Talk:Barack Obama: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 01:38, 3 November 2009 editM.nelson (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers12,176 edits revert vand by Alejandroreinel0987← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 16:24, 17 January 2025 edit undoLWG (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users3,613 edits →Change "African-Amereican" to Multiracial: reply: it's not that we don't understand that point of view, it's just that it doesn't seem to be the one the bulk of the sources support
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<!-- ============ ARCHIVING BOTS ============ -->
	{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 150K
	\|counter = 64
	\|minthreadsleft = 7
	\|algo = old(14d)
	\|archive = Talk:Barack Obama/Archive %(counter)d
	}}
	{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
	\|target=Talk:Barack Obama/Archive index
	\|mask=Talk:Barack Obama/Archive <#>
	\|leading_zeros=0
	\|indexhere=yes
	}}
	{{pp-move-indef}}
	<!-- ============ TALKPAGE TEMPLATES ============ -->
	{{purge\|page=Barack Obama\|1=Click to manually purge the article's cache}}
	{{Skip to talk}}		{{Skip to talk}}
			{{Talk header\|search=yes}}
	{{Talkheader}}
			{{FAQ\|quickedit=no}}
	{{Round In Circles\|search=yes}}
			{{Article history\|action1=FAC
	{{Community article probation\|main page=Barack Obama\|BASEPAGENAME=Barack Obama\|] for full information and to review the decision}}
	{{calm talk\|#FFCCCC}}
	{{FAQ\|collapsed=no\|quickedit=no}}<!--Please leave the FAQ uncollapsed during media-triggered influx of newbies to avoid talk page floods. --slakr -->
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|blp=yes\|activepol=yes\|collapsed=yes\|1=
	{{WPBiography\|living=yes\|class=FA\|priority=top\|activepol=yes\|politician-work-group=yes\|listas=Obama, Barack}}
	{{USP-Article\|class=FA\|importance=Mid}}
	{{WikiProject United States presidential elections\|class=FA\|importance=Top}}
	{{WikiProject Barack Obama\|class=FA\|importance=Top}}
	{{Project Congress\|class=FA\|subject=person\|importance=High}}
	{{WikiProject Illinois\|class=FA\|importance=high}}
	{{WPHawaii\|class=FA\|importance=Mid}}
	{{Wikiproject Kansas\|class=FA\|importance=Mid}}
	{{ChicagoWikiProject\|class=FA\|importance=Top}}
	{{WikiProject Columbia University\|class=FA\|importance=high}}
	{{WP Indonesia\|class=FA\|importance=mid}}
	{{AfricaProject\|class=FA\|importance=low\|Kenya=yes\|Kenya-importance=low}}
	{{Project afro\|class=FA\|importance=mid}}
	{{WikiProject Politics\|importance=mid\|class=FA}}
	{{Talk Spoken Misplaced Pages\|class=FA\|Barack_Obama_1-31-2007.ogg}}
	{{WPCD-People\|class=FA}}
	{{WikiProject Energy\|autotagged=yes\|class=\|importance=}}
	}}
	{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barack}}
	{{pressmulti\|collapsed=yes
	\| title = On Misplaced Pages, Debating 2008 Hopefuls' Every Facet
	\| author = Jose Antonio Vargas
	\| date = 2007-09-17
	\| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601699.html
	\| org = ]
	\| section = September
	\| title2 = 'Round the Clock: Obama, Clinton Wiki-Warfare
	\| author2 = ], Rachel Martin
	\| date2 = 2008-04-03
	\| url2 = http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89333759&sc=emaf
	\| org2 = ], ]
	\| title3 = Editors in Chief
	\| author3 = ], ]
	\| date3 = 2008-04-04
	\| url3 = http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2008/04/04/02
	\| org3 = ], NPR
	\| title4 = Wiki Woman
	\| author4 = Eve Fairbanks
	\| date4 = 2008-04-09
	\| url4 = http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=4f0c6aa3-3028-4ca4-a3b9-a053716ee53d&p=1
	\| org4 = ]
	\| section4 = March
	\| title5= Hillary's Wiki Defender
	\| author5 = Jesse Brown
	\| date5= 2008-04-10
	\| url5=http://www.cbc.ca/searchengine/blog/2008/04/this_weeks_show_april_1008.html
	\| org5= ], ]
	\| title6= Misplaced Pages Wars
	\| author6 = ]
	\| date6= 2008-04-11
	\| url6= http://www.charter.net/video/?vendid=35&vid=142269
	\| org6= ], ]
	\| title7= Liberal Web
	\| author7 = ]
	\| date7= 2008-04-21
	\| url7=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_7_60/ai_n25474310/print?tag=artBody;col1
	\| org7= ]
	\| section7=April 2008
	\| title8= Clinton's entry in Misplaced Pages has a watchdog
	\| author8 = Kelly Heyboer
	\| date8= 2008-05-28
	\| url8=<!--http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-13/1211949334324290.xml&coll=1--> http://blog.nj.com/digitallife/2008/05/hillary_clintons_wikipedia_wat.html
	\| org8= ]
	\| title9=NJ Man Appoints Himself Misplaced Pages Watchdog
	\| author9 = Paul Murnane
	\| date9= 2008-05-28
	\| url9=http://www.wcbs880.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=2400703
	\| org9= ]
	\| title10= Updating a Reference Site on the Fly
	\| author10= Noam Cohen
	\| date10= 2008-11-09
	\| url10= http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/technology/internet/10link.html
	\| org10= ]
	\| title11= Obama Misplaced Pages page under possible security attack
	\| author11= Adrian Bridgwater
	\| date11= January 22, 2009
	\| url11= http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,1000000567,10011960o-2000458459b,00.htm
	\| org11= ]
	\| title12= Misplaced Pages scrubs Obama eligibility
	\| author12= ]
	\| date12= March 8, 2009
	\| url12= http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114
	\| org12= ]
	\| title13= Obama's Misplaced Pages Page Distances President from Wright and Ayers
	\| author13= Joshua Rhett Miller
	\| date13= March 9, 2009
	\| url13= http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,507244,00.html
	\| org13= ]
	\| title14= Barack Obama 'receives preferential treatment on Misplaced Pages', report claims
	\| author14= Mark Coleman
	\| date14= March 10, 2009
	\| url14= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/wikipedia/4965132/Barack-Obama-receives-preferential-treatment-on-Misplaced Pages-report-claims.html
	\| org14= ]
	\| title15= Misplaced Pages May Be a Font of Facts, but It’s a Desert for Photos
	\| author15= Noam Cohen
	\| date15= July 19, 2009
	\| url15= http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/arts/20funny.html
	\| org15= ]
	\|author16=(none)
	\|date=August 17, 2009
	\|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6043534/The-50-most-viewed-Misplaced Pages-articles-in-2009-and-2008.html
	\|title=The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008
	\|org=]
	}}
	{{ArticleHistory
	\|action1=FAC
	\|action1date=12 August 2004		\|action1date=12 August 2004
	\|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Barack Obama		\|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Barack Obama
Line 142:		Line 15:

	\|action3=FAR		\|action3=FAR
	\|action3date=09:53, 23 ~~January~~ 2007		\|action3date=09:53, 21 December 2007
	\|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/~~archive1~~		\|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive0
	\|action3result=pass		\|action3result=pass
	\|action3oldid=~~102622704~~		\|action3oldid=8658294

	\|action4=FAR		\|action4=FAR
	\|action4date=22:24, ~~July~~ ~~26,~~ 2007		\|action4date=09:53, 23 January 2007
	\|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/~~archive2~~		\|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive1
	\|action4result=pass		\|action4result=pass
	\|action4oldid=~~147098144~~		\|action4oldid=102622704

	\|action5=FAR		\|action5=FAR
	\|action5date=06:08, 15 ~~April~~ ~~2008~~		\|action5date=22:24, July 26, 2007
	\|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/~~archive3~~		\|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive2
	\|action5result=~~kept~~		\|action5result=pass
	\|action5oldid=~~205714008~~		\|action5oldid=147098144

	\|action6=FAR		\|action6=FAR
	\|action6date=12:56, 16 ~~September~~ 2008		\|action6date=06:08, 15 April 2008
	\|action6link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/~~archive4~~		\|action6link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive3
	\|action6result=kept		\|action6result=kept
	\|action6oldid=~~239534110~~		\|action6oldid=205714008

	\|action7=~~WPR~~		\|action7=FAR
	\|action7date=4 ~~November~~ 2008		\|action7date=12:56, 16 September 2008
	\|action7link=Misplaced Pages:~~Today's featured~~ article/~~November~~ ~~4, 2008~~		\|action7link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive4
	\|action7result=~~Maindate~~		\|action7result=kept
	\|action7oldid=~~249529065~~		\|action7oldid=238756853

	\|action8=~~FAR~~		\|action8=WPR
	\|action8date=~~17:30,~~ ~~2 December~~ 2008		\|action8date=4 November 2008
	\|action8link=Misplaced Pages:~~Featured~~ ~~article~~ ~~review~~/~~Barack~~ ~~Obama/archive5~~		\|action8link=Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/November 4, 2008
	\|action8result=~~kept~~		\|action8result=Maindate
	\|action8oldid=~~255411914~~		\|action8oldid=249658914

