to this and three other articles.[3][4][5] Under the circumstances I think we should remove the whole thing from this and the other articles, and issue a WP:COI notice to the editor. Any thoughts? - Wikidemon (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like self (or atleast friendly) promotion to me. Axe it WD. Grsz¹¹ 16:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Iraq War

The article states, "On August 31, 2010, Obama announced that the U.S. combat mission in Iraq was over."

But this is not true.

On September 5, 2010, Associated Press reported, "Days after the U.S. officially ended combat operations and touted Iraq's ability to defend itself, American troops found themselves battling heavily armed militants assaulting an Iraqi military headquarters in the center of Baghdad on Sunday. The fighting killed 12 people and wounded dozens."

On September 7, 2010, CNN reported, "An Iraqi soldier opened fire Tuesday on a group of U.S. soldiers in northern Iraq, killing two and wounding nine others, the U.S. military and the Iraqi military said."

The article should be corrected to reflect these facts.

71.182.189.126 (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is correct that this is Obama's announcement. Given length constraints and the difficulty agreeing on things around here, it is not practical to update this parent article constantly to stay fresh with the news of the day. There is probably more room for that in the various articles about the war and about Obama's foreign policy. After some amount of time, say a few weeks from now when we know whether things are quiet or the skirmishes continue, we can look back and decide whether it's worth adding a parenthetical note that despite the announcement the fighting continued for a while (or got worse, or better, or whichever way it happens). - Wikidemon (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Hi Grundle. "The combat mission is over" means just that; what the troops were there for is at an end, and they can/will be withdrawn from the theatre of operations. That doesn't magically mean that hostilities end or that they will not defend themselves when attacked. Tarc (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Recently, I was with some veterans of Operation Dragoon, who admitted surprise when told that their campaign ended on 15 Sep 44. One remarked, "Someone forgot to tell the Germans" who kept shooting at him. While Presidents, Generals and historians may make pronouncements about when something has ended, that doesn't mean people stop shooting.... --Habap (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Exeternl links

I dont know if this ahs been said, but WP:Consensus can change and WP:EL wikipedia is not a repository of links, so the lsit needs to be cut.

1. certainly dont need a whole list of bios, some can be cited in here (and if they can be then theres no need for EL's)
2. news articles dont need to be here, or if a link to a search fo obama 1-2 can suffice
3. in linewith the above, directories/news searches can be cut too (some 1-2 combined)
4. official sites re the links to have, so this seems good.Lihaas (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ownership of article

This article seems to have WP:OWNERSHIP issues here with various editors promptly removing anything added they dont like. to cite this blatant ownership: [6] says added by "article by new editor" If he means that im a new editor them that is not true, if its to this article then that doesnt mean people are restricted from editing articles on wikipedia. this is an open encyclopaedia and furthermore he blindly reverted EVERYTHING in the edits which is ground for either pov or vandalism (take your pick).

[7] is written from an WP:RS with the clear caveat that he was accused not that he is or making an affirmation. the editor's own insecurities of an attack are more suited to a weblog.

Furthermore, when challenging the edit he has not mentioned a word here on talk. If this protecting page by some whitehouse staff members continues it needs to go for admin control.

i have also already posted above to discuss my edit BEFORE revert, yet Newross reverted the tags (in addition to EVERY other edit in between including the cleanup) without saying anything on talk

To explain then the other part of the sub-section merger, all the biographical data was put to a logical one section instead of being spread around the page. I just made it a seperate subsection as a reward of recognition to whoever editor took the time to write it. (maybe that was unwarranted too) (Lihaas (talk) 11:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)).

I support the reversion made by Brothejr (diff) that you mentioned above. You (Lihaas) made some massive changes to the article by moving some sections and more. In the middle of those changes you introduced a paragraph starting 'He was accused of heading to the "dark side"...' which was correctly reverted because it was someone's opinion written as fact, and it used some inappropriate language (dark side?), and is undue. Re your comment about "admin control", please see the "This article has been placed on article probation" note in the header at the top of this page. Your complaints are unfounded. Per WP:BRD it is up to you to explain why your bold edits should prevail rather than the established version. If you are going to reply to yourself, please leave your original signature because it is confusing to see indented comments when they are all from the same person. Johnuniq (talk) 12:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

There are definitely overreactions to content in the article. Two issues though; it is a featured article and very controversial. The revert [11] removed SmackBot fixes and a bot-added link to the Aymaran Wikipedia as well. Difficult to revert the intermediate edits but better care should have been taken. The revert in [12] was from an opinion piece and cannot hold its own in a BLP. I don't consider you a new editor but Newross may have assumed you didn't know how controversial, BLP and featured articles are treated. It is always best to discuss edits here, particularly if they are large. As far as ownership, there is a group of editors that prowl the Obama and other liberal/conservative pages. Some look more like SPAs and others are legitimately around to help control the quality of articles.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, the article is actually not too long, so I have removed that tag. Article length is judged by "readable prose" as noted at WP:SIZE. Tarc (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• I will say that I agree that (11) was probably incorrect, but (12) was definitely correct. But I would suggest to you that if you are going to make edits on controversial articles that are on probation, you should be aware of the history of changes on the article and accept that your edits may be challenged. Especially if you sandwich edits like this in between what I consider article improvements, while also making bizarre accusations and diving in head first defending a banned sock puppet that has over 75 socks over the last month or so and has been adding the same tired bullshit over and over. You are going to meet resistance to your edits if you are going to come in making these kinds of edits. So I would suggest that instead of making sweeping changes to the article, and unfounded accusations on the talk page, you restart and take a more collaborative tone. Dave Dial (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the talk page section again per WP:DENY, and suggest we close down this one as well for the same reason. There is zero chance of any of this getting into the article in this manner. I already moved this discussion[[8]] to the talk page of the editor who asked the question to answer any question about socking or the history of the article. As fond as I am of the sock in question, taking his troll bait here will only encourage him. Aggressively demanding that we take the bait here is not good. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive massive change to article organization

In the first-ever edits to this article by User:Lihaas on September 17, 2010:

• It was inappropriate to make a WP:BRD massive change to the organization of this contentious, on-probation, featured article with absolutely NO prior discussion whatsoever,[9] and it was inappropriate to immediately reinstate [10] the same WP:BRD massive change after it was reverted.[11]
  • It was disruptive to move the long "Family and personal life" (trivia) section from the end of the article and insert it into the middle of a chronological account of Obama's career between his work in New York City at Business International Corporation and the New York Public Interest Research Group from 1983–1985 and his community organizing work in Chicago as director of the Developing Communities Project from 1985–1988.[12]
  • It was disruptive to move the stale, extraneous "Political positions" section from near the end of the article and insert it into the middle of a chronological account of Obama's career between his work as a civil rights attorney from 1993–1996 and his service as Illinois state Senator from 1997–2004.[13]
    • As has been discussed several times ([14][15][16][17][18]) in the talk page archives, the stale, extraneous "Political positions" section does not belong in this article, and should have been removed when a "Presidency" section consuming 40% of the article was added which covers Obama presidential administration political policies.
• It was inappropriate "drive-by tagging" to add "{long|section}" tags[19] to a featured article with no prior (or subsequent) discussion on this talk page about which sections you thought were too long, why you thought the sections were too long, and what material you would suggest removing.[20]
• It was inappropriate (and ignorant) to add a {fact} tag with an edit summary "was before ,mayube after -- bnut NOW?" saying a citation was needed in the infobox to establish that Obama has a private residence in Chicago, Illinois;[21]
  • there is an entire paragraph (with citations) about Obama's Chicago, Illinois house in the "Family and personal life" section (that was apparently moved without being read);
  • Obama stayed in his Chicago, Illinois house on his 49th birthday last month[22][23]
• It was inappropriate (and silly) to add a paragraph[24] based on an op-ed column "Obama edges to the dark side" posted that day on Aljazeera.net by history professor and rock guitarist Mark LeVine[25]—and simultaneously add a {long} tag to the article.
• Re: "different titles for sections doesnt mean one can violate the essence -- and why are the refs all lsited here and not inline?"[26]
  This article uses shortened footnotes with separate "Notes" and "References" sections; see WP:CITESHORT.
• It was unrealistic to begin editing this article with an inappropriate WP:BRD massive change with absolutely NO prior discussion whatsoever, followed by a consecutive series of further inappropriate and uninformed edits, and expect an editor attempting to expeditiously undo[27] the consecutive series of inappropriate edits to preserve the last edit (that removed 11 external links)[28] in the series of edits.

Newross (talk) 02:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Newross, for taking the time to write this up. I agree with your analysis. Tvoz/talk 05:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Overall I agree. However, this page isn't a good place to go over editor behavior. Could we close this down and take it elsewhere, if at all? - Wikidemon (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Article size

WP:Article size means this page is way too long and takes forever to load, now there already are split off pages, yet at least 2 section still go on for para's on end. A summation and a link to the main page is the point of a split so those 2 can be cut down to size somehow. ill leave it to the page monitors to decide, because this is "their baby" instead of fightingLihaas (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Readable prose is well within the proper limit. The physical size of the page is large because of the large body of references (a higher standard/frequency of sourcing prevents disputes on BLPs that can attract controversy). -- Scjessey (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Some trivial info

The paragraph about his smoking and some of the details on the teams he supports should be removed to the sub-articles as they're just trivia and don't belong in the main article. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done:' You should establish a WP:CONSENSUS before attempting to make any edits to the article. As for the teams he supports and the smoking - they are in sub-article paragraphs, not the main heading paragraph. -Dillon (talk)

Obama's Faith

I ran across this article and thought it might be an appropriate source identifying Christianity as Obama's declared faith. It also mentions that he draws from Eastern religions, Islam, and Judaism. I hesitate to plop it into the article right away, though, so I thought I'd bring it up here. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It is from an interview with a notable journalist (Cathleen Falsani) in a notable publication (Chicago Sun Times), so it should be OK as a source for the article.--JayJasper (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a very good interview, and outlines what many have suspected Obama's beliefs were, put into writing with his own words. No particular dogma or exact 'brand' of Christianity, just Christian. I'm sure people who are religious/spiritual but have college degrees can relate. As for using it as a reliable source, I have no problem with it. Dave Dial (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to the FAQ above, it would POV to not mention ANY muslim connection to his family roots. Granted he is christian, fair enough and it should be given greatest emphasis, but considering most of his [kenyan] family is Muslim that ought to be mention too.Lihaas (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone making edits or reverting edits regarding Obama's religion views/position please reference this talk page, its FAQ, and this section for discussion prior to further edits. Thanks --Topperfalkon (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with Lihas. Obama's beliefs are his own, and have no connection with other family member's belief. The article is about Obama. To bring in the fact that some of his family have different beiliefs would skew into POV. I mean, if for instance, in the same couple of sentences the article states "Obama is Christian" then next to that "But some family members are Wikipedian" seems to be an attempt to skew toward some sort of POV. Thanks. (This is the first time I have edited on the Obama aritcle.) ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 08:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Steve Quinn (Welcome, Steve!). The religious beliefs of Obama's relatives are of little consequence when compared with Obama's own stated position, just as his "mixed" race heritage is of little consequence compared with his personal identification as an African-American. Frankly, I'm uncomfortable with some of the calls to note Obama's tenuous connection with Islam, as if that's a bad thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The name's pronunciation

The one given in the article /bəˈrɑːk huːˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/ raises a question: Is this really THE way his name is pronounced in every-day speech. My impression is that the stress tends to be on the first syllable in his Christian name; and the first sound in the surname is usually reduced to the shwa (at least that seems to be the case in British English).Axxxion (talk) 18:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

As an Englishman living in the US, I can tell you that many British people mispronounce the name. Listen to this Oath of Office clip to hear how it should be pronounced (please forgive the Chief Justice making an arse of it). -- Scjessey (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

A question of Race

hatting of endless discussion about race
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hey all, Quick policy question. I'm a little curious about what justifies Obama's inclusion into all the "African American" categories he's in. I mean technically, he is of "mixed race". Can someone point out to me the policy that covers this kind of thing? I'm sure this issue has been discussed ad infinitum, I'm just curious because it relates to seperate debate I'm having. Many thanks, NickCT (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC) He is mixed race, but of course he is also African-American. No policy, just facts (WP:V, WP:RS). font color="black">Grsz11 19:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC) This seems as though it would be frought with POV issues though. I mean, if he was 1/4 African-American would WP still call him "African American"? How about 1/8th? 1/16th? Surely there has to be some policy guiding this..... I mean, I could find plenty RSs which point out that he's not purely African American, so I don't think (WP:V, WP:RS) are sufficient here. NickCT (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC) The term "African American" speaks more to cultural/historical roots than to one's literal racial makeup. It's just a word that has become the preferred descriptor over "blacks" which in turn replaced "negro". Nothing more. Tarc (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure how that clarifies things Tarc. Who's to say what someone's cultural/historical roots are? NickCT (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Please refer to the FAQ question#2 at the top of this page for an explanation of the issue and a rationale for how it was decided for this page. Race is a socially constructed concept (with some biological and historical roots, obviously, but our conception of race is a social one). We follow the credible reliable sources on this, and the vast majority describe Obama as African-American. Those that mention his mixed heritage do not seem to consider it a conflict, and there are some extensive articles about the issue of how he can be both at the same time. Who knows how we would describe an American of 1/4 African ancestry? We can cross that bridge when we come to it, and no doubt we have in other articles. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Well, I guess I'm just going to have to live with that response. Somehow though WP:V & WP:RS don't feel like sufficient standards for race. As Wikidemon notes, race is a somewhat subjective "constructed concept". I wonder whether race should be treated like religion and sexual oreintation as in WP:BLPCAT. NickCT (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Obama is the first Bi-racial President. To call him African American is technically incorrect. Is a white person born in Kenya that becomes an American citizen, an African American? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.87.83.241 (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC) "I mean, if he was 1/4 African-American would WP still call him "African American"? How about 1/8th? 1/16th?" ... Wikipedia doesn't make these determinations, we simply reflect what is said in reliable sources, so yes, WP:V and WP:RS have everything to do with it. Grsz11 21:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC) I've never heard anyone try to figure out what percentage "African" someone who looks African-American is, and then try to label them based on it. "Mixed race" is a concept that doesn't apply in the US. I've heard of it being used in South Africa or in Central America, since it refers to the mixing of Europeans and the native peoples, but the experience here is completely different. I'm betting that if you tried to say that anyone appearing to be African-American who had any white, Latino, Asian, native American or other non-African ancestors was "mixed race" and not "African-American", you'd slice the population so many ways, it would be meaningless. It's a silly idea to say he's not African-American, just as it would be silly to say I'm not Irish-American because only one of my great-grandparents is from Ireland. --Habap (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Indeed. Spanish America under the Bourbons had 64 different terms for racial backgrounds when Mestizo, mulatto, zambo and white just didn't cut it. Grsz11 21:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Bottom line: In most cities in the US he'd have trouble flagging down a taxi. PhGustaf (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC) @Habap - Re "It's a silly idea to say he's not African-American" - For the record, I'm not trying to suggest he's not African-American. I guess my question is, what justifies categorizing him as such? Is it just WP:RS, WP:V? Is it up to reliable sources to determine what a person's race is? I think claiming you're Irish American b/c of a great parent being Irish is pretty tenuous. How many generations do you have to go before you're not Irish any longer? Surely that's a purely subjective question. @Grsz - Re "so yes, WP:V and WP:RS have everything to do with it" - And if there is debate among RS? Or what about someone like Tiger Woods where it's sorta ambiguous? How do we categorize then? @PhGustaf - (polite chuckle) NickCT (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC) All this talk is silly to me. Obama himself identifies as African-American. Just look at the links. Do you have a problem with that? Do you think being of African descent is ugly? What's your game? I think this section shoud be closed like the others.B-Machine (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Yep. Tvoz/talk 15:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC) @B-Machine - I was just asking the question dude. No need to get confrontational. Saying "Do you think being of African descent is ugly", severely fails to WP:AGF. Interesting you would point out that Obama "self-identifies" as being African-American. Do you think that matters when we categorize him? NickCT (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Nick, my claim to being Irish-American is tenuous? I recommend you stay out of Irish pubs if you think that! For that matter, stay away from Italian-American parades, Greek festivals or any other ethnic celebration, where everyone with any portion of that ancestry will consider themselves a member. Heck, Obama's father was African. If my father was from Ireland, would you say I wasn't Irish-American because my mother wasn't? That's lunacy. Everyone I've encountered who suggests Obama is not African-American has an agenda and is making the comment to try to discredit him. It's just silly. What difference does it make whether he is or not anyway? You're wrong if think fewer African-Americans would vote for him if he was labelled "mixed race". I didn't and won't vote for him, so it's not that I'm an Obama partisan. --Habap (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Look Habap, I think we both agree that if your Dad is fresh off-the-boat from Ireland, it's probably OK to call yourself Irish-American. But what about if it's your dad's dad? Or your Dad's dad's dad? Or your dad's dad's dad's dad? My question is purely when do you stop being Irish, and who makes that decision and what WP:RS can we go to for answers? Re "Everyone I've encountered who suggests Obama is not African-American has an agenda" - Look, I'm personally pro-Obama. My question really had less to do with him than it had to do with race in general. Perhaps I posted to the wrong forum.... NickCT (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC) I have never met anyone who would deny someone an ethnicity based on how far back their ancestors came to the US. Well, except that Red Cross guy who said he wouldn't check off the 'hispanic' box because my Basque ancestors arrived here before the colonies revolted. It honestly sounds like an argument that would be started by an America Firster. I'm going to insist that I am an Irish-American, Basque-American, German-American, Dutch-American, and French-American, regardless of what anyone else says, and I think Obama has the right to think of himself as African-American as well. --Habap (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC) So if my great-great-great-great-Grandad happened to be from Africa, but I was as white as the driven snow, you'd still call me African American? Respectfully, I think that opinion would be in the minority. NickCT (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC) @y'all...let's dial it down a bit here. Yes, 99% of the time when this subject is brought up it is on bad terms, but this one appears to have been asked in good faith. Everyone return to your corners and play nice, pls. Tarc (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks Tarc. Perhaps I was expecting to much when I hoped this subject could be discussed in a detached/academic manner. NickCT (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC) My apologies if I offended you. --Habap (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC) That's ok. I just wanted to make it clear that I'm not approaching this w/ "an agenda". NickCT (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC) These discussions never really get anywhere, and I'll tell you why. The person asking the question is never convinced by the answers. So they are bringing a prejudice (in the abstract sense, at least) to the question, and the question is really intended (subconsciously if not consciously) more as a suggestion, or an innuendo, than a question. Any one of a dozen of us can answer why something is what it is. Why something isn't what it isn't, is, on the face of it, a loaded and counterintuitive question, akin to proving a negative. Your assertion that someone's parent has to be "fresh off the boat from M" in order for you to consider them M-American sounds more like an ideological statement by a person who has forefeited his own heritage — and has probably experienced little or no unique treatment for that heritage — than from one that is interested in understanding someone else's. It is not un-American to retain your culture and your family history; it's as old and WASPy as acknowledging that one's ancestors came over on the Mayflower or declaring onesself among the Sons and the Daughters of the American Revolution. When your culture and family history is something that is more present in your day-to-day life, be it in the way others perceive you or the way you're encouraged to pidgeonhole yourself and that heritage from all manner of official documents, it's that much more relevant. Put more bluntly, it's simply more relevant to who you are in America if you're some kind of non-white than if you're some kind of white. And that is why the president's blackness or African heritage is acknowledged more than his whiteness. That will cease to be when people cease to treat one another differently because of what box you're compelled to check on a form—or compelled to work to overcome, or compelled to hide, or compelled to make up for. And lastly, it's not the purpose of this page to arrive at greater personal understandings about broader cultural or social or scientific issues, even though it's not antithetical to the purpose of an encyclopedia in general to do so. Why, for example, would you raise a broader question of heritage that would, it seems, apply to anybody whose father isn't "straight off" some "boat", at a particular individual's page rather than at a page that deals more generally with race, ethnicity or heritage? Which is yet another reason why responsible editors here range from puzzled to perturbed to peeved at the semi-regular phenomenon of people arriving here to grapple with the concept. As someone else pointed out, it's not Barack Obama's dad's dad's dad's dad that we're talking about, it's Barack Obama, whose dad was born African, not African-American. So apart from the broader definition of African American that I recommend you read and digest, it really doesn't seem it's that much of a puzzler why the product of someone born an African and someone born an American would be termed by some who choose to observe that aspect of him an African American. Does it honestly still to you? Abrazame (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Thank you, Abrazame. These edits people make are nonsense. It's been discussed too much. It's time to put it to rest and close this section. By the way, this is not a place to discuss ethnic and cultural backgrounds. It's here to discuss the improvement of the article. Go somewhere else with that mess. B-Machine (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC) @Abrazame - I find your argument slightly "ad hominenish". I don't really understand why people are suspicious when I ask the simple question "How does Wikipedia determine the appropriate race to categorize someone by?". I was considering this more as a general question, and I thought I'd post to this talk page because Obama is the first person I could think of who's race was arguably ambiguous. I thought someone here would have grappled with the question, and would have had a simple policy to point to. Instead I seem to be getting angry "It's obvious" answers. Well this was an unsatisfying discussion. C'est la vie, I guess.... NickCT (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC) You were given policies answers, and you didn't like them. Besides, this isn't the place to have this discussion. Grsz11 22:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Commission report on oil spill

A commission report on the Obama Administration's handling of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill was released today.[29] Should it be mentioned in the article? Truthsort (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

This is meant to be a biography of Barack Obama's entire life, so I would argue that this report isn't notable enough within that context. There are a couple of daughter articles that would seem more appropriate places. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

There should probably be a short mention in this article under the oil spill section. A more detailed entry would be better entered on the main article of the oil spill and the Obama Presidency article. Although I would use references from the Washington Post and New York Times, with an additional link to the Commission's original report documents. Dave Dial (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for the external links section

Here is an article from the New York Times that might be worth to add: Education of a President. I'm posting it here before integrating it into the article to see if there is support/consensus for it here or maybe at the Presidency of Barack Obama article.TMCk (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, read it. Good article.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Since there is no objection I've added it to the external link section.TMCk (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

WHAT THE HELL?!

He was NOT born on 9/11, please change it! 94.11.158.183 (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, vandal cautioned, lather, rinse, repeat. PhGustaf (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Article Milestones

Why are the article milestones on the right? This doesn't make any sense.--Iankap99 (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

As opposed to what? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Usually milestones is within the whole talk page header arrangement in the center. Don't know how big a deal it is though.--NortyNort (Holla) 04:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for edit update: Unemployment peak noted as 10.1% is incorrect

The section in this article citing unemployment peaking at 10.1% is incorrect. It peaked at 10.2% -- see the multiple reliable news sources cited below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/business/economy/07jobs.html

http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/06/news/economy/jobs_october/

http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/06/unemployment-economy-recession-business-beltway-jobs.html

Whoever has control over editing of this article, please update it. Thank you. -- Transitioner (talk) 06:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The first unemployment figures that are reported for a given month are based on a statistical poll, a survey. That survey is not as accurate a snapshot as additional data comes in and develops a clearer picture over successive weeks and months. The number is corrected, or revised, two or three times as that data comes in. Sometimes the number of unemployed is revised up, sometimes down. The official number for unemployment data is never finalized until the third month after the close of the month in question. In fact, the unemployment figure for 10/09 was ultimately revised down by .1%, and our article accurately reflects this fact.

We invite editors to read the sources we provide for material in the article, as oftentimes they explain such details. Our source for the figure in question, The Wall Street Journal, does note the revision I mention, and as it is dated just over two months later than the three sources you link to, it is more accurate. Abrazame (talk) 07:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Rnagel, 21 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

I do not believe that it is accurate to call Obama a professor at U Of C Law School. He did not have that title/rank. He was a lecturer and later, senior lecturer, as stated in the subsequent sentence. He did not have a tenure track position. He did not have the rank or title of assistant professor, associate professor, or full professor, and therefore was not a "professor." Teacher, yes. Instructor, yes. He may have been an adjunct professor, but I do not believe he was so titled.