	\|action9=FAR		\|action9=FAR
	\|action9date=03:36, 10 ~~March~~ ~~2009~~		\|action9date=17:30, 2 December 2008
	\|action9link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/~~archive6~~		\|action9link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive5
	\|action9result=kept		\|action9result=kept
	\|action9oldid=~~276168026~~		\|action9oldid=255411914

			\|action10=FAR
	\|maindate=November 4, 2008
			\|action10date=03:36, 10 March 2009
	\|itndate=November 5, 2008
			\|action10link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive6
	\|currentstatus=FA
			\|action10result=kept
	\|small=yes}}
			\|action10oldid=276168026
	{{archives\|auto=yes\|search=yes\|bot=MiszaBot\|age=14\|
	; Special discussion pages:
	* ], ]
	* ], ], ]}}

			\|action11=FAR
	== Controversial award ==
			\|action11date=23:34, 16 March 2010
			\|action11link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive7
			\|action11result=kept
			\|action11oldid=349918777

			\|action12=FAR
	I can't edit it. This is a BLP. That uncited stuff about it being "controversial" in Norway needs to be removed immediately.
			\|action12date=12:32, 17 March 2010
			\|action12link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive8
			\|action12result=kept
			\|action12oldid=350447914

			\|action13=FAR
	:No, it needs to be mentioned that the award is controversial because it is highly controversial. This has nothing to do with BLP at all. The controversy is thouroughly cited in the ] article, with the leaders of the two main opposition parties as well as other parties criticizing the award, which is highly unusual. The award has also been the subject of criticism abroad. Only mentioning the praise and not the criticism would be a violation of ], our core policy which every article must adhere to. ] (]) 14:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
			\|action13date=12:32, 17 June 2012
	::One Norwegian politician and the OpEd of a newspaper do not a controversy make. ] (]) 14:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
			\|action13link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive9
	:::It's not one politician. Here's Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125509603349176083.html ] (]) 14:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
			\|action13result=kept
	::::Its the head of the opposition party. Is the head of one political party criticizing their opponents newsworthy? Didn't think so. ] (]) 14:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
			\|action13oldid=497955278

			\|action14=FAR
	::::'''GVU:''' You've posted an ], a ], and a ''Wall Street Journal'' article (the ''WSJ'' is owned by News Corp., whose CEO is Rupert Murdoch); see ]. Please source with something more substantial than references which violate various Misplaced Pages policies. ] (]) 14:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
			\|action14date=20:51, 22 October 2012
			\|action14link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive10
			\|action14result=kept
			\|action14oldid=519144660

			\|action15 = FAR
	::::It is not a "controversial" award; Obama has done a lot to bring the world together. This is a BLP; adding inappropriate and controversial statements to the bio is not acceptable. ] (]) 14:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
			\|action15date = 2021-12-04
	:::::"Obama has done a lot to bring the world together" – please, get yourself a blog. This is an encyclopedia and your edits are totally unsuitable for this article. It is a controversial award because it has been widely criticized. ] (]) 14:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
			\|action15link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive11
	::::::"Obama has done a lot to bring the world together" – this is what the Nobel Committee meant. The exact citation was "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples". See . ] (]) 14:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
			\|action15result = demoted
	:::::::So? Thorbjørn Jagland is not the only one entitled to have an opinion. ] (]) 14:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
			\|action15oldid = 1058343247
	::::::::I was responding to your comment ("please, get yourself a blog"). "Obama has done a lot to bring the world together" is not my point of view; this is what the Nobel Committee meant. ] (]) 14:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

			\|currentstatus=FFA
	::::::It's at least worthy of note that the award was met with "surprise" by Nobel observers, as he was nominated only two weeks into his presidency. That's the way it's being described on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News. Supporter of Obama or not, there is no question that it is a controversial award: the top five articles on CNN right now are all discussing whether or not he deserves it in the first place. »]<small><sup>(]\|])</sup></small> 14:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
			\|maindate=August 18, 2004
	:::::::Exactly my point. ] (]) 14:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
			\|maindate2=November 4, 2008
			\|itndate=November 5, 2008
			\|otd1date=November 5, 2013
			\|otd1oldid=579954170
			\|otd2date=November 4, 2016
			\|otd2oldid=747850418
			\|otd3date=2022-11-04\|otd3oldid=1119935935
			}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|collapsed=yes\|vital=yes\|listas=Obama, Barack\|1=
			{{WikiProject Barack Obama}}
			{{WikiProject Biography\|politician-work-group=yes\|politician-priority=top\|s&a-work-group=yes\|s&a-priority=top}}
			{{WikiProject United States\|importance=Top\|DC=yes\|DC-importance=High\|USGov=yes\|USGov-importance=Top\|USSL=yes\|USSL-importance=Low\|USPresidents=yes\|USPresidents-importance=Top\|USPE=yes\|USPE-importance=Top\|portal1-name=United States\|portal1-link=Selected biography/4\|portal2-name=Illinois\|portal2-link=Selected biography/1\|portal3-name=Chicago\|portal3-link=Selected biography/7\|portal4-name=Hawaii\|portal4-link=Selected biography/11}}
			{{WikiProject U.S. Congress\|importance=High\|subject=person}}
			{{WikiProject Politics\|importance=high\|American=y\|American-importance=Top}}
			{{WikiProject Hawaii\|importance=high}}
			{{WikiProject Illinois\|importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject Chicago\|importance=Top}}
			{{WikiProject New York (state)\|importance=Low\|Columbia=yes\|Columbia-importance=high}}
			{{WikiProject African diaspora\|importance=Mid}}
			{{WikiProject Africa\|importance=Mid\|Kenya=yes\|Kenya-importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject 2010s\|importance=Top}}
			{{WikiProject Law\|importance=Top}}
			\| blp=yes
			}}
			{{press
			\| collapsed=yes
			\| title = On Misplaced Pages, Debating 2008 Hopefuls' Every Facet \| author = ] \| date = September 17, 2007 \| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601699.html \| org = ]
			\| title2 = 'Round the Clock: Obama, Clinton Wiki-Warfare \| author2 = ], Rachel Martin \| date2 = April 3, 2008 \| url2 = http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89333759&sc=emaf \| org2 = ], ]
			\| title3 = Editors in Chief \| author3 = ], ] \| date3 = April 4, 2008 \| url3 = http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2008/04/04/02 \| org3 = ], NPR
			\| title4 = Wiki Woman \| author4 = Eve Fairbanks \| date4 = April 9, 2008 \| url4 = http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=4f0c6aa3-3028-4ca4-a3b9-a053716ee53d&p=1 \| org4 = ]
			\| title5 = Hillary's Wiki Defender \| author5 = Jesse Brown \| date5 = April 10, 2008 \| url5=http://www.cbc.ca/searchengine/blog/2008/04/this_weeks_show_april_1008.html \| org5 = ], ]
			\| title6 = Misplaced Pages Wars \| author6 = ] \| date6 = April 11, 2008 \| url6 = http://www.charter.net/video/?vendid=35&vid=142269 \| org6 = ], ]
			\| title7 = Liberal Web \| author7 = ] \| date7 = April 21, 2008 \| url7=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_7_60/ai_n25474310/print?tag=artBody;col1 \| org7 = ]
			\| title8 = Clinton's entry in Misplaced Pages has a watchdog \| author8 = Kelly Heyboer \| date8 = May 28, 2008 \| url8=<!--http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-13/1211949334324290.xml&coll=1--> http://blog.nj.com/digitallife/2008/05/hillary_clintons_wikipedia_wat.html \| org8 = ]
			\| title9=NJ Man Appoints Himself Misplaced Pages Watchdog \| author9 = Paul Murnane \| date9 = May 28, 2008 \| url9=http://www.wcbs880.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=2400703 \| org9 = ]
			\| title10 = Updating a Reference Site on the Fly \| author10 = Noam Cohen \| date10 = November 9, 2008 \| url10 = http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/technology/internet/10link.html \| org10 = ]
			\| title11 = Obama Misplaced Pages page under possible security attack \| author11 = Adrian Bridgwater \| date11 = January 22, 2009 \| url11 = http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,1000000567,1001960o-2000458459b,00.htm \| org11 = ]
			\| title12 = Misplaced Pages scrubs Obama eligibility \| author12 = ] \| date12 = March 8, 2009 \| url12 = http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114 \| org12 = ]
			\| title13 = Obama's Misplaced Pages Page Distances President from Wright and Ayers \| author13 = Joshua Rhett Miller \| date13 = March 9, 2009 \| url13 = http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,507244,00.html \| org13 = ]
			\| title14 = Barack Obama 'receives preferential treatment on Misplaced Pages', report claims \| author14 = Mark Coleman \| date14 = March 10, 2009 \| url14 = http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/wikipedia/4965132/Barack-Obama-receives-preferential-treatment-on-Misplaced Pages-report-claims.html \| org14 = ]
			\| title15 = Misplaced Pages May Be a Font of Facts, but It’s a Desert for Photos \| author15 = Noam Cohen \| date15 = July 19, 2009 \| url15 = http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/arts/20funny.html \| org15 = ]
			\| author16 = Staff \| date16 = August 17, 2009 \| url16 = http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6043534/The-50-most-viewed-Misplaced Pages-articles-in-2009-and-2008.html \| title16 = The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008 \| org16 = ]
			\| subject17 = article
			\| author17 =
			\| title17 = Misplaced Pages co-founder Larry Sanger says online encyclopedia scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics
			\| org17 = ]
			\| url17 = https://www.foxnews.com/media/wikipedia-co-founder-larry-sanger-says-online-dictionary-scrapped-neutrality-favors-lefty-politics
			\| date17 = 2020-05-21
			\| quote17 = The first example pointed out by the ] is that President Barack Obama’s page “completely fails to mention many well-known scandals” such as ], the ], the ] and the so-called ] operation.
			\| archiveurl17 =
			\| archivedate17 =
			\| accessdate17 = 2020-05-22
			}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 75K
			\|counter = 84
			\|minthreadsleft = 3
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
			\|algo = old(30d)
			\|archive = Talk:Barack Obama/Archive %(counter)d
			}}
			{{tmbox
			\| image = ]
			\| text = '''Bookmarks:'''
			{{Columns-start}}
			* ]
			* ]
			{{Column}}
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			{{Columns-end}}
			}}

			{{Banner holder\|collapsed=yes\|
	:::::::Like ? Yes, the bloggers, the WNDS, the Free Republics are certainly all in a tizzy, but calling that "widespread and well sourced criticism" is a bit dishonest. ] (]) 14:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
			{{All time pageviews\|155}}
	::::::::Your statements are simply ridiculous, the award has been criticized by the leaders of the two largest opposition parties in Norway, it has been criticized by Lech Wales, by The Times, etc. etc. 14:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			{{Top 25 Report\|Jan 20 2013\|Jul 24 2016\|Nov 6 2016\|Jan 15 2017\|Nov 1 2020\|Nov 8 2020}}

			{{Annual report\|], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]}}
	:::::::Everything is a "controversy" these days. Just because people are talking about something doesn't automatically make it "controversial". And '''GVU:''' ], you refuse to understand that none of the sources you've provided meet Misplaced Pages standards as ]. Disagreement (especially from one's opposition and detractors) ] of controversy. As you pointed out, this is an encyclopedia; to that end, you should familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages's ] and ] policies. ] (]) 14:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
			{{Annual readership}}
	::::::::Agreed. It seems as if everything this man does is controversial recently. Just because someone disagrees with it does mean it is controversial and even when articles (not editorials/opinion blogs) do mention it they mention it in that light. ] (]) 14:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
			{{Section sizes}}
	::::::::That is the problem some seem to be having here; confusing criticism with controversy. Arafat winning (even though I support him and the award) was controversial. Gandhi never winning was controversial. This, while unexpected, does not seem to rise to that level. ] (]) 15:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
			}}
	:::::::::It's fair at this point to say that it was a surprise. I do think the middle paragraph of the section, describing other nominees and the nomination process, is a little too much detail and a weight problem - if people are that curious how it came to be they can read the article on the subject. ] (]) 15:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
			{{pp-move-indef}}
	*:I think to be even more fair, this "event" hasn't even really played itself out yet. I mean, most of this thread existed before Obama had even ''made his acceptance speech!'' It's unfortunate that the pace and populous of the Internet force us to add these things moments (read: seconds) after they happen with large rushes to judgment, needless edits, libelous edits, redundancies, trivia, etc., etc. rather than being able to discuss them first, then add them after the "event" has played out. Or at the very least some semblance of what's going on can be established and consensus reached rather than every random person on the Internet tries to have his version his way. I think this article should be fully protected and only admins editing after reasonable consensus is reached. But I'm sure that will never happen. ] (]) 16:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
			{{Spoken Misplaced Pages request\|Catfurball\|Important}}
	:::In the mean time. I have left a note asking editors to try to format their citations in some way - so as to avoid bare URLs. I can foresee such minor things being taken up on by the FAR sharks which I am sure have been circulating ever since Obama was elected. I think it is credit to the authors and users who maintain it that this article hasn't been challenged thus far. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
			__toc__
	::::I'm sure there are more than enough editors here to fix minor stuff like formatting. ] (]) 16:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

	In case anybody has forgotten, Obama is the president of the United States. Therefore, just about every single word he says and every single thing he does will be controversial, if by "controversial" one means that some people will be happy while others will not. To call his Nobel win "controversial" at this point would seem as silly as declaring a year ago that his presidential victory is "controversial" because there were lots of folks who voted for McCain. ] (]) 18:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

	:Cool. All criticism not allowed in wikipedia. Google "obama nobel prize ridiculous" gives 367K results, but media like WSJ and MSNBC are cosidered "unreliable", so just leave it at 90% praise and a short mention of dispute. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	::No, criticism (with citations) is allowed to be included on Misplaced Pages - it just needs to be in context. It is quite unreasonable to make an article full of criticism when in perspective, such "controversies" are only a minor part of a person's life. They span over a few weeks or months and are usually forgotten over time when their presidency, for instance, spans over several years and is usually remembered many years after. I don't see this article with 90% praise - I only see the facts being written down: where Obama was born, what happened in his life, when he got elected as President etc. ] ] 03:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

	== Proposal to modify FAQ 2, ] in light of persistent misunderstanding of what the term includes and excludes ==

	Clearly some editing this passage in the article have not and would not read the FAQ section, but for those who do I suggest pointing out that ] does not preclude having white parentage. ] is not wikilinked in either the question or the answer of that section. I propose Wikilinking ] there, and explicitly addressing the fact that, as the ] article notes, '']'' and ''biracial'' are not mutually exclusive terms. The lead of ] is: "African Americans (also referred to as Black Americans or Afro-Americans) are citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa."

	FAQ 2 currently reads:
	:A2: Obama himself and the media identify him, the vast majority of the time, as African American or black. Thus we use this term in the introduction. ] many individuals who identify as black have varieties of ancestors from many countries who may identify with other racial or ethnic groups. See our article on race for more information on this concept. We could call him the first "biracial" candidate or the first "half black half white" candidate or the first candidate with a parent born in Africa, but Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source which reports what other reliable sources say, and most of those other sources say "first African American." Readers will learn more detail about his ethnic background in the article body.

	I propose a change to:
	:A2: Obama himself and the media identify him, the vast majority of the time, as ] or black. '''African American is primarily defined as "citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa," a statement that accurately describes Obama and does not preclude or negate origins in the white populations of America as well.''' Thus we use the term ] in the introduction''', and address the specifics of his parentage in the first headed section of the article'''. Many individuals who identify as black have varieties of ancestors from many countries who may identify with other racial or ethnic groups. See our article on race for more information on this concept. We could call him the first "biracial" candidate or the first "half black half white" candidate or the first candidate with a parent born in Africa, but Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source which reports what other reliable sources say, and most of those other sources say "first African American." Readers will learn more detail about his ethnic background in the article body.

	The new text is either highlighted in blue or boldfaced in black. The only text I've removed from the current version is set in red in the "currently reads" section. ] (]) 02:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
	:I appreciate the intent, but it was pointed out in an earlier discussion thread on this talk page that a lot of time and effort went into getting consensus for the FAQ as is. Thus, my concern is that a lot of effort would be expended in updating the FAQ that would be better spent on improving the article. Pointing new editors to the FAQ is not that time-consuming (and we always have <nowiki>{hat} and {hab}</nowiki>). I'd be OK with wikilinking ] (if we could get consensus) - but only once (twice is redundant). --] (]) 03:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

	::I on his race earlier, before having read this section, but I have to say, Abrazame gets across exactly what I was trying to get across, but does so more eloquently and succinctly than I. I think that the suggested addition could be quite informative and useful, considering the widespread confusion of race, ethnicity, skin tone, etc. with one another. If there's a chance to make readers more intellectually comfortable with what they're reading, why not take it? I agree that constructive article work should take precedence over editorial drama, but I'd suggest that conceptually drawing readers to the article is one of the most important and constructive types of article work that can be done. ] (]) 04:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

	I'm in favor of the clarified wording for the FAQ. It adds a few words, but has a moderate chance of fending off some of the same repeated objections we see so often about "but he's white also". I think the change is consistent with the spirit of the existing entry, but uses a nice wording to make the point a little bit more strongly. <font color="darkgreen">]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">]</font> 06:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
	::If consensus can be reached, I'm all for it. My only concern with his text, per se, is that ] is wikilinked twice. --] (]) 14:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

	::Unlink the 2nd African-American, maybe link to an appropriate article in the ''"See our article on race..."'' if we are directing people somewhere for more information, and it looks ok. ] (]) 15:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