Rnagel (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see this thread. This topic has already been discussed in great detail.--JayJasper (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. -Atmoz (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Cultural Image

In order to maintain full objectivity, recent polls in public opinion should probably be inserted. They may be inconsequential, but a few notably negative polls seem to have been published as of late, and the current information on Mr. Obama's cultural image does not address this. I have nothing against the man, but as a full account of his presidency, the plunge in public opinion should be considered worth addressing. Thanks, HeroicXiphos15 (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Already covered in Presidency of Barack Obama. Tarc (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

When you have a sentence like: "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.", one wonders if that trend has continued. That was placed to make an encyclopedic point in the article but has become outdated. A year later, the drop continues. This is significant especially given the upcoming mid-term elections and general situation. I found one recent article that cites the mid-term trends (using Reagan and Clinton as well), something valuable to include in the article. Otherwise, an incomplete picture is presented within the article. I don't think polling should be profound in his bio but during certain points in his presidency, yes it should be there.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Just found this, Gallup made it convenient.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Huh? The drop continues? Obama's numbers have been pretty consistent in the mid 40's for much of the last year, with fluctuations up and down. So I would not say the 'drop continues', by any stretch. It's pretty much been stagnate. Though I would say if unemployment doesn't decrease significantly over the next year, the numbers will look very different. There are other articles for this type of speculation. Dave Dial (talk) 22:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, well excuse my strong wording. It has continued to hit new lows in the past year though. The point I was trying to make was keeping the article up to date. What I am agreeing with is an update to the sentence already in the article. His approval ratings at the juncture of his first midterm are still consistent/similar with those of Clinton 94' and Reagan 82'.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Not unlike the unemployment figure issue, this seems to be an objection without the remotest comprehension of the data. NortyNort writes "a year later, the drop continues," but the "drop" you refer to goes from 49% in December '09 to 48% last week in mid-October '10 in the very same poll you are citing to make your assertion. (At the moment, it's at 46%, but this is a fluctuation that's been happening for months. Even at 46% it's within their statistical margin of error from 49.) Fifteen points in the first 10 months followed by two in the next 10 months is not a continuation, it's an evening out, whether we were talking about up or down.

And yes, as your third link to Gallup shows, Obama's favorables are still above where Reagan and Clinton were at this point in their terms. So what the bio states is still accurate; only the date is outdated, not the data. Suggesting that trends in the past 10 months' time are a "continuation" of a drop or "notably negative", much less a "plunge" as HeroicXiphos15 asserts, is beyond erroneous. Not only do the numbers support an end to the drop, you could argue that the recent trend is actually upward from that all-time low of 43. (Although you don't.) Abrazame (talk) 02:12, 23 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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 [30] 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)

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

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)

Talk pages by size

Please see the new page Wikipedia:Database reports/Talk pages by size (to be updated weekly). This talk page ranks 16th, with 13583 kilobytes. Perhaps this will motivate greater efficiency in the use of kilobytes.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's really shocking that an article on someone who is possibly the most notable person on Earth at this moment would have a long talk page... And the delicious irony of wasting these precious kilobytes of yours spamming your results all over every page that showed up on the list is the icing on the cake. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Beeblebrox. Whole-heartedly. --Habap (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

YouTube source

What do other editors feel about this addition? Personally, I don't think it is a notable statement and I'm uncomfortable with seeing YouTube used as a reference. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that it is not a notable statement. Plus, the use of a Youtube video that is over one hour long with no time mark to point out the exact moment that Obama said that makes the statement even more suspect. Outside of that one video discussion, I'd have to see proof he said it more then a couple times and made it a major point of his candidacy to be considered a major political point of his. I'm going to remove it. If it is important enough to be included, then the original poster should post verifiable references that show Obama using that statement as a major political point during his candidacy. Brothejr (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

For completeness, the editor who added this information did note the time of the statement in the reference (32:37), though I must confess I did not trouble myself with viewing it. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Basketball injury

President Obama was injured and received 12 stitches during a basketball game today. Should something about this be added to the article, perhaps in the section which states he plays basketball? I can see pros and cons on adding the information. There is nothing in George W. Bush's page about the incident involving him choking on popcorn, but it could also be argued that GW was not permanently injured, while Obama is likely to have a scar. I have mixed feelings about the notability policy, but I am also a FIRM believer in honoring user consensus, so perhaps we should discuss it. AlaskaMike (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

With so much information available about the subject, it is fortunate that we try to write biographies with an historical perspective. The basketball injury is notable today, but by next week it'll probably forgotten (unless he ends up with scars like Captain Mifune after the Sentinels attacked him in The Matrix Revolutions). -- Scjessey (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Every aspect of a President's health is notable---whether he smokes or has quit smokjing, whether he has been under local or general anesthesia while in office (the latter triggered a XXV Amendment declaration during Bush's colonoscopy in 2002, post 9/11), etc. I apologize for seeing this discussion after I made a small edit in the article, and will abide with whatever consensus is reached. Pr4ever (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey is correct, but I did not bother reverting the recent addition of the information to the article. Let's remove it in a day or two because there is no point arguing over such trivia. Johnuniq (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

KEEP-As a frequent Wikipedia user, rather than contributor, I would err on the side of including more information rather than less. I would keep the information regarding the injury. 76.76.193.94 (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

That is unwise. An enormous amount of information that is of far more value than this has already been excluded and/or moved into the various related articles because of space constraints. This has only transient notability at best. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

While I don't object to your removal of the edit I made before a consensus was made, and accept your non-notability reason, which was sufficient cause for your removal of my edit, why do you have to unnecessarily and insensitively add the "foreign" language source issue. If it's non-notable, nothing else matters and is redundant. Moreover, the appropriate constructive response to any "foreign" language source is to replace it with a non-"foreign" language source, when available. Second, do not forget that for over 51 million of your fellow Americans, Spanish is not "foreign" and for tens of millions more it is a second language (and by the way, I'm not a 'Sapanish-only', Hispanic but 'English-plus'). The first news item regarding the basketball incident happened to be an El Nuevo Día news alert, and that 's the one I used to source my edit at the time. Pr4ever (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

This not the "American" Wikipedia. This is the English language Wikipedia. Foreign language sources are not appropriate. Oh, and I'm not an American. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

But you do agree that noting non-notability or, as you stated, "transient notability" would suffice to justify your action? Pr4ever (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, the injury led the CBS Evening News newscast tonight, proof that its notability is strong, though transient. Pr4ever (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

This is why we have principles like WP:NOTNEWS established, so every scrap or drivel from the 24/7 media doesn't dribble down into Wikipedia articles. Tarc (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Tarc and SCJ; it's just a routine sports boo-boo that's not going to affect his life or his Presidency in any way. And, this is the English Wikipedia; readers expect references they can understand. PhGustaf (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify one thing language sources are permitted per WP:NONENG though English sources are preferred. Obviously since there are English sources covering this there is no need for the foreign source in this case though they are permitted in some cases. That said the info is not needed here since nothing major happened (ie the injury was serious and Biden became acting president etc).--76.66.180.54 (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The injury is a minor event. The fair thing to do would be for the original poster to point out an equally minor event. If there is none, this injury doesn't belong. If the injury is more significant than a minor thing here, it should be included. MVOO (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Your feedback Category?

Um, when did this article get selected for a feedback survey? Plus, as a high trafficked article that's both on probation, is it appropriate for a feedback survey. (As in: a feature that can be gamed rather easily by those looking to radically shift the page into an attack page and have a tenancy to create sock puppets to push their POV's.) Brothejr (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama Hits TV

I recently saw a funny episode of The Simpsons where Homer tries to vote for Barack Obama. Wow! Just two years into his term and already TV features him!Aruda556 (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

That episode is from 2008 just before the election. Arzel (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, lets not forget that Obama appeared on MythBusters while busting the archimedes death ray myth. JJ98 (Talk) 09:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Article probation, you're damn right

This article is placed on article probation, it says on top. This is entirely justified because the article is not very well written. What's worse than probation -- fine, censure, or dismissal -- but I don't think the article is that bad that we should fire it, like we fire people from their job.

The big problem looks like it has been written by a committee.

Look at some trivia in it.... On September 30, 2009, the Obama administration proposed new regulations on power plants, factories and oil refineries in an attempt to limit greenhouse gas emissions and to curb global warming.[128][129]

On October 8, 2009, Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, a measure that expands the 1969 United States federal hate-crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.[130][131][132]

On March 30, 2010, Obama signed the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, a reconciliation bill which ends the process of the federal government giving subsidies to private banks to give out federally insured loans, increases the Pell Grant scholarship award, and makes changes to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.[133][134][135][136]

Yet big things are not covered well, like the 2010 election.

There needs to be a more comprehensive way of considering and writing this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Username 823878701234 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Hate Crimes Prevention Act and "Obamacare" are... er... trivia? Ooookaaaay then. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, that's not what article probation is, IP. It's a measure used when edit wars and disruptive editing in general makes the article unstable or difficult to work with. Thanks for your vague criticisms though. Grunge6910 (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"The big problem looks like it has been written by a committee." Duh. The actual word is community. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"Article Probation" is a confusing term. It actually puts the editors, rather than the article, on probation.

As far as the 2010 election goes, Obama didn't run for anything in it. PhGustaf (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Care to change the confusing term. See I am right. If you think the criticism is too vague and not written by committee, then explain why the healthcare thing has a section and then also is in the diary list (shown above). Just cut it out of the diary list.

The hate crimes is a very minor thing, not related to Obama. Ask 100 people the accomplishments of Obama and nobody will mention the hate crime law. Many people will mention the election. There are many articles that some say he was too liberal and turned off voters but a few (not many) saying that he was not liberal enough so the liberals did not vote for Democrats. Anyway, this is a major shift, even Obama said he was shallacked. I'm sure we can come up with a factual way of stating the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Username 823878701234 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware Obama was running for election in 2010? I must have been sleeping or something. I do not see anything productive being suggested by the IP editor. This seems more along the other arguments of "I don't like this guy and I think the article should represent that view point" type of argument. Before we can discuss anything, we would need to see a whole lot of very reliable sources that are not blogs or opinion pieces that state conclusively that Obama has had no accomplishments of his presidency and also that he was directly running during the 2010 election for this discussion to continue on. Otherwise, this discussion is moot. Brothejr (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

That is a personal attack. I am accused of "don't like this guy". I like President Obama. Brotherjr is biased because he states "Obama has had no accomplishments of his presidency". That is clearly a false statement.

What I am saying is that this article should be on probation (not the users but the article itself) since it is not well written, just a huge collection of disjointed stuff. The hate crimes sentence is an example of an obscure thing about Obama. Obama didn't even campaign on the issue, it's just one of hundreds of bills that he signed. In contrast, there is no coverage of the election, which Obama admitted responsibility for losing. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/vote-2010-elections-president-obama-takes-responsibility-democrats/story?id=12046360 President Obama today said he would take "direct responsibility" for his party's devastating losses in Tuesday's midterm elections.

One neutral way to say it is that: In the election of 2010, the Democratic Party lost control of the House of Representatives. ABC News reports that "President Obama ... said he would take "direct responsibility" for his party's devastating losses in Tuesday's midterm elections." This same thing happened to Reagan, he lost the House. Username 823878701234 (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

This featured article is extremely well written, and is the result of the combined endeavor of dozens (and perhaps hundreds) of Wikipedians over a period of several years. Please do not denigrate their work with such derogatory remarks. The same applies to the numerous related articles that explore various aspects of Obama's life and career in greater detail. The Hate Crimes bill (I see you conveniently dropped your objection to mentioning "Obamacare") was a key piece of legislation pushed through by Obama. This is a biography written from an historical perspective. It is hard to predict what significant biographical impact the recent election will have on the subject, so the issue will doubtless be tackled in this article when sources become available that shift from speculation to concrete facts and editorial insight. In the meantime, please feel free to suggest helpful additions and changes to the article, but refrain from disrespecting those who have worked on it before you. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Article probation is an unusual rarely-used tool to deal with articles that are undergoing conflict among editors that has been impossible to resolve through Wikipedia's more common dispute mechanisms. It is not designed to be a tool for improving articles. Most article improvement comes through individual editors or little groups that spontaneously decide to work together to work on one thing or another. There are a few tools for wider efforts, such as the task forces and project groups, and teams that get together to bring articles up to featured status. It's quite possible that the quality of the article has declined since it got featured status, not because the article itself slipped backwards, but because it has not covered events since the election with the same care, completeness, and currency as it did back then when lots of people were working to bring it to featured status. That might be why some of the sections seem disjoint and choppy, because some things are missing. It's a full house as it is, so expanding one section means we'll have to condense another section or bud it off into a standalone article. Big changes like that are pretty difficult because the sheer number of people working on this article creates a sort of gridlock. Hope that helps. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Whoever doesn't want to include the 2010 election has lost all credibility to being objective. This was a major event that is not disputed by any news reports. Of course, there can be debate on how to word it but keeping it off is laughable. On the other hand, the hate crime bill is fairly minor, more important than Obama's lip injury but far, far less important than the election. MVOO (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

fixed

I fixed a major oversight by including information on the 2010 midterm election. It is very important since Obama took responsibility for the election. So you can't say that Obama was not running. It is clearly a big event of the man. The added part was written with emphasis on Obama, not the country. I didn't include commentary by journalist that this is a redefining moment for Obama just as 1994 was for Clinton to be on the safe side.

Here's what I put.

On November 2, 2010, the midterm elections took place where the Democratic Party lost control of the House of Representatives losing the most seats of any election since 1938. Obama called the election "humbling" and a "shellacking" and took responsibility that not enough American felt the economic recovery. Within a month of the election, Obama announced a deal with Republicans involving tax rates and unemployment benefits, despite opposition from many Democrats in Congress but with the support of Bill Clinton.

MVOO (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed. There is already a mentio of this at the more appropriate Presidency of Barack Obama#2010 Midterm elections. Tarc (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to have a short section (and have edited the proposed section, which was re-inserted). In the spirit of an overview of the presidency, the midterm election and change in political climate is probably worth a sentence, as are his ongoing efforts. It's too soon to see how important it is, but a neutrally worded narrative is fine if we are going to include a condensed account of the presidency. Of course the presidency article would explore this in more depth. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You can put anything you want in the Presidency of Barack article. The above text concentrates on Obama's comments of the election. To not have any mention is a travesty by Wikipedia. Note that I did not say what the voters' opinions are as that is not good for this article. But to have no mention is bad.

Look at the article. It says "Obama is a well known supporter of the Chicago White Sox, and threw out the first pitch at the 2005 ALCS when he was still a Senator [252]". To have a trivia fact about baseball but not about the midterm elections and Obama's shellacking comment is beyond bad editorial judgement. MVOO (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Two write sox dont make wong sauce. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

By which I mean, please don't take this all so seriously. You're probably right, but nothing is a travesty, it's just Wikipedia! - Wikidemon (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Missing: Reaching out

I couldn't find any mention of Obama's reaching out to the Muslim world (Cairo speech) or reaching out to other countries. This is more important that his lip injury or the hate crimes bill. It should be added. It would only take 2 sentences. This is a major accomplishment and/or attribute of Obama. MVOO (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if you gave a little less lip and a little more eyeball, you'd find it. Abrazame (talk) 04:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that the issue here should be: Does this article at least try to maintain Wikipedia's NPOV policy? The answer seems to be (albeit imperfectly) yes. One can't expect that in the light of ongoing controversies, for everything to be perfect, especially with lots of people trying to do their thing. Certainly the present article is very far from Conservapedia's claim of it as "fawning". I guess Conservapedia thinks that anything short of its own patently (and thus inappropriate) hatchet job is inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alloco1 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Sorry for not signing. Alloco1 (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's the issue here. Seems to me that the "issue" is someone came along, suggested that we didn't have Obama's reaching out to Muslim countries in the article (it's right in the foreign policy section) and then accused the article editors of giving unimportant things like his lip injury or the hate crimes legislation undue weight over the foreign policy accomplishment. In both cases this is false, the lip injury isn't even present in the article at all, and the hate crimes legislation has one sentence compared to an entire paragraph on Obama's foreign policy to the Muslim world. So basically, it's just a case of someone coming along and apparently not reading the article, and making accusations despite having not read it. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That someone is NOT me because I made NO accusations. Read carefully...it says at the very beginning of the sentence "I couldn't find...." MVOO (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hope and change not mentioned in the 2008 campaign

This is a huge omission. I added it. BAMP (talk) 06:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

How about the fact that he was BUILT to be the president of transition, for us to compare him to bush (bush acted idiotic and moronic, yes he acted stupid, more than what he really is) and see in barack (barry) a great leader. next? a big FU to the US. buttering us all up, but for what you ask? all I can say is 1 flag, 1 currency, 1 gov... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.220.95.210 (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

BAMP, main campaign points may be relevant, but I'd want to see more RS sourcing on what Obama's specific choice of language was, rather than the catchall phrase that became popularized by the media for it. Anon editor, virtually every presidential candidate tries to set themselves up as better than the last guy if the last guy is from the opposing party. Obama is no different in this, Bush did the same to Clinton in the campaign, Clinton to Bush Sr., Reagan to Carter, etc. That is not unique or notable. As for "1 flag, 1 currency, 1 government," why are you saying that at all? Were you expecting there to now be more than one, and are disappointed? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 12:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the IP is trying to be cute, implying that Obama is leading us to a world government. Typical Fear, uncertainty and doubt tactics. As to Hope and Change, I'm guessing there have to be some books on the campaign that might discuss it. I am surprised that Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 doesn't use any as references. --Habap (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I think some of BAMP's edits were good choices quite helpful in concentrating the section. However, some of the material BAMP removed was the result of much-discussed consensus among numerous editors and which benefits the article as well. In at least one instance, rather than restoring the original version, I recognized the legitimacy of BAMP's wish to whittle that part down, and made a different, even briefer version; in at least one other, I restored a somewhat condensed version of what had appeared before, in the spirit of BAMP's reductive intent. (Although, having said that, briefer is not inherently better.)

I'm agnostic on the addition of the Bayh/Kaine data. Speculation is generally not notable, and I'm not sure how that improves the article, but perhaps others will feel it does; I did not remove that, but nor would I argue for its retention at a future date. Abrazame (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The relevance of the Denver stadium should be mentioned (the speech is otherwise always given in the convention center), otherwise the readers won't easily see the reason.

Other possible things to add, if you want to add, are things that happened in the campaign. What happened 2 years ago? Don't remember. I do remember the Ayers controversy, the debates about Afghanistan strategy versus tactic (silly debate, I think), Joe the Plumber and Obama arguing, the wackos that wanted to kill Obama in Denver, and Obama suspending his campaign and racing to Hawaii to see his grandmother. I don't think it's vital to have anything mentioned in this paragraph. BAMP (talk) 04:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Too much real estate given to religion

A whole lot of real estate is given at the bottom of the article about Obama's religion, more so than his term as State Senator. This is undue weight. The Wikipedia article doesn't have to be a tool to convince people that he is Christian. Yet, it gives a big box with an Obama quote. Obama has given more famous speeches. Highlighting this quote is too much.

Maybe a sub-article about Obama's religion, then you can put a whole lot of info.

Why not someone else suggest what to trim in the religion section? BAMP (talk) 05:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Political positions sections is truly terrible

IMO this section needs to be completely re-done in order to reflect Obama's actual policy positions as opposed to something he might have said in a speech. For Example: On healthcare it claims that he supports universal healthcare, but that simply is not true. He might have said those words in a political speech but that is not his policy position. On Iran it says he favors talks to deter them from their nuclear program. But again, that's not his policy. His policy is sanctions. This section needs a complete re-write 24.207.226.250 (talk) 08:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the prognosis, but I'm not sure about the cure. You're right that the "political positions" section is a mix of his campaign promises and speeches, party platform, legislation proposed, and actions taken. But I don't think policy and positions are the same thing. Policy would be what he actually does, whereas positions would be what he personally believes or announces he believes - yet two more takes. As a matter of emphasis, during election cycles and before a politician comes to office, their campaign promises and election platform are particularly important - but soon become irrelevant and obsolete. Once they're in office for a while, what they actually do (something we treat in another article, Presidency of Barack Obama) is a lot more pertinent than what they said before. I don't know what the answer is, but it would help to be consistent, and also to update it since most of it was written before the election. Any ideas? - Wikidemon (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. I would remove the section entirely. It doesn't do anything. Since he is now a historical figure, not a candidate, there's little need for it. In fact, every Wikipedia article with a "Political positions" section is awkward. Those sections mostly repeat material from the campaign/presidency section, while mixing in other groups' opinions. Here are my recommendations:

1) Remove any specific policy proposals ("raising taxes on income over $250,000, on capital gains, and on dividends"). If he did them, they should go the appopriate section of his presidency; if he didn't do them, they're either irrelevant or should be summarized under the campaign section.

2) Move policy group ratings (American Conservative Union, etc.) to "Cultural and political image". Preferably summarize them, rather than including specific numbers from different years.

3) The "Presidency" section should start with a brief lead giving an overview of his presidency and his political strategy. I'm not sure what this would look like, but it could touch on the FDR material mentioned in the "Political positions" section, as well as the ensuing capitulation to conservatives, etc.

—Designate (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The political positions section is bad. It should either go (preferred) or made accurate. It is very hard to track his positions in 2008 and 2011. Do we include only the current positions and give him (and other politicians) free advertising? Or include a summary of all his positions. Some positions change. For example, the senior President Bush was against tax increases (read my lips, no new taxes) but changed his position. Obama was against requiring everyone buy health insurance (in contrast to Hillary) but he changed his policy and was very much in favor of it in 2009. In short, it is a very hard section to write well and there's ample justification to get rid of the entire thing. My vote: get rid of it. MVOO (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I (very belatedly) removed the inapprorpriate "Political positions" section from the article.

• Other U.S. Presidents' biography articles do not have "Political positions" sections.
• As has been discussed many times ([31][32][33][34][35][36]) in the talk page archives, the stale, extraneous "Political positions" section with a haphazard and arbitrary assortment of political positions—exclusively taken from the four-year period when Obama was a U.S. Senator—did not belong in this article, and should have been removed when a "Presidency" section—consuming 40% of the article—was added which covers Obama presidential administration political policies. Newross (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That is much better. —Designate (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

PERMANENT DECREE If there is no political positions section, then there should not be one inserted in 2012 when Obama is running for re-election. Otherwise, Wikipedia is just an advertising media for the candidate.

So let us decide once and for all, keep the political positions or delete. If we keep it, then we need to keep a summary of his political positions over time, not just the upcoming election. If we delete it, we delete the positions section. I lean toward delete. MVOO (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:08

Redirect up for deletion. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 23#WP:08. For related deletion please also see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 22#WP:12. Simply south (talk) and their tree 12:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

automated reverts are not allowed

Decree:

This article is on article probation, which means we must be careful when editing.

Recently, Piast93 was doing rapid semi-automated reversions, doing more than 50 in 20 minutes. That cannot be done without careful consideration, something that is required of this article.

Therefore, 3RR do not apply when fixing rapid, mindless semi-automated reversions.

Please, carefully consider edits and do not use semi-automated rapid reversion (except in cases of clear vandalism, such as calling Obama names).MVOO (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

A) You have no authority to make unanimous decrees dismissing Wikipedia policies with not even an attempt at community discussion or consensus. The very idea is a gross violation of Wikipedia's philosophies.

B) Contrary to your accusation, Piast93 made only a SINGLE edit to this article, not 50 reversions in 20 minutes.

C) Piast93 was correct to revert you, as your justifications in the edit summary were entirely spurious. The Obama quotation is in the article as source material justifying the statements regarding his religious position, which like it or not is a contentious issue in this country and therefore notable enough for strong mention in this article. Your summary removing the quotation did not address any of these issues, instead treating it like we'd only had the quotation as a "famous thing he said," saying we should have things more like JFK's speech "Ask not what your country can do for you" speech. Again, the quotation was not included because of being famous. I will now be reverting you as well.

D) 3RR has absolutely nothing to do with this issue, and should you decide to violate it in support of your unilateral decree, I will seek administrative action to restrict your editing of this article. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Editing this article requires careful thought. Piast93 was editing over 50 revisions in 20 minutes (50 different article). Nobody is that smart to carefully consider it.

If you look at the Wikipedia rules, self promotion is not allowed. Using his quote is like trying to use a self reference. We need reliable sources to mention his religion.

You have just admitted that the reason for the quote is a self published source. Therefore, it can go immediately. Thank you.

I can and everyone should decree that sloppy and rapid fire editing is bad. Anyone who says it is good needs to re-think things. Anyone can and should decree things that are obvious (people speedily delete and people should decree that the earth is round....no endless discussion needed for that...all I said was rapid fire 50 edits to 50 articles is too fast, especially for this kind of article)

MVOO (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Obama's religion is NOT a contentious issue. It is just that 15% of Americans are ignorant, that's all. They see his middle name and assume. That's like assuming all people with the name Bush are Americans. No, some are British and some are Australian and some are African, etc. Everyone knows that Obama is either Christian or spiritual but not religious. MVOO (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

MVOO: posting a message on the talk page and assuming that represents WP:CONSENSUS is not how Wikipedia works. I've placed a warning on your talk page regarding edit-warring. Please heed it.  Frank  |  talk  20:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

No one can issue 'decrees' not even admins. SPS are acceptable in the context of information about the subject of both he SPS and the wiki article. If you believe this needs changing I suggest to take it to the appropriate notice boards. But what you may not do is to unilaterally decide top change them and expect everyone to agreee. Also the number of edits made to seperate pages is irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Number of edits made to separate pages is very relevant. It shows that little time was made to ponder the results. If someone is making 100 edits over the space of 30-40 minutes, they cannot be taking the time to ponder...just mathematically not possible.