	{{hat\|Closing thread per ] and ]}}
	:::Not sure why all my statements here were erased, and not just this whole section, since it was already was just an extension of my discussion. But, since this seems to be the now current one, I will post some later replies here.
	For all of the above reason? For all of the above reasons he is both african american, and biracial, and if ethnicity is not important then take it out of of the intro all together, and every other persons article. Why are you ignoring the previously used to justify this distinction African American article that backs up my point 100%. He is both, and if you are to mention one you are to mention both. Self identity is the key, because as you said he has no direct connection to african american history, only Kenyan and white american history. EIther way, you are obfuscating this for some reason I cannot understand and trying to stufle debate by saying what else needs to be said when you have ignored a myriad of valid points, and the very original argument that they are not mutually exclusive. Do you realize that you are denying an entire category people? Do you know how offensive that is Tarc?
	:::I guess I just don't understand why, if the cited article of African Americans is used to justify his african american identity, it is then ignored that it actually said they are not mutually exclusive, and that he is "obviously biracial". I don't understand why the concept of it not being mutually exclusive is used to be exclusive, and why the "obviousness" of his biracial background is not included. Please explain those two things to me, and why you are not relying on self identification and not pretending a whole group and segment of the USA does not exist through your logic. ] (]) 00:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
	::::Why not propose it for the article body, at the bottom of the "2008 presidential campaign" section? There would be much less of a weight concern there. I'd feel comfortable with the same (cited) addition there, although I expect others would differ. As far as I can tell, news articles refer to him as the "first black" about 50-100 times more as the "first biracial", so that's what people are paying most attention to. Here's an interesting program on that. The fact is clearly noteworthy though, the question is whether it should be noted in this article or somewhere else instead... and if so, where? - ] (]) 03:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
	::::::Wikidemon, please see the discussion above as that is where it has been playing out. It is all explained there. The point is being "black" - African American and being Multiracial are not "mutually exclusive" as the wiki African American page makes clear, thus "weight of sources" is not relevant, and we are also getting into the subjective arena of self identification which cannot trump ethnic background. The fact is he is both black and multiracial, but please see the above One drop rule discussion I painstakingly have laid it out there. Thank you. ] (]) 03:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
	::::::::As i make clear in the earlier ongoing discussion, I'm not opposed to him being called "african american".
	:::::::::The sources that call him, or describe him as of mixed race are not contending with the ones which describe him as black, they are augmenting them because the two terms are not mutually exclusive, they are not contending ethnicities, or else, by definition, Obama could not be african american. ] (]) 03:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
	:::::::::::either people somehow ignore, or don't get that the weight of sources is irrelevant because you can be both multiracial and african american. Again, there are plenty of sources to augment his being black with, many in this article alone. This article already says he is "multiracial", so it has already been included. Thus, it is just a question of if it is relevant, or important enough. Since he would be the first multiracial person to become president it has to be noteworthy, and because he has discussed it and written books about it is important to him. Here is the major thing the people against this are missing, Obama does not deny his multiracial background when self identifies as african american or black. He is not way denying he is multicultural he has said a 1000 times how diverse his family is, and he says it with pride when he describes the different colors and ethnicities of his family, thus we need to stop being so exclusive about this. Using inclusiveness to be exclusive is not logical. ] (]) 02:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

	Again, you seek to create a SOAPBOX and FORUM for your personal opinions on the nature of racial coverages on Misplaced Pages, in the form of a baiting series of writings which will provoke a BATTLEGROUND. Your ideas also contravene the basic form of scholarly writing required here. YOu have had all this explained to you, but dismiss everything as 'you're all wrong for not seeing that my personal feelings supersede good writing, good scholarship, respect for sources, or any other thing you all tell me is sensible, because dammit, I'm right.' It is time for you to stop it. Two further points. Please, write one long screed, instead of replying to yourself over and over and over, it gives me, at least, as sense that you really just like the look of your own words. Two, if you use '<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>' you do not need to put your name after it, that looks like you want everyone to see that you're so great you need to sign twice. Both these discomfiting behaviors do not make your writing more enjoining to read. ] (]) 02:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
	:Thuranx, you have completely failed to reason with anything I said. This seems like a personal vendetta. Isn't there a Halo or video game article that desperately needs your input right now? All you have done is avoid my valid points. Do you think being multiracial is not important, or noteworthy? It's already in the article, and major theme of both the campaign, media, and his own books. Unless you want to address these points head on, please refrain from false accusations against me. You have already been told by other editors that this is not a soapbox, yet you persist to essentially create your own soapbox. Please, if it is already in the article, down to the exact phrase "multiracial" then how is it just "my opinion"? Either contribute, or don't. RIght now your only point seems to be that despite it already being in the article, multiracial people are not important or relevant enough to note, especially in terms of one of them becoming the first president of such a background. IF you and Tarc want to push that line, which I cannot reason how it is not racist and bigoted towards and entire legally validated group of people, then that is reflective on you, not me. So, please explain why they are not important or relevant, as that is the discussion now. ] (]) 07:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
	Again, the terms, as per the African American article, are not mutually exclusive, and you have ignored this. Why do they not matter as a people? How is that not being racist? Where has Obama refuted that he is not the product of a multiracial background? The evidence for him embracing this are endless. So, why are you pushing it's exclusion from the intro (it's already in the body). The only reason can be that you consider such a legally recognized group as not important, or somehow have misunderstood that being multiracial and african american are in now way contradictory terms. ] (]) 07:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
	{{Hab}}
	:::I have a question, why were my comments in this section deleted? Why would that be? Again, I will state that as per the African American article cited to say Obama can be included as an African American the argument presented is that the term african american is not mutually exclusive, so then why are we using it to exclude the obvious and directly stated in the article fact that he is also multiracial? That makes 0 sense, and it just amounts to denying the existence of a legally recognized group of people. Obama has bragged about how diverse his family is, his self identification as African American in no way is a denial of being multiracial, yet many here seem hell bent on denying this and using an inclusive term to be exclusive. ] (]) 07:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

	And, the second I posted this it became shut down like somebody has something that just shuts it down when I post. Literally, this page is being censored, and not only my posts deleted without explanation, but then anything I bring up in completely shut down. This is beyond strange. And, again, refute my points above or include it. Don't obfuscate or personally attack. ] (]) 07:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Johnhistory
	:Even the explanation in the history for this discussion says "consistent misunderstanding of what the term (african american) includes and excludes." well it clearly includes "multiracial" yet you all have a clear strong desire to exclude it. ] (]) 07:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
	:::Just to be clear, I was not signed in when I first posted above, when I went to sign it, the discussion had suddenly been closed, that's why the times are the same for my first and second posts. Check the page history. This is beyond the pale. ] (]) 07:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

	:Over the course of many paragraphs on this page, you made your points many times that we should add multiethnic or multiracial to the lead of this article (it is already included in the body of the article.) Many answers were given to you why this will not happen. I won't bother to repeat all of the responses here as you can read them for yourself, above.
	:Continuing to argue the point when consensus is against you on this subject is disruptive to a busy talkpage. None of your comments have been deleted, they have been condensed (along with the responses to your comments) inside of the hatnotes, above. Click show next to the condensed sections to open them up. We routinely close sections when they appear to be going nowhere or when they begin to violate talkpage guidelines. I don't think any of your comments have been removed, but the claims of censorship are silly when the page history records all. There is no "desire to exclude" anything, only a desire to follow our content policies. Anyway, you are free to seek ], but please re-read all of the discussion we've had with you above and note that a large ] is clearly against adding multiethnic to the lead -- it's already in the article body. --] \| ] 10:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
	::Modified per consensus after ten days with no further constructive comment. ] (]) 07:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

	== Prior cleanup of redundant categories ==

	{{hat\|Discussion thread now in ]}}
	Previously, there had been a discussion here regarding redundant categories in the article, and the problem it was causing. As a consequence, there was consensus to do some cleanup. For example, there was more than one category of ], redundant since the ] category is included. Recently, an editor, ] (]) (]), the category ] with the edit summary "Article is better now". Per ], I , with an edit summary explaining that the category is redundant to that of UCC. His response was to insert the category again, with the edit summary "Thanks however wire story on Obama's resignation from Trinity United Church of Christ in the course of the Jeremiah Wright controversy stated that he had, in doing so, disaffiliated". The editor did not remove the UCC category, however. I've ] the editor to discuss his change, and gain consensus, here, before making the change again. --] (]) 09:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

	:This same editor, ] (]), has again restored his , without discussion. --] (]) 16:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
	::See ] --] (])\{{Hab}}
	{{Hab}}

	== total number of troops in iraq ==

	{{hat\|Research question apparently unrelated to this article; no suggestion for edit to article}}
	does anyone know the number? maximum under bush ? maximum under obama? thanks. ] (]) 00:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

	hey! what is apparent to you is not to me. after i get a "research" answer, i will give a suggestion for inclusion. ] (]) 10:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
	:Why not give us the suggestion now? If not, I'd go to the article for the Iraq War, and ask there. --] (]) 10:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

	::well, it relates to his pre-election promises versus his presidential decisions. he was talking about pulling troops home, yet i've read somewhere there are more troops now than any time during bush. i just cannot find the specific article again, and was wandering if others read similar stuff. so it may not only be interesting for the iraq war article, but also for this article. ] (]) 12:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

	:::It wouldn't be a fit for here, no, perhaps ] would be better. But if you're going to try to find one article about pre-campaign statements and another article about the current troop level in Iraq, and tie them together in a "he said this but did that" thing, that would run afoul of ]. ] (]) 12:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

	::::not me, the article i read made this comparison. ] (]) 13:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

	:::::Would you care to, y'know, link to it? Or is this game going to stretch on for awhile more? ] (]) 13:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

	::::::would you care to read what i wrote? i read this somewhere, but i cannot frind the article. i don't bookmark everything i read. so my question here is if anyone else has come across similar information. i don't care if you see this as a game - it is your perception. ] (]) 13:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

	:::::::The perception is that it seems likely that your favorite blogger or worldnetdaily-style site wrote yet another scathing critique, or maybe a right-leaning UK tabloid like dailymail or the Guardian. Sounds like fringe criticism that would not be article-worthy. ] (]) 13:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

	:::::::::funny. you think i'm a right wing. on another page i was accused of being left wing. it's all about perception. ] (]) 15:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

	what is this silly censorship?

	i finally found the article. no 'blog' nor 'worldnetdaily' nor 'right leaning tabloid' but the ].

	" ''The buildup has raised the number of U.S. troops deployed to the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan above the peak during the Iraq "surge" that President George W. Bush ordered, officials said'' "

	I think this could fit well into ] section. ] (]) 19:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
	:Your point being what? Obviously there are going to be more in Afghanistan, that has always been how it was going to be. There is no suggestion for the article here, and if there was, it's a small bit that can better fit in elsewhere. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 19:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

	::ooo, i see. my bad. i thought he was talking during elections something about 'bringing troops home', but it was actually 'bringing troops to Afghanistan'. you are right. this is not worth inclusion. it is to be expected from politicians. ] (]) 19:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::You obviously were not listening to what he said then. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 04:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
	{{hab}}

	== 2004 East African newspaper article describes Obama as Kenyan-born ==

	{{hat\|Birther silliness}}
	http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm

	:So? --]''''']''''' 05:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
	*I agree with Jayron. What's your point? He wasn't born there, so it doesn't ''matter'' what an "East African newspaper describes." This birther stuff has been discussed ''ad nauseum''. ]] 05:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
	{{hab}}

	== Kenyan (former) under American ==

	{{hat\|Closing, per ] that this lacks ]}}

	Note that FAQ Q5 doesn't apply here - this concern is putting Kenyan as a former nationality in the infobox. While Obama was born in America (no doubt about that), he still held ''de jure'' Kenyan citizenship until his 20's through his father, which I think should be placed in the infobox. Reason being, we put many former things in infoboxes - such as ]'s former Christian denomination. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:I think it would be superfluous. But is it even true? Do you have a source? Did ] even have independent citizenship or would that be some kind of British citizenship? And did birth to a Kenyan father automatically confer Kenyan (or British?) citizenship even in mixed marriages with the birth taking place abroad? --] (]) 14:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
	::I agree. Did he ever identify as Kenyan, obtain a passport, in any way acknowledge its authority over him? As I understand it, his right to Kenyan citizenship expired at age 21 because he had done none of these things. I think it is more a question of right to citizenship than citizenship itself.--] (]) 15:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

	Unless or until someone produces a specific citation claiming this Kenyan citizenship--one that meets ], not some birther blog--this whole discussion is moot. Some anon making an ] claim about ] interpreting 1960s British or Kenyan law is completely irrelevant for our purposes. Find the New York Times stating the alleged fact... ''then'' we have something worth discussing (which doesn't mean it's actually worth including, just that the question is serious). <font color="darkgreen">]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">]</font> 17:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

	:See --] (]) 19:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
	::Interesting - I had forgotten about that article. If I'm reading it correctly, he:
	::*Became a US Citizen by birth, by being "born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu" ('']'')
	::*Obtained ] to the United Kingdom "by descent" ('']'') since "his father a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth"
	::*Lost his UK (Dual) Citizenship "On Dec. 12, 1963" when "Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom"
	::* Obtained ] to Kenyan "on 12th December, 1963" ('']''), "having been born outside Kenya", due to his father becoming "a citizen of Kenya by virtue of " "having been born in Kenyan"
	::*Lost his Kenyan (Dual) Citizenship on "Aug. 4,1984", as "the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults", and he " neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya"
	::*Never lost his U.S. Citizenship
	::All by doing nothing. I wonder how many other ex-British and ex-Kenyan citizens there are in the world? By the above rules, there are as many ex-British citizens as there are children born of a British father, regardless of where the children were born, and similarly as many ex-Kenyan citizens. --] (])

	:::Yes indeed, and there are many UK citizens in the UK who would have lost UK citizenship had they stayed in their homeland, until they tightened things up, somewhat after Obama's birth. Those things you say are correct. So he is a former UK and former Kenyan citizen, but as he never did anything about them, it isn't very notable or worthy of inclusion.--] (]) 20:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
	{{Hab}}

	== Obama and religion ==

	{{hat\|Closing - resolved}}

	It is a fact that Obama is no longer part of the UC of C and that the Church he usually attends these days is run by a Baptist. However Obama is not a formal member so it would be wrong to say he is a Baptist but not wrong to say he is a protestant. --] (]) 20:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

	:As mentioned on your talk page, see ]. By virtue of being (properly) in the UCC category, he is ''also automatically'' part of the Protestant category. There is no need to ] add the Protestant Category to ''this'' article. --] (])

	I would agree with you but Obama is no longer a member of that Church. However I think he qualifies to retain that category since he was a member of that denomination for a long time. --] (]) 20:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
	::Thank you for discussing your proposed change.
	::*"he qualifies to retain category". As noted by another editor on your talk page, in the ] section, "categories reflect someone's membership in various organizations throughout their life. That's why Obama is still in categories for, for example, Illinois Senators and U-Chicago Law faculty". I understand this, as well. So there is consensus to keep the UCC category, it seems.
	::*"I would agree with you" - I'm hopeful that you mean you agree with me that "There is no need to need to ... add the Protestant Category". Is that the case? If so, we can close this discussion thread, and you are satisfied that, indeed, given the way categorization works, Obama ''is'' in the category of Protestants by virtue of being in the category of one time or current UCC members. It is like that bit of logic we learned in grammar school: "All poodles are dogs, but not all dogs are poodles". Similarly, "All members of the United Church of Christ category are members of the Protestant category, but not all Protestants are members of the United Church of Christ category". Cheers, --] (])
	{{Hab}}

	== Allegedly born in Hawaii. ==

	{{hat\|Closing this per FAQ Q5/A5 & ]}}

	I feel this article should reflect a broader opinion I think that he was born in the USA but there are alot of people who think he was born in Kenya sorry if I'm being a pain. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Please refer to question number 5 in the FAQ section at the top of this page. - ] (]) 20:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
	{{hab}}