• Hey, slow down! Has anyone thought to simply ask Piast93 what they were up to? MVOO's first edit removed / consolidated an entire paragraph, so it probably appeared somewhere on an automated list of content deletion edits. The simplest explanation based on Piast93's edit history is that Piat93 was working on vandalism patrol, reverting a whole bunch of edits all over the encyclopedia that had deleted content. They were going too fast to read things in detail, and mistook MVOO's edit for vandalsim. That's a little sloppy but no real harm. MVOO was reasonable to restore the edit based on it being an invalid revert done for no clear content reasons. But once this is done, any other editor is free in good faith to remove or change based on the consensus / WP:BRD process. No need to make a big deal of it, this is just a routine byproduct of vandalism patrol. Incidentally, Piat93's editing pattern strongly suggests that it is an alternate account of someone else, but that's a different matter. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Obama's religion

Consensus and moderation, not POV consensus: In Taliban controlled areas, the consensus is that America is evil and 9/11 is ok but that is not moderation. There can be both The preceding section heading was causing some readability problems due to length

To have a large quote box is simply undue weight. It is POV pushing trying to yell "I AM A CHRISTIAN". Simply say it. That is the moderate view, but not the extremist view. The two extremists views are that he is a Muslim OR to yell and have undue weight to prove that he is a Christian. The moderate view is to simply state it.

Concensus is important but moderation is also important. In some parts of Yemen, there is strong concensus that America is evil and it was a happy occasion on 9-11 that the WTC was destroyed. That shows that concensus, while important, is not the entire Wikipedia picture. So is NPOV and moderation. By mentioning he is a Christian, but not POV yelling, this achieves both moderation and the consensus message. MVOO (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

If only this were <some other> Wikipedia, that might be relevant. However, WP:CONSENSUS is defined right here in this community, not by any outside, external body or group of people. Consensus is about as close to the "entire Wikipedia picture" as you can get.  Frank  |  talk  22:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

That is not quite true. If there were suddenly a dozen editors supporting a really bad decision or a false statement, that consensus would not be moderation, but POV extremism and Wikipedia is NPOV.

The basic point is that nobody has thus far been able to explain why we need undue weight and a quotation box except to say that it is contentious and we have to show that he is a Christian. That is improper. That is proof that my idea is the mainstream, moderate edit. MVOO (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You are the only person that thinks that including a quote of him saying he is a Christian is a problem. You've misapplied the sourcing guidelines, and that there'd be nothing wrong with him being a Muslim. The first and foremost source as for whether or not he is a Christian is what he says he is. He says he is a Christian, that is why we're allowed to list him as a Christian. If we went with outside sources instead of what he says on this matter, that opens the door to people that incorrectly think he is a Muslim. Yes, there's nothing wrong with being a Muslim, but downplaying something that he says is important to his life really only plays into the hands of those that believe he is one. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a biography. Many people are interested in Obama's religious views. Hence the details. It's all good. Consensus is established by the editors who follow an article, occasionally with views from the wider community. Consensus is solidly in favor of the current text. Johnuniq (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have said it quite that way, but I do think that the quote box adds too much emphasis, and seems to be arguing a case rather than just covering the facts. I'm fine with it either in or out... - Wikidemon (talk) 00:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

In many articles, the extensive quote would be unusual. However, media observations (and this talk page) provides evidence that there is wide interest in Obama's religious views. The problem with a label indicating a person's religion is that a simple statement like "X is a Christian" is regarded as true simply on the basis that X occasionally goes to an appropriate church, while X may in fact have no faith and attends church for social reasons. Hence the quote detailing Obama's views is helpful in this biography. Johnuniq (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I would agree Obama, unlike many politicians, has had his religion questioned. Therefore his own views on what (he claims) to beleive are relevant, but then so would the accusations he is not a christian. Personaly I think it should not matter but it does.Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm ok with bringing in the accusations that he's a Muslim, as long as other sources are brought in showing that such claims were made up as right-wing propaganda with little to no basis in reality (such as Fox News reporting the contents of a rumor-mongering email as fact without doing any fact checking). [WP:GEVAL|Wikipedia does not give equal weight to untrue claims just because they have plenty of sources too]]. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that we should point oout they were made up by the right. What we shouod do is report what is said (and counter statements) with out comment. Thus we could say "according to Bert Hitler (rep) Obama is a baby eater, but USBC has state4d this is not true". But we could not say "Bert Hitler (lyer and self confesed chicken strangler) has said that Obama is a baby eater but USBC has proven this to be unture". let the reader decide whats proven and whats notSlatersteven (talk) 14:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The biographical importance (if any) of these claims is that it was a political attack, smear campaign, and possibly related to some lingering bigotry that the accusers were exploiting or fell victim to. It's not that some random assorted people had a false belief. A few percent of the population probably believe that he's atheist, or born in Indiana, or son of a movie star. It's only when it fits into his life story that it becomes relevant. Here the story is that his foreignness, funny name, and otherwise non-mainstream American background allowed these rumors to fly, and those rumors were actively promoted by some political operatives who opposed him. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

So we shouldn't write the sun and earth article from heliocentrist, round-earth perspectives? Should we give equal weight to the geocentrist and flat-earth perspectives, and let the reader decide which is true? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I would argue the differeance is that this was a fairley major controversy, a bit silly season but still very major. After all one reason for thie section on his religion was this controverssey (and inn that repect his comments are undue without the context of why he felt he had to make them). Nor am I saying we give it equal weight, we just mention the controversey.Slatersteven (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Wikidemon in that the huge quote box needs to go. It is too much advertising and trying to convince the reader. If someone wants to put it as a reference or even a footnote, fine with me. But the box in the article is way too much. It would be like Bush W drinking too much. If mentioned in that article, ok. But to have a box with Bush's quote of having stopped drinking and all that would be way too much, like trying to prove to people that he's no alcoholic.

The Obama quote box needs to go. If there's a separate Obama's religion article, then it might be ok but not in this article. MVOO (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I've toned down that quotation by removing the quote box and placing it within the section, rather than at the top. I lean towards leaving the quotation in the article, as no doubt it is of interest to many. However, if others prefer it as a note, I'm fine with that too. Sunray (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The contents of the box is still there and it is indented. So the only thing in the current version is there is no border to the box. This is soapboxing. One problem is that some people may be trying to use the Wikipedia article to convince people that he is most definitely, no question, 1000% completely Christian. This sentence is soapboxing, too. The non-soapboxing version is "he is a Christian". As such, the quote is reduced and you can see that the text is better. MVOO (talk) 21:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Starfish Prime EMP

I wonder whether Obama was on Oahu when Starfish Prime lit up the skies on July 9, 1962. As he was a baby at the time, I doubt that it made any impression on him one way or the other, but it may have gotten his parents to notice. 198.151.130.69 (talk) 05:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a notable event in any of their biographies. PhGustaf (talk) 07:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

What is important according to newspaper - Wikipedia article may need editorial help.

I saw an article in the paper today about the accomplishments of Obama as President. That article seems objective. The things listed is different from this Wikipedia article. We should look towards reliable sources to decide what to include. It is definitely wrong to cherry pick either really good things or really bad things then justify it by saying there is a source to the fact. MVOO (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

What paper? —Designate (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

What article, for that matter? It's really hard to try and look like an article we can't even see. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with his point, by the way. —Designate (talk) 03:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's a question this: what happens if even the News papers/organizations don't agree. For instance, Huffington Post would lists lots of accomplishments while Fox News wouldn't list a thing? I think you would need more then one source, more like three to four, to agree on a list of things before we could change what's in this article. Plus, before we agree on anything, we would have to see the exact same article you read. Brothejr (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

timeline plea

how about either a timeline, or more consistency and detail in times in the present article, perhpas i the form {harvard law school, xxx to xxx}75.67.134.245 (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no need. Details of this nature are given in sub-articles, where appropriate. See the various navigation tools already in the article for more information. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity

This page states that Barack Obama is the first African American to hold the office of President of the United States. However, President Obama is in fact mutiethnic(involving or pertaining to two or more distinct ethnic groups), or multiracial(of, pertaining to, or representing more than one race), not African American. Allthough President Obama publicly identifies as "Black," he has never hidden or denied his Caucasian ancestry, and as a multiethnic person I take personal offence to the statment that our president is African American. Wikipedia, please correct this and inform me of the correction. You may contact me via Email, [redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylerortiz (talk • contribs) 00:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

See the FAQ posted above, specifically question 2. Obama describes himself as "African American", so we use that description. We also have plenty of detailed material about his ancestry from both parents. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Redacted email address; any responses will be on this page. PhGustaf (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd also point out that just as Obama does not deny the fact of his Caucasian ancestry, neither do we. It's in this article already. So we're handling it the same way he does. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Not only is he not truly African American (and by the way, Obama's own personal views do not create a new reality, he is multi-racial... THIS is the fact), and he's not even close to being the first such as President of the United States. Check out the families of these former US Presidents: Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge. They ALL are multi-racial.

Quoting research by historian Leroy Vaughn, author of Black People and Their Place in World History: http://www.diversityinc.com/content/1757/article/1461/

Thomas Jefferson was described as the "son of a half-breed Indian squaw and a Virginia mulatto father".

Andrew Jackson was the son of an Irish woman who married a black man. (Jackson's oldest brother had been sold as a slave).

Abraham Lincoln was said to have been the illegitimate son of an African man, according to Leroy's findings. Lincoln had very dark skin and coarse hair and his mother allegedly came from an Ethiopian tribe. His heritage fueled so much controversy that Lincoln was nicknamed "Abraham Africanus the First" by his opponents.

Warren Harding apparently never denied his ancestry. According to Vaughn, William Chancellor, a professor of economics and politics at Wooster College in Ohio, wrote a book on the Harding family genealogy. Evidently, Harding had black ancestors between both sets of parents. Chancellor also said that Harding attended Iberia College, a school founded to educate fugitive slaves.

Calvin Coolidge was supposedly was proud of his heritage. He claimed his mother was dark because of mixed Indian ancestry. Coolidge's mother's maiden name was "Moor" and in Europe the name "Moor" was given to all blacks just as "Negro" was used in America. It later was concluded that Coolidge was part black. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.87.110.254 (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually our rules call for use to report what is stared by reliable sources and the vast majority state that he is Africian American so that is what we report. I am also not sure about the claim for other people the book has an article and there are sources supporting that Vaughnn did not support any substantive documentation for his claims. I don't think we can use that.--76.66.180.54 (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, see FAQ #2, above. If you would like to explore in greater detail why it is reasonable to call a multiracial person African-American (they are not contradictory), and why we in fact do so here, please use the "archive search" feature on this page to read some of the many voluminous discussions we've had here on the topic. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Request

I have useful information on Barack Obama and would like to edit this page. Please respond to my request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadpole16x (talk • contribs) 22:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

What request? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Early life

The sentence, "His mother was... of mostly English, some German, and Irish descent", is unclear. I can't tell if that's to mean "mostly English, with some German and Irish", or "mostly English, some German, and a small amount of Irish". "Irish" should include a qualifier, revelant to "most" and "some". Also, the sentence, "His great-great grandfather hailed from...", while linguisticlly correct, seems less than optimal. "Hail from" is not used frequently in modern American English. I think "was born in" would be a better choice. Finally, it states that he was born at "Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital (now the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children)". The Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children's website states that it was it was known as "the Kapi'olani Maternity Home" until 1978, when it merged with the Kauikeolani Children's Hospital, and took its present name. I am unable to find any mention of it being called "the Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital". My apologies if any of this seems pedantic. I just want the article to be the best it can be. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Following up here, the references given for his mother's heritage state that she had a great-great grandfather who was Irish, and a great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather who was German. This makes her 1/16th Irish, and 1/256th German. A change to: "Of mostly English descent, her family also traces to Ireland and Germany", would be more in line with what the references state. Is there any objection to this?

Is there any objection to using "was born in", as opposed to the more archaic "hailed from"?

Concerning the name of the hospital at the time of his birth, the reference used is an article from the Honolulu Adviser, in which the writer refers to it as the Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital. The hospital's website states that it was called the Kapi'olani Maternity Home. I think that the hospital's own website would be the most reliable source in this situation. However, I have read WP:SELF, and I'm unsure how that would apply here. I'm still hesitant to make changes to this article, and would appreciate any feedback. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with your changes. Be bold and give it a shot. The worst that will happen is that someone will revert you and then will dicuss the changes here.LedRush (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I undid the hospital name change. Although their site says it was called Kapi'olani Maternity Home in 1890 when it was founded, there is no affirmation that the name remained constant until the 1978 merger. OTOH, we have the local newspaper, a reliable source, referring to it as Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital. While not necessarily reliable sources in themselves, more nearly contemporaneous sources (such as [37] and [38]) would also seem to support the KM&GA designation. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the explanation. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Main image

I was wondering, are there any other official Presidential portraits of Obama (photograph or painting) that are usable for the first image on the article? I'm just curious about this, seeing as how it is about 2 years old now, though I doubt their are any other official portraits at the time being. - BlagoCorzine2016 (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Nobel Prize Winner

Something should be mentioned as to the Nobel Peace Prize Obama received being very controversial. Example: In October 2009, a controversial Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Obama.

See 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.--JayJasper (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I checked, and no, it appears that the Norwegian Nobel Institute did not award him a "controversial Nobel Peace Prize," they just awarded him a normal one. In all seriousness, I don't know if there is a sub article about him winning the thing, but that's the only place I could see mentioning that. The relatively minimial and short lived stir over him winning the Nobel Peace Prize isn't even significant enough to warrant much of a mention on the article dealing with his presidency, much less here an article about his life overall. It deserves no mention here. It just wasn't nearly significant enough.Jdlund (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Barack Obama's graduation from Columbia U. in 1983

George Stephanopoulos, Wayne Allen Root, '83 Columbia U. grad, and 400 individuals interviewed by Fox News say they never heard of Obama at Columbia U. during the '80s. Perhaps, Mr. Obama is being disingenuous.

99.29.15.110 (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

George Stephanopoulos wasn't in the class of '83, he was in the class of '82. Fox News never contacted 400 of his classmates, though it was (falsely) claimed that they had in a WSJ editorial. Obama's Columbia roommate has put his recollections of his time with Obama at the university online for all to read. You're reading bad chain letters in your email, or a repost of the same. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps Fox News is being disingenuous, since his college roommate has been interviewed about their time together, he's listed in the Columbia directory at the time, and even wrote an article for the school magazine Sundial while there. This myth has been debunked repeatedly, but a pretty good summary is available at FactCheck.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samkass (talk • contribs) 17:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

If you are honestly curious, the New York Times interviewed Obama's roomate from Columbia, and numerous articles exist about his days at Columbia complete with stories from friends, pictures of Obama at Columbia and records of his time there. Seriously, I've never known of any figure where his opponents honestly demand piles upon piles of unnecessary, overwhelming, affirmative evidence proving every little detail of his life, where he was born, where he went to school, the jobs he held, etc. I remember people not like George W., but I don't recall anyone actually trying to say "oh he never went to Yale...you ever heard anyone say 'I went to Yale and I remember him?' No I've never heard that." It's just a really odd and irrational obsession some people seem to have.Jdlund (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

University of Chicago Law School and civil rights attorney

(Current text)

He then served as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years—as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004—teaching constitutional law.

(Revised text)

He then served the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years—as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004—teaching constitutional law.

Note: the deleted phrase 'as a professor' is inaccurate and misleading. He never held the rank of professor at the university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.155.100.132 (talk) 06:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

He was a professor, and this issue has been thoroughly discussed and agreed upon. Please review the discussions in the archives, here. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

A professor in the United States is a person who teaches at a university. Maybe he was one of the cool one's that let you call him by his first name? Grsz 11 03:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

We've talked about this many times, and professor is not a fixed term. Some universities have different standards than others. Yes, the general expression in the US means anyone who teaches at a university. Either way, per the university itself designated him as a professor, and the sources say he was. We don't look beyond that, but nor do we attach any more to it than that. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Everyone in the usa loved him

Everyone in the usa loved him and now htey just hate him, is there any sociological research on that?

Amabo kcarab (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Methinks Grundle hath returned. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if it's him or not, but it's someone.... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not Grundle's style at all. PhGustaf (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Funnily enough, Obama's approval ratings are actually up 7 to 12 percent, to 53-54%, in the last month or so, only the editors who had long been so keen on updating the poll ratings figures haven't been doing so lately...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41161439/ns/politics-more_politics/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/29/AR2011012904019.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/21/nation/la-na-obama-midterm-20110121

The OP was banned as a sockpuppet, incidentally, but rather than delete his request for sociological research, I thought I'd support with cites how backward his impression actually was. Abrazame (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Cultural and Political images

Obama appeared on the Discovery show Mythbusters in order to test the Archimedes death ray theory using people this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.4.103 (talk) 06:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

What is your refrence on this?76.99.170.19 (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about "using people," but Obama did appear on Mythbusters. http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/pressroom/10182010 http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2010/10/president-improves-his-geek-cred-by-appearing-on-mythbusters/ --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Errrrr, I know he appeared in Mythbusters to get them to test the theory, with shields polished shiny in place of mirrors. But he didn't test the freaking 'death ray' on people. So no, it's not true. Dave Dial (talk) 03:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Stop hyper-focusing. The main point is that he appeared on Mythbusters, the main thing having to do with CULTURAL IMAGE. That the 100% entirely of everything stated by the anon isn't completely unequivocally true is both missing the point, and a disservice to a possible discussion on the contents of the article. Rather than simply blanking the discussion and dismissing it, how about discussing the 90% that's true here? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Uhhh, you go right ahead and discuss something that isn't RELEVANT to this article, with the silly claim that Obama is testing a 'death ray' on people. I won't get into an edit war over this silliness. It's beyond ridiculous to continue. But you go right ahead. Dave Dial (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Why are you willfully hyperfocusing on the least important part of this? The discussion isn't about testing death rays on people. It is about appearing on Mythbusters, which is culturally relevant. This is especially considering the wider context, such as Obama's STEM initiatives, his State of the Union speech regarding scientific development, etc. You're earning everything that detractors say about the editors of this article right now by WILLFULLY ignoring this because an anon wasn't saintly in their presentation. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think DD2K is hyper-focusing, the OP was vandalism and it was appropriate to remove it. We aren't required to make a distinction between vandalism that are utterly devoid of elements based in truth and those that draw from some elements based in truth, nor to come to determinations of the percentage of vandalism inherent. If we were to do so, I would argue that the assertion that a president directly engages a weapon at individual people trumps the trivia of a cable TV science show appearance on a percentage basis. If someone wants to discuss article representation in the context of STEM initiatives or the State of the Union, then they should bring that context up, but they needn't (I'd say shouldn't) do so in the vandal's thread. The president appears on cable television every week, the relevant thing to discuss for article inclusion would be the reason for or the result of (i.e. the context of) the appearance rather than the mere fact, and the reason suggested by the OP was absurd, BLP vandalism.

To actually respond to OuroborosCobra's interpretation of the OP from an editorial standpoint, using a death ray against people would be relevant to Cultural and Political image, but as what he actually did was relevant to resuscitating interest in science it falls under educational initiatives, economy and competitiveness. If someone wants to start an Education section, please start a different thread on that so that responsible editors may discuss actual editorial suggestions in proper context. Abrazame (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) I don't see anything objectionable about adding a duly sourced sentence to the effect that Obama has appeared on science television shows, including the death ray thing. But I don't see a pressing need either, it's a fairly minor detail given all of the other things to cover. There are other articles on WP where that information would be more relevant. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

why are there sections from the ubuntu article pasted in here?

why are there sections from the ubuntu article pasted in here?

Pianos by dolzrn (talk) 12:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked sock--NortyNort (Holla) 03:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Mother returned to US in 1994 or 1995?

The Barack Obama articles states that Ann Dunham returned to Hawaii in 1994; the Ann Dunham article says 1995. Both seem to cite the same Time article for this information, but the Time article is not clear on the exact year she returned. Anyone able to resolve this difference? — RockMFR 01:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

As you've apparently read the article, perhaps you'd tell us what it does say, and link us to it? Abrazame (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

"In the fall of 1994, Ann was having dinner at her friend Patten's house in Jakarta when she felt a pain in her stomach. A local doctor diagnosed indigestion. When Ann returned to Hawaii several months later, she learned it was ovarian and uterine cancer. She died on Nov. 7, 1995, at 52." [39] Fat&Happy (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Fat&Happy. Well this could explain it. Westerners of the Northern Hemisphere presume fall to be at the end of the year so the fall of 1994 would mean September 22 through December 22 and several months later is likely 1995. However, Jakarta is south of the Equator, where some including myself would logically presume their fall to be our Spring, or March through June of that year, several months after which could easily still have been 1994. As we are not told whether it is the Northern Hemisphere's fall or the Southern's, it would be reasonable for one group of editors to infer 1994 and another 1995. The most superficial of research brings up some indication that Indonesia adheres to Northern Hemisphere (Chinese) seasonality, so it seems it is more likely that those presuming 1995 would have been correct. Abrazame (talk) 04:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

How do Muslims see Obama?

According to Islamic law the son of a Muslim is always a Muslim regardless as he consider itself. In the case of Obama he is a child of a Muslim that baptized as a Christian so he consider as apostate Muslim or murtadd in the Islamic law. Should we add this to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.13.28 (talk) 08:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Um, no. Especially as it's OR big time. Brothejr (talk) 10:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

We could get around OR by finding out what Muslims scholars have to say on this, if they say anything at all. In the end I think that would be difficult because of having to select whose viewpoint to go with, I bet there would be many, and Islam doesn't exactly have a central authority on things like this. Even if we could, how notable or important is it really to Obama's life or a biography about him? He's never considered himself a Muslim, and has lived his whole life as a Christian. That's basically all that's important on the subject, what he believes and has done. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 12:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

As an aside: what about people who are born of parents from two different religions: for instance a mother who is Jewish and a father who is Christian. You see the Jewish religion recognizes primarily through the mother (I.E. your mother is Jewish so you must be too.) and Christians primarily through the father. Which one does that person belong too? Both, one or the other, or neither. No matter what those who are in those religions think, state, or write, the only person in that debate who has any say is that person themselve. Plus, this goes back to the long standing conservative criticisms of calling him a Muslim. If he professes to be a Christian and there is no credible evidence of him embracing Islam, then this is completely moot. Brothejr (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the mixed family thing. From a religious standpoint, both religions would claim the kid is one of theirs, and both claim that the kid does not belong to the others religion. Fun fun. In practicality in the US, usually the parents decide (often before even having kids) how they'll be raised, and the kid sometimes changes that decision later in life. Back on topic to the article, completely agree. What's relevant is what Obama says he is, not what other people say he is. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Un Bias Opinion

Is it just possible to have one un Bias opinion in this entire page? Just a question. Facts only please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.160.47 (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Opinions are biased. That's why Wikipedia uses reliable sources. Dayewalker (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The term "Niglet"

I was told about, and have noted, that a search for the term "niglet" redirects to this page. I don't have the knowledge to change that, so I hope one of you does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coryj101 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

That vandalism should be fixed now. Thank you for alerting us to it. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Obama born in 1861?

Please do review your page and change Obama's bithdate so that it does not say that he is born in 1861, making him the oldest president ever elected... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.200.157 (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for catching that, but that was reverted an hour and a half before your post here. Erase your browser cache, and note the edit history. Abrazame (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

soiling the myth with facts

under "early life and career" (first para) there are two factual errors: "The couple married on February 2, 1961,[11] separated when Obama Sr. went to Harvard University on scholarship, and divorced in 1964.[9] Obama Sr. remarried and returned to Kenya,"

1) there exists documentation that places Ann Dunham in Washington state attending college as early as early as Aug 1961 until the fall of 1962... they obviously were not living together (and thus "seperated" long before he left for Harvard) as he remained in Hawaii until the June 1962 (when he graduated)... she reurned to Hawaii after he left (they did not live together and there is no documentation of them ever sharing an address in Hawaii).

Ms. Stanley Ann Dunham was enrolled at the University of Washington for: Autumn 1961 Winter 1962 Spring 1962

The records responsive to your request from the University of Washington are above as provided by the Public Disclosure Laws of Washington State. This concludes the University’s response to your Public Records request. Please feel free to contact our office if you have any questions or concerns.

Madolyne Lawson, Office of Public Records, 206-543-9180

2) Obama senior was married in Kenya prior to ever marrying Ann Stanely Dunham... he may have divorced Ann (where is the proof, as the divorce papers have never been presented) but he did not remarry as he was still legally married to wife number one (according to Junior's book, Senior's first wife gave him permission to marry Ann (making her wife number two, an illegal marriage in this country... unless she (then still a minor, age of majority in 1961 Hawaii was 20 and she was only 18) renounced her US citizenship to marry an already married man).