	== Way too biased ==

	Regardless of what the FAQ might claim, there is absolutely no way this article is without bias; any reasonable reader could come to such a conclusion. The entire article is peppered with partial language. "Rising star?" Really? We need to all stop being so defensive over this, regardless of where we fall politically, and strive to make it an article that really represents Misplaced Pages, not the selfish ambitions of certain members of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 15:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
	*Would you mind very much pointing out your specific concerns? I note your problems with "rising star", but if your concerns only surround issues addressed in the FAQ (Birther nonsense and that type thing) then there's nothing that can be done to help you here. ]] 16:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
	:Um, do you have actually suggestions on specific stuff or are you just here to make a ]? ] (]) 16:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
	**Indeed, that there may be one or two phrases that do not belong is one thing. If the words "rising star" bother you, then remove them. Per ], you probably have grounds to do so. However, I disagree that the entire article is itself non-neutral. --]''''']''''' 16:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::I have to ask on the rising start words, what does the reference attached to the section/sentence say? If those words are not used in the ref, then we cannot use them. However, if the ref uses them then we should say it exactly as the ref says it. ] (]) 16:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
	::::Actually, probably not. I can find a source which uses all SORTS of words to describe Obama. That doesn't mean that those words necessarily belong in an encyclopedia article. As an encyclopedia we should report, not provide commentary; and merely because another source makes the same commentary does not mean that such terms are instantly appropriate. --]''''']''''' 16:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::::So in the end, what you are saying is that if you don't like the words then they are POV, Peacock and should be removed despite them being true, accurate, neutral, and backed up by sources? I've seen the use of the term rising star in various politician's articles here on both sides of the political spectrum with no issues with the use of that term. However, due to heated hyper-politics of today we cannot use that term on this page because one side or another does not like that. If that was the case, then a lot should be removed from this article because the POV warriors don't like them and in their place POV slanted words should be used. However because someone does not like the term, does not mean it is not neutral and cannot be used. (I.E. in the IP's opinion this article should be a lot less glowing and a lot more critical of the president especially from the right.)] (]) 17:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
	::::::Also, if you feel that "rising star" is peacock words, this I highly suggest you go through every article that uses that term and remove/replace them. ] (]) 17:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::I reworded it. It now means the same basic thing, but the issue is addressed. If it's brought up as an issue at other pages, it can be addressed there. ]] 17:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::My point is: how is it an issue just on this page and no other article? How is it ok to use the term: rising star, on other pages with no one complaining and yet, someone complains here because of bias problems, it's an issue here? So if I go to another article and say I have an issue with a term other editors will come in and bend over backwards accommodating me? Why does hyper-politicians have more weight on this page when others with hyper-politics are able to use the term with no issues? That is my issue. ] (]) 17:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::::If you don't like the use of the term "rising star" in another article, remove it from there. That some other random Misplaced Pages article is badly written does not excuse this one of its problems. --]''''']''''' 17:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::::::I never said that I didn't like the term or the use of the term in other article. Nor do I agree that using the term in this article make it a badly written article either. My issue is this: this all boils down to POV bias. Those that don't like the man don't like the term. Those that either like the man or are neutral don't have a problem with the term due to the fact that it is rather descriptive and to the point. Notice how many words you had to add to replace that term and other terms that you considered peacock. Also, those who still don't like the man will still have problems with what you wrote? If they make that claim that the article is too biased towards praise and they point out the sections/lines you wrote as badly written/peacock will you go back and change it again towards what they want? ] (]) 17:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::::::You sound too hard like you are trying to "win" as if "they" are somehow a competitor that must be "defeated." Look, if you read my response above, I vehemently disagreed that the article was too POV, which was the IP's original problem. But the use of informal English, for an FA-rated article, is inappropriate regardless of the political position of the person who notices it. The OP may or may not have a political agenda to push, but it doesn't make the term "rising star" appropriately formal language for an encyclopedia article. For the record, when I removed rising star from the lede, and reorganized the text, it resulted in a net decrease of 48 characters, so I didn't add any words. I made the article '''48 characters shorter'''. Plus, '''don't tell me what I will or will not do''' in anything. You have no right sir, '''no right''', to put words in my mouth or tell me what I will or will not do. The words were not properly formal English, and were, as such, rewritten to a more appropriate tone. If anyone else finds similar poor English, expected changed as well. --]''''']''''' 03:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
	*My first edit replaced 4 words with 6, my second simply removed 3 words. So actually, it was a net trim of verbiage, if looked at that way. ]] 17:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
	::It's a fair call, the article used the term "star" far too many times and it probably shouldn't be used at all. Though true in a sense, the word is too colorful and carries some vague connotations of adoration, celebrity, and approval that aren't really what we're trying to say. It's not exactly peacock, but when we use language that is too strong and informal we give the encyclopedia its own narrative voice, and that gets in the way of communicating with the reader. Journalists can do that because they are part of the story, they create their persona through their written or spoken voice and people identify with them. The encycloepdia is supposed to be completely neutral, though, no man behind the curtain here. - ] (]) 18:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::(EC)Either way I take issue that two editors are jumping through hoops to adjust the "peacock terms and bias" because one IP editor felt this article should: "strive to make it an article that really represents Misplaced Pages, not the selfish ambitions of certain members of Misplaced Pages." I also ask why now with this IP editor and not the countless other POV warriors who taken issue with various bits of this article are these two editors jumping through those hoops? ] (]) 18:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
	::::Well, even IP editors right twice a day, right? I don't think anyone is jumping through a hoop, I think the IP editor for his/her own reasons called our attention to the over-use of a less than perfect turn of words that some people have decided to improve. Why is "star" okay for those articles? Because they're not FA-class. Also, a person who is a featured performer, particularly in an acting or singing production, is a "star" in a literal sense so those uses are not metaphorical. The encyclopedia would probably be better if we replaced many less literal uses of "star" "up-and-coming", "young Turks", "whippersnapper", and "idol" but it's not exactly my first priority for the encyclopedia. I just discovered another bankrupt national chain of fitness centers that doesn't have its own article yet, so plenty of bigger holes to fill... - ] (]) 18:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::::Restored longstanding sentence with historically accurate description from multiple cited authoritative contemporaneous ]:<blockquote>In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won an unexpected landslide victory with 53% of the vote in a seven-candidate field, 29% ahead of his nearest Democratic rival, which overnight made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party and started speculation about a presidential future.</blockquote> ] (]) 19:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
	::::::That another source uses informal English does not mean Misplaced Pages needs to repeat the use of informal English. There is nothing wrong with reporting the ''importance'' of the event but to use language of an appropriate mode and tone for an encyclopedia. The words "rising star" do not represent a level of formality and quality writing one would normally expect of a featured article. It has nothing to do with how truly awesome and cool and wonderful Obama is, it has to do with using words and phrases that are appropiate to the style of writing one expects out of the best of Misplaced Pages articles. --]''''']''''' 20:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::Sadly though this is not an issue about formal or informal English as much as one's take on the words: Rising Star. ] (]) 20:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::It's possible to express the concept of "rising star" without using the words "rising star". It's just not the proper tone. We could call him a "cool dude" or "the bitchinest cat on the block" or something like that, it still wouldn't be of a tone that is appropriate for an encylopedia. The issue is using the right words to fully capture the concept of "becomeing more and more important as a figure" without resorting to colloquialisms or slang. Slang just isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Look, the idea that winning the Illinois Senate primary brought about a rapid rise in importance in his position in the Democratic Party, and indeed, in Politics in the U.S., is not what is being debated here. I am certainly not arguing that we don't report that fact. What is being argued here is the improper use of slang to describe the event. We can describe the event without using slang terms. --]''''']''''' 20:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

	== New source? ==


	What do you guys think? I think it may provide what some of the critics of this article would call "balance" to the article. ]] 17:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
	:I would first consider adding it to the presidency article way before I would think of adding it to this article. However, I would also wait for a short bit to see how it pans out. If it does pan out to be something, then by all means add it to the appropriate section/article Heck, thinking about it. If it truly pans out I wonder if it might merit it's own article to cover the over all picture beyond just Obama and what he may be doing? (I.E. the hyper politics of today?) ] (]) 17:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

	::Meh. Once you parse out the source article it says "The Obama administration disagrees with its opponents." No shit. Don't see why anything in there is worth reporting, because there's no "there there". There's no meat that says anything about anything at all. --]''''']''''' 17:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::No, actually, it says that they're actively engaging in an attempt to marginalize their most powerful conservative critics. This is noteworthy, and reported on in an unbiased, reliable way. I'm actually thinking of placing a couple of sentences regarding it in the ], which I don't think would be inappropriate. ]] 17:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
	::::What does it mean to be "actively engaging in an attempt to marginalize their critics?" It means that the Obama administration doesn't agree with their critics (who does) and seeks to make sure their own message, which they believe in (again, who doesn't believe in their own message) is given more prominence in the public sphere than the message of their opponents. There is nothing all that unsual about that, its just the language of the article. One could easily say that the authors of the article seeks to marginalize the Obama administration's disagreements with its critics, and so is using the charactizations it does to do that. Its all a big game, with each side trying to make sure the other side's message is diminished while its own message is accentuated. The source article you cite is not a dispassionate observer of that process, its '''part of''' that process, and what Misplaced Pages should be doing is to avoid itself becoming part of that process, on either side. --]''''']''''' 03:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::::No, it doesn't mean that. I can disagree with my critics. I can engage with my critics in debate. I can even attempt to persuade people that I'm right and my critics are wrong. That is all very different than if I attempt to "marginalize" them. That is an active attempt to make my critics seem stupid, extreme, or whatever -- almost more of an ''ad hominem'' than anything else. No, that's ''very'' different than just disagreeing with them. ]] 11:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
	::::::Good lord! A politician is attacking his critics? Stop the presses! --] (]) 00:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
	::::I'm not disagreeing as much as this is a little to new to be included just yet. Plus this article is written in summary style so it would first need to be included in the daughter article way before it got included in this article. ] (]) 17:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
	*I'm not seeing any policy that requires a certain time frame for information to be included. I also don't fully understand why you feel it needs to be included in the daughter article before it goes to the main article. That seems a bit like we're treating this article like the ], and the daughter articles like the ]. I don't think that's how "summary style" is intended to work, but I could be wrong. ]] 18:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
	::Basically what summary style is that this article encapsulates what the daughter articles say at length. (I.E. this article should not include something new that the daughter article does not go into at length.) That is why things are first added to the daughter article, then it could be added to the main article per ], specifically: . ] (]) 18:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

	:Why would that information be in ''this'' article, vs. ]? ] (]) 18:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
	::Because it deals with his "political image", which is the section I'm considering adding it to before long. @Brothejr - WP:Summary doesn't preclude including information in the main article before you include it in the daughter article. At least that's not the way I read it. ]] 19:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::That's how I read it, also does this have sufficient weight to be included in the main article? While it may seem big now, will it be big tomorrow or a month from now? I don't like to jump and add things unless a wide spectrum of news outlets have covered it or it has been given enough time to be shown to be huge. If either happens, then hell yea add it to the article. However, I'm not seeing that yet. I wouldn't preclude it being added to a daughter article, but not this article, at least not yet. ] (]) 19:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
	*''<sigh>'' I'm beginning to understand why some on the right are frustrated with the process of editing this and related articles. This isn't controversial, the article is in a reliable source, and it's an issue of true substance, unlike the Birther nonsense. I'll either write something up, and insert it in the next few days, or I'll just let it go and not be represented at all. I'm really rather surprised that this insertion is an issue at all. Is ''anything'' that reflects as a net negative (no matter how light of a net negative, as this is) going to be subjected to this type of scrutiny? ]] 03:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::Yep, and positive things too. ] (]) 10:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
	::::. ]] 11:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
	From your proposed article: "the campaign underscores how deeply political the Obama White House is in its daily operations." Seriously this is a source you want to put out there as being well written and credible? I mean hold on second, the white house is being political, holy crap, I mean I always thought the white house was an apolitical unbiased arbitrater that never takes side on anything. See if I vote for this guy in the future, he becomes president and becomes all political. Besides mockery I do have a point I assure you. The article takes "no duh" common place realities and treats them like accusations of scandal and outrageous behavior. Of course the freakin white house is political. Of course the president refutes, margianilizes, and dissmisses critics like Rush Limabaugh. Find a president who didn't. Sure there are some critics you can debate with, and I suppose that open hostility to certain people might be unusual to the point of noteworthiness. But of course the President isn't going to debate a person like Rush Limbaugh, he's a political shock jock, not serious a rival interested in proposing legitimate legislation. Did you see Bush debate anyone from the massive community of bloggers or wacked out conspiracy theorists who spat venom at his administration? No, that would have been ridiculous, so of course he dismissed their accusations and margianilized their importance.

	Of course Bush attacked and sought to discredit the values and beliefs underlying liberal political ideologies. As he should have, that's part of why conservatives elected him. So Obama attacks conservative ideas, downplays criticisms and takes shots at political shock jocks who talk negatively about him and his politics. You honestly think that is remotely noteworthy? Sure put in some sub-article about his relations with the press or something, provided you can find something decently written that actually goes into some detail (my biggest problem with the article is that it is all vague generalities and no specificis). But it's not even close to being interesting enough for the main bio. It's a point you could put in any politician's article on who works in any level of government in any country. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	===More sources===
	I could list each individually, but just browse the links in the top two positions for more sources. There's absolutely no reason not to have a brief mention of this at both this, the main article, as well as the presidency daughter article. When I add it, I'll add it simultaneously to both, to alleviate any concerns with ]. ]] 11:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

	:You act like this is something new and revelatory in American politics. Didn't we just go through 8 years of an administration attempting to marginalize its critics by claiming they were terrorist-lovers or that another 9/11 would happen if they were in charge? The last 20-30 years of liberals marginalizing conservatives as gun-toting wingnuts in flyover country? How about the last 60+ years of equating anti-war folk with Communism? Marginalizing one's opponent is a part of the game, there's nothing especially new about this president doing it. ] (]) 12:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
	::Not to this level. Not this overtly. If it is such a common practice, why is there such a focus on it now, when there wasn't in the past? I've ''never'' seen an administration take such an aggressive approach with one news organization. Never. ]] 12:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
	::::You might want to read ] for some historical perspective. --] (]) 13:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::::So, instead of being "never", you're saying I should have written, "not since 1798"? ]] 13:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::If this is just drama over the battle with Fox News, and not with "Obama marginalizes opponents" in general, then we already have a section of the presidency article about that, along with a separate article (though currently in AfD). Isn't your addition over there a little redundant? ] (]) 13:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
	::::No, the articles I'm referring to talk about Fox, but they also reference how the administration is trying to marginalize the Chamber, the insurance industry, Rush Limbaugh, and others. This is not some FRINGE-y thing like the Birther nonsense. I'm an Obama voter, for pete's sake! I've helped keep the fringe crap off this article. ''This'' is not ''that''. ]] 13:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::::I know it isn't that, and I don't even see it as a negative; it just does not seem to be terribly important, at least not enough for ''this'' article. Besides, this isn't a personal beef between Obama the man and conservative critics; this is on an administrative, White House level. ] (]) 14:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
	::::::You can't separate his "political image" (which is where I'm considering placing it) from his administration. They are part and parcel. ]] 14:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::Considering the other presidents have done the same or something similar, how does this rise to the level of something major in Obama's career/life? Why does this merit to be included in the main article? Outside the conservative circles/hyper-politics, how is this a major problem/criticism/controversy? ] (]) 15:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::Point out news articles (nothing I posted was from "conservative circles") showing where the administrations of Bush43, Clinton, Bush41, Reagan, Carter, et al engaged in this type of public attempts at marginalizing their highest-profile opponents, and then we can talk. There's a vast difference between engaging in public debate, and simply saying of your opponents, "They're bad", which is what is currently happening around the CofC discussion, the insurance thing, as well as the Limbaugh and Fox News battles. This viewpoint isn't confined to "conservative circles" in any way. ]] 15:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::::So your argument is that because it is currently in the news and thus is something big? As far as past presidents: Here are some on bush: , , and then as far as Nixon there was ] (Also, note that at the time Bush 43 was in office, FNC was cheering his attacks on NBC, MSNBC, New York Times, etc.) Again, discounting current hyper-politics and conservative scorn, how does this merit as something big in Obama's life/presidency? ] (]) 15:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::::::None of your three diffs shows anything even remotely similar to this situation. One is a recent story from the Huffington Post blog. One is regarding a feud between Steve Doocy and Keith Olbermann, and the last is simply the Bush administration taking umbrage at ONE INCIDENT where they felt they were unfairly edited in an interview. That you compare these three things to the current situation seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what is going on here. The administration is intentionally targeting their opponents, not for a single instance (like your last diff showed with the Bush administration), but AS ORGANIZATIONS. They're attacking the CofC, Fox News, et al, with a general campaign against them. ''That'' is what is unprecedented, and ''that'' is why it's gaining such widespread coverage. It's also why I consider it extremely foolhardy, as I personally would like to see him reelected in 2012, and this isn't going to help him at all. ''Ah, the irony...'' ]] 22:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::(Outdent) The only difference between those links and now is the hyper-politics. Remove that and it looks the same or very very similar. Either way this story is not as big as you are making it out to be and not worth inclusion in his main biography. It's pretty standard politics. The only difference is that FNC is crying up a storm trying to get as many people to pay attention. (The weird thing is only a year ago they were cheering on the Bush administration's comments/attacks on other media companies.) ] (]) 23:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

	== RFC: The Use of slang or informal language in a featured article. ==

	{{rfctag\|bio}}
	I have started this RFC to avoid the back and forth editing over the use of the phrase "Rising star" in the article. The issue, as I see it, depends on two conflicting ideas, and I am not sure what the appropriate way to handle this is. Here, from my take, are the two ideas that are the source of the conflict:
	*] mandates that a featured article is "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard."
	*It is also important that Misplaced Pages article faithfully represent the information in the source material they cite.
	So here is the crux of the problem. The source article, which is from a reliable source, uses the phrase "rising star". The idea that is trying to be expressed here is not under dispute. He was clearly a "rising star" in the sense of having a meteoric rise in popularity and importance due to his democratic senate primary win in 2004. The ''fact'' that such a rise in popularity and importance occured is not under dispute at all. Such an occurance is well documented in reliable source, and as such, it should most certainly have a prominent place in the article. The fact is a very important one, and should not be minimized or marginalized in any way. The problem is that the term "rising star" is slang, it does not represent writing which is "brilliant, and of a professional standard" as should be expected of an encylopedia article. The source material uses the phrase, but there ''must'' be some way that we can capture the ''concept'' while using language which is appropriate to the encyclopedic nature of this article. '''This RFC is intentionally being narrowly defined as how to deal with the phrase "rising star" from linguistic point of view'''. This is not an open debate over Obama's politics or importance or anything else. I just want to know how should we faithfully represent the source material without resorting to using the same slang that the source material uses. --]''''']''''' 20:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

	:Put it in quotes "rising star" to indicate it is the wording of the source, and not a product of the article prose/style? ] (]) 20:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

	::That's a novel idea, but rather self-evident once you put it like that. What about taking it a step further. Why not do something like this:
	:::"His landslide win in the Democratic Party primary during the 2004 Illinois Senate race, caused USA Today to call him a "rising star" in the Democratic Party."
	::Such phrasing would maintain the integrity of the source material, but also make it clear that Misplaced Pages is repeating the use of slang in another source; such direct quoting would seem to be a reasonable solution to the problem, since it attributes the informal tone to the source material, rather than leaving it as part of the article. That seems a very reasonable solution. I think as long as we both directly quote the phrase, and directly name the source in the article, it solves the problem. What does anyone else think? --]''''']''''' 21:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::That makes to much sense and would end this matter. Where is the drama in that :) j/k. Nice logical suggestion :) --] ] 21:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
	::::I agree with the suggestion. ] (]) 21:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
	::::I also agree. Well done. --] (]) 21:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
	::::Yup, sounds good. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 21:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
	::::Agreed, looks good and keeps to the source. ] (]) 23:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
	If the informal phrase "rising star" is used, it should be used as a direct quote to a source. However, I would prefer to avoid the informality of that term altogether, and provide a more encyclopedic wording of the same concept. There are occasionally catch phrases that become closely identified with a biographical subject, and are used by many sources. For example, Reagan as "the Teflon president" might ascend to this, or "Friend of Bill " might. Both of those are informal, but have become almost tropes, and might be mentioned as such. The term "rising star" is used much more generically, with little specific affinity to Obama; he has been described that way in many sources, but many other politicians have also been so described. Hence there is no special reason to insist on the informality for this article. <font color="darkgreen">]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">]</font> 22:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

	:This RfC—based on ]'s unsubstantiated personal opinion that "rising star" is "]"—is unfounded. The proposal to use ] and attribute the description "rising star" to only a March 18, 2004 '']'' article—one of multiple, authoritative, cited sources for the description—is unneeded, inappropriate and unacceptable. ] (]) 19:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

	=== Rising star ===

	# ]'s October 21, 2009 removing this sentence to the lede six months ago by ]:<blockquote>His prime-time televised ] at the ] in July 2004 made him a rising star nationally in the ].</blockquote> is an improvement in accuracy—his U.S. Senate primary election landslide victory in March 2004 ''made'' him a rising star nationally in the Democratic Party; ''being'' a rising star nationally in the Democratic Party led to his selection to give the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004.
	# ]'s October 21, 2009 removing "as a star" from this ] subsection sentence eight months ago by ]:<blockquote>a combined 9.1 million viewers saw Obama's speech, which was a highlight of the convention and elevated his status as a star in the Democratic Party.</blockquote> left it three words shorter.
	# ]'s October 21, 2009 removing "rising star" from this ] subsection sentence seven months ago by me (]):<blockquote>In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won an unexpected landslide victory with 53% of the vote in a seven-candidate field, 29% ahead of his nearest Democratic rival, which overnight made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party and started speculation about a presidential future.</blockquote>and rewriting it to say:<blockquote>In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won an unexpected landslide victory with 53% of the vote in a seven-candidate field, 29% ahead of his nearest Democratic rival, which raised his prominence within in the national Democratic Party almost overnight, and started speculation about a presidential future.</blockquote> left it awkward, inaccurate and unfaithful to the cited sources.