72.1.58.156 (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Lol! Well now, the paragraph is sourced beyond doubt and your claims are not. Innuendos, original research and synthesis without using reliable sources is not permitted on Wikipedia. Dave Dial (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"Separation" is often a more formal and legal status. Simply "not living together" does not mean "separated". I have friends where their father lives in Massachusetts and their mother in California due to the realities of their respective job requirements. They are not living in the same place, but remain happily married and are not legally separated. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Clearly it is not 'sourced beyond doubt' (you have proven that by ignoring the illegal marriage of a U.S. minor to an already married (older) Kenyan student already with wife and child in Kenya at that time for which there is ample indisputable documentaion). Its comical to claim 'seperation' to be the 'more formal and legal status" as justification to use it without Dunham and Obama Sr. actually being legally married in the first place... such multi spouse marriages are illegal in the US of A. (where is the marriage license that is your source? No one has seen it and that makes it impossible to source beyond doubt as DDK2 claims... which makes everything else DDK2 assumes to be true suspect too.72.1.58.156 (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTFORUM, Wikipedia is not the place to argue your case. This page is to discus improvements to the article using reliable sources for related information. Johnuniq (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Where is your source for their marriage taking place while Ann Dunham was a minor? The claim on their divorce records at the least states that they were married on February 2nd, 19961. Given that Ann Dunham was born on November 29th, 1942, this would have made her more than 2 months past her 18th birthday. Time magazine does claim to have seen the divorce records. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Template broken

The Infobox template is broken, as of 9:56 EST 8 Feb 2011. I mention it here in hopes that somebody who knows somebody who knows who maintains such things will send a message. All infoboxes appear fine in IE but are broken in Firefox (I'm at work, so I can't check Google Chrome). The borders are missing, and the box is left-justified on the page, whereas it should be right-justified.

Bloody Viking (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Not done: Tarc (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}} Please remove the "First African American in Office" part. He is not, there have been 5 presidents of black/African descent before him.

See here: http://diversityinc.com/content/1757/article/1461/

173.50.230.52 (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

This has already been explained under the second question (Q2) of the Frequently Asked Questions part of this page that's above the threads. SMP0328. (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Critical Discussion

Following demonstrations organized by conservative groups in Washington in September 2009, former president Jimmy Carter stated in an interview with NBC that the "animosity towards President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man." The White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs replied that the President did not believe that "the criticism comes based on the colour of his skin" and that the criticism is mainly derived from policy disagreements. Also, White House communications director Anita Dunn stated,"race is less a part of it than some other people might think."Other advisors acknowledged race as a factor but communicated that it was not the "dominant one". The White House has remained silent on the race issue; Obama declined to answer a reporter's question on Jimmy Carter's comments on racism. A.Rosalind (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

...and you are posting this why? Is there a specific suggestion you are trying to make? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Birth certificate, Muslim, etc.

No one mentions them because they're not actually facts. Closing up unproductive birther debates. Tarc (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't give the theory that Obama is a Muslim or secretly from Kenya or actually Lex Luthor any credence, but I think the existence of these ideas does warrant some mention; the religious belief section should at least note that some Americans(and others?) think he's Muslim; should not be hard to find a poll on that. Again, it's silly, but this sort of stuff is, unfortunately, a big topic of discussion so it warrants a mention at least —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.195.165 (talk) 08:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC) The page you are looking for is Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.  Frank  |  talk  13:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Should there be a "See also" section to allow users to find that article and other articles more easily? Or has there already been contention over what would show up in the "See also"? --Habap (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC) There already has, yes. It is a fringe of a fringe of the far-right of American politics that buys into the Birther Movement. It is worth its own article to discuss the history and whatnot, but really has no relevance to Obama's bio itself. Tarc (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Let's remember that it was Hillary Clinton's campaign which started the conspiracy theories about Obama's birth, not the "far-right". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikilled007 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC) I'm sure you remember it that way, but that doesn't make it true. Near as anyone can verify, the issue was first raised by World Net Daily, a right-wing internet publication. --Sam (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Should there be a FAQ entry on this talk page for why there is no See Also section in the article? --Habap (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC) At the moment I would say no, because the issue of why a main article (and in particular a biography) does not direct readers to fringe lunacy — or POV/partisan character assassination and power-play tactics — is not specific to this page, it is a broader and fundamental concept that is reflected in policy at Wikipedia. While I haven't read the pages recently, I'm guessing it's covered at WP:BLP (and WP:Coatrack). It may or may not be helpful to provide talk-page links to the policy at WP:BLP project-wide (in a standardized way, such as a box at the top), but if it's determined to be helpful, I'd think that, and not a specific address in this bio's FAQ, would be the best way to proceed. Currently it seems that the only link to WP:BLP at this article or its talk is upon opening the article edit window. Abrazame (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC) The Wikipedia article for George W. Bush has a link to the "George W. Bush military service controversy" page. That was a blatant partisan character assassination at the time, and Wikipedia still acknowledges it. I smell bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.157.26.162 (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Yes, but Bush really DID leave the Texas National Guard before his discharge and the paperwork to tell whether he fulfilled his duty turned up missing. In this case the paperwork is not missing (you can see the proper certificate on FactCheck.org including the raised embossed seal edge-on) and it wasn't a significant issue during the election. I think you're bringing up false equivalencies here. --Sam (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC) The thing the two controversies may have to do with each other is that they are both much ado on the part of political detractors about what supporters would say is nothing. In this case neutral sources also say it was nothing - it's a fringe conspiracy theory, and demonstrably false. The Bush controversy was over a real event, though one that many would say is irrelevant. That makes it a matter of opinion, not of truth. Anyway, here we're working on the Obama article, not the Bush article. If you would like to improve the George Bush article, have at it. We don't try to adjust every article on Wikipedia so that political rivals or perceived ideological opponents are in parity with each other, that itself would be an exercise in bias. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC) I would like to point out denouncing your faith regardless is taboo in Islam, Christianity, and Judaism religions. So if he were Muslim he would be denouncing his faith by saying he is Christian or vice versa. If in fact he is Muslim he would be not even be considered a true Muslim believer by his comments. And if he is lying then chances are he is none of the above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.253.252.132 (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC) As reported by Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49554.html), a reputable news organization, a poll conducted by Public Policy Polling shows that 51% of Republican voters do not believe that Obama is an American Citizen. Only 28% believe he is. Accordingly, ideas that the Obama birth certificate issue is a "fringe issue" are simply misplaced. It is a central issue to over half the voters of one of the two main US political parties. It is very much a real issue. If one assumes Obama wants to get re-elected this raises the question of why he has not made addressing this issue a high priority. Let us assume Obama is a rational person. Most people are considered rational in neo-classical economic and political decisionmaking theory. There is reason to believe that Obama as at least as or more rational than average. There is a cost associated with 51% of Republicans (and an unknown percentage of Democrats) considering him ineligible to be president and a benefit to convincing these voters they are wrong and he is eligible. There is also a cost to dispelling the rumor as follows: Let us assume that ordering a copy of his long form birth certificate and then releasing it to the WH reporters of the major media at a daily press briefing would largely end the controversy. Let us assume he further authorizes the State of Hawaii to release all applicable records, entirely dispelling issue. Would not rational expectations theory suggest, Obama would incur the latter cost as less than the cost of the continuing controversy. Similarly, would not rational expectation theory suggest if he is not willing to release the birth certificate, then he believes the cost of having 51% of the Republican party consider him illegitimate to be less than the cost of releasing his long term birth certificate. In short, if he believes full disclosure would clear him, he would disclose, but he has chosen not to. The rational conclusion is he does not want to release birth records for some reason. I don't know why. But logic would dictate he would incur minor cost of disclosing as favorable to major cost of continuing controversy. If you disagree with logic, please show where. Conclusion: his birth in Hawaii should not be asserted as fact in this article as this is an opinion with which over half of one major political disagree. One can say, "Obama has said he was born...." There should also be a reference here to other article for people to conduct their own review and draw own conclusion on the issue. Thank you for taking to time to read and consider above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.144.154 (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC) The biggest flaw in your logic comes when you jump from this manipulative insinuation of some catch-22 to a conclusion that pretends your premise is all there is to draw from. But, in fact, a fact is not hostage to popular opinion. A fact is a fact if it is certified by a notable and reliable person or persons as reported in a reliable source. And a birthplace, and/or presidential eligibility, is not as amorphous as economic or political theory, it is a fact, and it is one that we source beyond the president's own assertion, contrary to your apparent inference. The whole point of an encyclopedia is to present facts so sourced, and not necessarily to address whether one's opponents, be it from ideological and electoral self interest or from asinine gullibility, will attest to a pollster a cult "belief" in something counterfactual. Our reliable source, you may have forgotten (I presume you knew in the first place, as I employ the neo-classical economic and political decisionmaking theory that you're rational enough to have read a reliable source about the issue before posting an edit suggestion at an encyclopedia), is the legislative branch of government, various Hawaiian officials, which has been upheld by the consensus of the judicial branch, various judges who accept the legislative branch's word and who see little to no merit in the cases brought before them in this regard. Where we should not employ the theory of rationality is when we are dealing with ideologues who are desperate to resuscitate their party by any means necessary, enabled by a media who acts as though every barking dog is not only newsworthy but quotable. Because if these people either don't hear or don't trust two branches of government about the third, then one piece of paper is not going to convince them of his eligibility, much less — as you imply would be his carrot for jumping through their hoops — vote for him in the next election over the Republican candidate, whom I'm going out on a limb to predict will not be African American. I reiterate, we address what those in the know certify to be a fact, and not what those who are not in the know or who are presumed to be operating under POV notoriously or anonymously allege about their own opinion. Abrazame (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Why does no-one mention the fact that Obama will not produce a birth certificate? Or the fact that, when prompted to name the hospital he was supposedly born in, the administration OFFICIALLY STATED the name of the hospital he was born in and came up with two different hospitals? Is it because they are just plain confused, and don't know the President's past? Or is it because Obama wasn't really born in U.S.A. and the administration can't make up it's mind about which hospital they decide to say he was born in? Obama's grandmother stated on the telephone with a major news company that she was in the delivery room, and he was DEFINITELY born in Kenya. She did not know, of course, that not being born in the US (or on a military base overseas) disqualifies one from running for the office of President. Why don't mention the fact that he was not born in the US? It is not biased. It is fact, but until I find the site, I will not edit his birthplace. One more question. Why does Wikipedia support Obama even to the point of telling lies? It is either that, or the fact that some of you are ineducated, by which means you should not be editing Wikipedia. Back to my question. Why does Wikipedia support Obama even to the point of telling lies? Are we considered a liberal site? I was under the impression that Wikipedia was to come from a "neutral, unbiased point of veiw." Why are we doing this? Has the government threatened Jimmy Wales that if he does not lean toward Obama, that he will terminate Wikipedia? I do not doubt the fact that the government does not like us. Especially after the very biased article on The Central Intelligence Agency. Do you honestly think that they cannot terminate this site? They are indeed the world leaders in technology... Pumanike 03:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Here's the birth certificate he provided: [40]. --Sam (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC) That one is a "Certificate of live birth" in short form, which means that that hospital certifies that he was born naturally, not neccesarily in that hospital though. Also, that is only one certificate. The campaign administration produced two different certificates from two separate hospitals. Not that they were false, but rather, you don't have to be born in a hospital to get a certification that you are alive. Pumanike 18:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Barak Obama Sr.

The economics paper that was linked to Barack Obama, Sr. has his father signing his name as 'Barak'. Since this is a person's biography and not a common usage naming of a concept or inanimate object it seems that name space should be moved from Barack Obama, Sr. to Barak Obama, Sr. with proper redirects and the name adjusted throughout. (I know Stephen Colbert would object to Steven Colbert, I would object to spelling my name Stephen) HOWEVER, if someone here can show that the spelling is a problem with the translation or the paper is false or some other reason I would like to hear this. At least, does the president's fathers name get spelled 'Barack' or 'Barak' in his writings and why the discrepancy? Why should we care? Spelling of a proper name deserves a little more obsessive consideration than other things. The change in spelling maybe corresponds to Obama Sr deciding it was a life transition and he was now an atheist. Can't be sure of the significance unless I asked here where there is more traffic and better list of editors with ready sources. Alatari (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Why are you bringing this up here instead of at the proper article? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought the reasoning, though a bit weak, was pretty clearly spelled out at the end of the OP. But if there's a need for a thread to hang this on, the question is easily reframed as "in this and related articles, should Obama's father be referred to as 'Barack Obama, Sr.', as he is now, or as 'Barak Obama, Sr.', as his name is shown on his economics paper?" Of course, a partial answer would be that the name is listed as "Barack Hussein Obama" on the younger Obama's birth certificate... Fat&Happy (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there more evidence that his name is properly spelled Barak or is this one paper just a typo? If I accidentally sign my name as C one time, that doesn't mean I'm not B any more. --B (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The paper lists his name 'Barak' as a printed signature and in a contributors list. In April 2009 an inactive user named Groucho linked an article attributed to Senior (now 404) and asked this same question in Sr's talk page. It went unanswered so since many of the editors working here would have overlapping source bibliographies and might not be watching Obama Sr's article... I'm here. Alatari (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• OK, I found a source which purports to be a hand written letter from Obama Senior. [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=226349]. It is hard to tell to me it could be a shrunken a-c-k or a corrupt a-k. Is this a WP:RS? Alatari (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

  No, WND is not a reliable source for claims like this. Johnuniq (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• I remember this argument! The 'Barak' spelling is supposed to mean he's Jewish, and some sort of Zionist spy, as opposed to being African. Do I get a prize? ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Cultural and political image- "Obama is frequently referred to as an exceptional orator."

When the President was elected, I questioned the neutrality of the statement "Obama is frequently referred to as an exceptional orator." While most individuals agreed that this statement was violation a neutral point-of-view, I find that it is still present in the article. While some people believe the President is an exceptional orator, many disagreed to this statement. They point to the President's dependance on telepromters. See , , , . It has not only been Republicans or Conservatives that have criticized the President's oratary skills as the previous articles demonstrate. The President's use of the telepromter is so common, it has even been satirized. See . While many people believe that the President is "an exceptional oratator", he has also been heavily criticized for his dependence on telepromters. In other words, just because the President can read a prepared speech from a telepromter screen in no way means that he is an orator, much less an "exceptional oratator". It only means he is good at reading out loud. To present a neutral point-of-view, I would recommend adding, after the statement "Obama is frequently referred to as an exceptional orator" the sentence, "However, he has been frequently criticised for his dependence on telepromters to deliver his speeches. , , , , ", The links above present the references for this neutralizing statement. By adding this statement, the article will be properly balanced concerning this point. As it currently stands, this part of the article clearly presents a biased point-of-view about the President's orotary skills. Moesbob (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that's just a meme from his critics that does not make any sense in reality. First of all, every President since Truman have used teleprompters in one fashion or the other. Secondly, there is no difference between using a teleprompter or hand written notes. Except that a teleprompter is more professional. So no, this is not a valid criticism and is not worthy of mention. Dave Dial (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

{Edited to add}This particular editor has brought the same proposal over a year and a half ago. Dave Dial (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Saying "uh" every five or ten words is not a "meme". It's a recorded fact. That he was totally helpless when his teleprompter malfunctioned is not a "meme". It's a recorded fact. --Dekker451 (talk) 06:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The point was not about the use of teleprompters, but the President's apparent dependance on them. Of course politicians will use teleprompters. But The President is the only one I know who used one addressing a grade school class. And it was politicians from India that best articulated his telepromter use. It is obvious that they have little political gain in America for noting this use. By refusing to acknowledge the criticism of the President's oratory skills and his apparent dependance on teleprompters, this article is presenting a biased point of view in violation of Wikipedia's neutrality standards. Either the current statement concerning the President's oratory skills can be removed, or a statement presenting these valid criticisms can be added to meet the neutrality standards. I would recommend adding the following statement acknowledging the criticisms. "However, he has been frequently criticised for his dependence on telepromters to deliver his speeches." , , , , This statement presents valid criticisms and references in an ojective manner. (I do recommend the rereading the the NPOV objections from 2009. Unfortunately, they are just as valid now as they were then. Furthermore, as seen in the discussion, I am not the only one to point out the biased statement concerning the President's oratory skills.) Moesbob (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would you propose to use the Onion (an Onion video no less) as one of your sources? Obvious troll is obvious. BrendanFrye (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, [t]he President's use of the telepromter is so common, it has even been satirized." Saturday Night Live has also featured skits on the President and his use of teleprompters. It is one thing for a small group to raise the teleprompter issue. It is quiet another when nationally televised comedy shows are able to use the teleprompters to satarize the President. They wouldn't do those skits unless the general public is aware of the issue and were able to understand the joke. The public is well aware of the President's dependence on teleprompters. After saying that, I accidently added that reference link to the recommended sentence. I had intended on using the other links though.Moesbob (talk) 10:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion of whether he is or is not an excellent orator is irrelevant. The statement is not that he IS an excellent orator, but that he is frequently referred to as an excellent orator. Those are to vastly different things. Someone may not personally think they'd enjoy having a beer with George W. Bush, however, it is perfectly factual to say that he was often referred to as someone people would liek to have a beer with, as an irreverant example. There's a difference between stating a fact regarding public perception, and stating an opinion. Saying he is referred to a certain way is fact. Saying he IS a certain way is opinion.Jbower47 (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Then in that case it should also be mentioned that some people disagree with that opinion, since as many people think as he is not a great orator as do. --Dekker451 (talk) 06:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Jbower47's point is right on. Also, even if he's using a teleprompter, he's still talking ("orating") in front of people. Hendrixjoseph (talk) 05:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

weird photo

does anyone else get a weird photo of a naked guy under the family/personal life section. no clue how to delete it but its giving me nightmares —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.242.91 (talk) 06:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks like there was some vandalism of image files at Commons a while ago. The account responsible has been indefed and the images fixed. Should be OK now, but you may need to refresh the cache. Fat&Happy (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

thanks...that old image is just frightening... sick people out there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.242.91 (talk) 06:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

An odd silence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Preface - I am not a birther (etc, etc). I myself don't see an issue. I don't write here to push any kind of agenda.

That being said, the numbers of those who make birther and religion claims are significant in most mass media polls and neutral polls. Even the reading of the Constitution which opened the session of Congress was interrupted by a woman in the gallery who believed that Obama was not born in the United States. That there does continue to be so much of a controversy -- and the polls seems to suggest that it is actually growing -- is an ongoing notable factor in all aspects of Obama's presidency. (I would include the lead-up to the 2012 election, but WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL.)

So I was rather surprised that this page has been completely purged of all mention of that controversy. Granted, mentioning it at all is certain to spark an edit war, but not mentioning it at all, if only as a link under "Cultural and political image" to the relevant conspiracy pages, is not neutral and accurate. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.2 (talk) 07:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a minor, fringe lunatic accusation. When it does cause a small ripple in reliable sources it is more as a source of ridicule of Orly Taitz and the movement in general rather than giving any serious sort of backing to the charges themselves. This is down in the gutter alongside Reagan's secret plot to keep the Iranian hostages captive to embarrass Carter, or Bush Sr's mistresses. Tarc (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't pass judgement. I merely note that between 20-30% firm believers, more than 50% who at least suspect, and up to 51% of all Republicans doubting Obama's birth and/or religion is no longer merely a "minor" fringe. Those numbers are taken from CNN and other similar polls, not in-house polls. Many of those polls are already linked in the other pages. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.222 (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing's changed since the last time this was discussed, and the consensus made that this is not biographically significant. History will probably treat this as a strange curiosity, but in the final analysis if people look back on Obama and his presidency and consider this grassroots (astroturf, really) paranoia to be significant in the course of events, it might mention a passing comment. We don't know that yet, and in the meanwhile biographical articles tend to be about the main events, not the fringe stuff. I would hazard a guess that 40% of Americans don't believe in Climate change, vaccinations, or modern medicine, but I'll bet those poll numbers aren't mentioned in the main articles on those things either. And a comparable number probably believe in ghosts and witchcraft, a higher number in many parts. There are a couple of entire articles devoted to the Obama fringe theories, one on the birthers and the other on the Muslim thing. The latest on the birthers and their poll numbers here, btw. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Before laying any bets, you might want to take another look at the article on global warming (views).<g> Not that precedent or other articles are a valid argument on Wikipedia, per policy that you can cite as well as I -- but you already do have an "Image" section in this article. Image is based entirely on public perception which can be verified, not on what the public perception should be based on facts. To omit a part of image which more than half of (polled) Americans subscribe to is not neutrality. If you did not have an image section, we would not be having this discussion. For example, I don't think it should be brought up in the bio!

(Btw your cite makes no distinction between those who believe Obama was "probably" born in the United States and those who are certain of it -- and that is a relevant distinction. The numbers in the original poll are more useful. But even as stands -- 41% of Republicans? and you still consider that a "fringe" view? Tea Partiers make up a smaller percentage!)

I have seen the argument many times in the comment sections of many news articles that this issue is being legitimised by being reported on non-Fox networks. Yet the issue would exist, even were it not reported. Just because a thing is unpalatable is no reason to pretend it is does not exist and is not notable. After all, reporting it neutrally is not the same as agreeing with it.

To argue merit of a fact based only on future notability is a different way of trying to access the crystal ball. This particular issue happens to be notable now, and already is notable within the existing historical record. (When has a president *ever* been perceived by a significant proportion of Americans as being non-Christian?) It merits a passing comment, or at least a link, now.

And I will note that one thing has changed. This is not being brought up by a birther in any way, shape, or form ... and consensus can change. - Tenebris

We are not going to go through these endless debates over and over. Read the FAQ, specifically Question 5. Consensus has not changed, there are no new developments. We are done here. Dave Dial (talk) 05:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Response to third opinion request:

I'm declining a request for a third opinion on this issue because more than two opinions already seem to have been given, and because the discussion has already been closed. Also, the FAQ already given seems to address this issue sufficiently to justify its closure per consensus. If anything, perhaps the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article merits mention in the "See also" section of the Early life and career of Barack Obama article.—WikiDao ☯ 22:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The closure was proper perhaps, but per a discussion on Jimbo's talk page it was perhaps a little less than courteous and welcoming to a new account. I'm okay with a "see also" link but I'm not sure that would gain consensus. One issue is that last time people checked (and that was a long time ago) there were already hundreds of articles that were primarily about Obama or the Obama administration, far more than we could link from a single parent article. So some entire articles are inevitably two clicks away, perhaps one if you count the templates. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, closing it like that might perhaps seem abrupt and arbitrary to a new editor.

"Tenebris", the way I see it is that this is a biographical article, and should only contain biographical material. "Widespread beliefs or opinions not supported by any reliable source" about people does not count as biographical material for WP's purposes, because that would be unencyclopedic. If such beliefs and opinions are notable and well-documented enough, they might merit an article of their own, which in this case they have (at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories). If there was any reliable source demonstrating that anything about those conspiracy theories was in fact actual valid biographical material, then that could go in this article. But there's not. It's not a conspiracy, it's just the way Wikipedia works.

Please don't be too discouraged by this outcome -- we rely on the expression of concerns like yours by people like you to help "keep us honest," too! ;) Regards, WikiDao ☯ 02:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Barack Obama's self-identifies as a feminist

Barack Obama self-identifies as a feminist. This makes him the first President of the USA to describe himself this way. I think that this is significant and should be mentioned in the article, or at least Obama should be added to a category such as Category:American feminists. Here is a source - http://www.cnsnews.com/node/42881 Thanks. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 05:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Your source doesn't say "he self-identifies as as feminist" at all.TMCk (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is a feminist conference at which they declare Obama an honorary feminist. That may belong in some article, but is not significant enough for this one vis-a-vis the broad scope of his life and career we're covering here. Feminism is not currently a part of the US national political discourse, and the term / concept itself has expanded to the point where it doesn't have a core meaning. No doubt they're trying to rally and find a core at that convention, but to the world as a whole proclaiming that someone is a feminist does not mean a whole lot. If Obama's overall agenda is perceived as pro-woman (or however you're supposed to say that) it might belong in the "presidency of..." article. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The next US politician who says he doesn't support half the voters will be the first. The definition of 'feminism' is flexible, and is now the equivalent of supporting baseball, mom and apple pie. I would think Category:American feminists should be limited to those who have focused primarily on women's rights - the few major leaders, not every supporter. Flatterworld (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Re-read the article, it clearly states - She said when she met Obama, “He immediately offered, ‘I am a feminist.’” That is a self-identification. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If he really said this (and we only have her word on this) it is as much self identification as "ich bin ein Berliner" I'd say.TMCk (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• First of all, that's not a reliable source for this type of information. Secondly, it doesn't have a lot of meaning or context. Someone said someone else said something. Lastly, in no way is Obama the first President to support 'feminism'. In fact, Teddy Roosevelt was proclaimed the first American feminist President(much better source), and many after him have also embraced over half of the voters in America. Dave Dial (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)