	The noun "rising star" is:
	* '''''not''''' a ] term, as claimed by ] and ]
	* '''''not''''' ], as claimed by ]
	* '''''not''''' ], as claimed with no substantiation by ] using silly comparisons to ''actual'' slang phrases like " " and "the on the block"
	* '''''not''''' a ] or "informal English", as claimed with no substantiation by ]
	* '''''not''''' found in reference works like:<blockquote>''Cassell's dictionary of slang''<br />''Informal English : puncture ladies, egg harbors, Mississippi marbles, and other curious words and phrases''<br />''McGraw-Hill's dictionary of American slang and colloquial expressions''<br />''NTC's dictionary of American slang and colloquial expressions''<br />''The Oxford dictionary of modern slang''<br />''The concise new Partridge dictionary of slang and unconventional English''<br />''Slang! : the topical dictionary of Americanisms''<br />''Stone the crows : Oxford dictionary of modern slang''<br />etc.</blockquote>
	* according to '']'', 242 years old and as:<blockquote>a person or thing that is growing quickly in popularity or importance in a particular field <a ''rising star'' in politics></blockquote>
	* used in professionally written newspaper news articles over the last quarter century about the selection of these Democratic and Republican National Convention keynote speakers:<blockquote>] (1984), ] (1988), ] (1988), ] (1992), ] (1992), ] (1996), ] (1996), ] (2000), Barack Obama (2004), ] (2008).</blockquote>
	* used in professionally written '']'' articles about:<blockquote>politicians ], ], ], ], ]<br />physicist ]<br />] - The Middle Ages - The Mongol epoch - Mongol rule (])<br />Japan - Domestic Affairs (''Book of the Year'' 2001)<br />The U.S. 2002 Midterm Elections (''Book of the Year'' 2002)<br />Germany - Government and Politics (''Book of the Year'' 2003)<br />The U.S. Election of 2004 (''Book of the Year'' 2004)<br />etc.</blockquote>

	The noun "star" is:
	* according to '']'', over eight centuries old and as:<blockquote>5a : the principal member of a theatrical or operatic company who usually plays the chief roles<br />5b : a highly publicized theatrical or motion-picture performer<br />5c : an outstandingly talented performer <a track ''star''><br />5d : a person who is preeminent in a particular field</blockquote>
	* used ''once'' in the professionally written '']'' article about Barack Obama<blockquote>(which is ''one-fourth'' the length of this amateurishly written ] article about Barack Obama)</blockquote>

	These U.S. and international newspaper, newsmagazine, news service, and television and radio news networks reported that Barack Obama was a "rising star" in the national Democratic Party after his March 17, 2004 U.S. Senate primary election landslide victory and before his July 27, 2004 Democratic National Convention keynote address:
	# '']''
	# '']''
	# '']''
	# '']''
	# '']''
	# '']''
	# '']''
	# '']''
	# '']''
	# '']''
	# '']''
	# '']''
	# '']''
	# '']''
	# '']''
	# '']''
	# '']''
	# '']''
	# '']
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]<br />etc.
	in professionally written news articles such as:
	# Tilove, Jonathan (Newhouse News Service) (March 18, 2004). "Barack Obama: black Senate candidate a rising star." '']'', p. A6.
	# Howlett, Debbie (March 18, 2004). "Dems see a rising star in Illinois Senate candidate". '']''.
	# Harwood, John. (March 31, 2004). "Presidential politics overshadows rise of state-level stars." '']'', p. A4.
	# Romano, Lois (April 10, 2004). "Kerry sprinkles jobs message with attacks on Iraq policy." '']'', p. A4.
	# Fornek, Scott (April 12, 2004). "Obama's poll puts him far ahead of Ryan." '']'', p. 7.
	# Kelley, Kevin (April 13, 2004). "Obama ahead in US Senate race." '']''.
	# Kuhnhenn, James (May 24, 2004). "With seven retirements, control of Senate is at stake in election." ]'', p. A02.
	# Kinzer, Stephen (June 26, 2004). "Candidate, under pressure, quits Senate race in Illinois." ']'', p. A8.
	# Schoenburg, Bernard (June 26, 2004). "Ryan quits Senate race; state GOP braces for a tough fight against popular Democrat." '']'', p. A1.
	# Mendell, David (July 7, 2004). "Fundraising has set record, Obama says; $4 million raked in in the last quarter." '']'', p. 1 (Metro).
	# Healy, Patrick (July 13, 2004). "Kerry hones campaign themes; with the big event two weeks away, picks up pace, cash." '']'', p. A3.
	# Sweet, Lynn (July 14, 2004). "Dems plan to showcase Obama, Reagan." '']'', p. 26.
	# Zuckerman, Jill; Mendell, David (July 15, 2004). "Obama to give keynote address." '']'', p. 1.
	# Krol, Eric (July 15, 2004). "Convention spotlight to shine on Obama." '']'', p. 15
	# Gibson, William E. (July 18, 2004). "Parties prep for prime time, but networks cut coverage of conventions." '']'', p. 1A.
	# Miller, Steve (July 21, 2004). "Ryan hangs on to Illinois ballot; delay in withdrawal worries GOP, blocks new candidates." '']'', p. A04.
	# Lannan, Maura Kelley (Associated Press) (July 22, 2004). "Times get tougher for Ill. GOP; in the land of Lincoln, one Senate candidate dropped out, and replacements aren't jumping in." '']'', p. A03.
	# Wills, Christopher (Associated Press) (July 25, 2004). "Ready to take his place on national stage; Democrats' rising star will give speech at convention." '']'', p. A5.
	# Zeller Jr., Tom; Truslow, Hugh K. (July 25, 2004). "Democrats, lend me your ears." '']'', p. 12 (Week in Review).
	# Smith, Adam C. (July 25, 2004). "The true Kerry may emerge in Boston." ']'', p. 1A.
	# Brackett, Ron (July 25, 2004). "The Parties' big parties." '']'', p. 10A.
	# Knowlton, Brian (July 26, 2004). "Convention themes aim for the center; Democrats in Boston." '']'', p. 1.
	# . (August 2, 2004). "Star Power. Showtime: some are on the rise; others have long been fixtures in the firmament. A galaxy of bright Democratic lights." '']'', pp. 48–51.
	# Milligan, Susan (July 27, 2004). "In Obama, Democrats see their future". '']'', p. B8.
	# Paulson, Amanda (July 27, 2004). "Showcasing a coterie of new Democratic stars." '']'', p. 10.
	# McCarthy, Shawn (July 27, 2004). "Minorities looking for gains in battle for the presidency; support seen as critical in key states." '']'', p. A3.
	# Cornwell, Rupert (July 27, 2004). "Democratic Convention: an unknown rookie, but can Obama be first black president?" ''], p. 5.
	# Merzer, Martin; McCaffrey, Shannon (July 27, 2004). "Looking ahead with eye on past." '']'', p. A01.
	# Chancellor, Carl (July 27, 2004). "A rising star gets a key role tonight; Barack Obama, the keynote speaker, already has proven he can reach across societal divides and win support." '']'', p. A10.
	# Wertheimer, Linda (July 27, 2004). "Obama to rise to stage in Boston." '']'', ]
	# Brackett, Elizabeth (July 27, 2004). "Rising star." '']'', ]<br />etc.

	The cited March 18, 2004 '']'' and '']'' news articles and the two chapters (pages 235–259)—about the period between Obama's March 17, 2004 landslide U.S. Senate primary election and his July 27, 2004 Democratic National Convention keynote address—in the ] (author of the '']'' article about Barack Obama) book '']'' should be sufficient ] to support this amateurishly written Misplaced Pages article's sentence:<blockquote>In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won an unexpected landslide victory with 53% of the vote in a seven-candidate field, 29% ahead of his nearest Democratic rival, which overnight made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party and started speculation about a presidential future.</blockquote> ] (]) 20:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
	:First, I don't think you are going to win any arguements here by continuing to refer to Misplaced Pages in such derogatory terms as an "amateurishly" written article. You seem to be missing the very basics of Misplaced Pages, namely that it is an encyclopedia written not by professionals, but rather by everyday folk. Also, there seems to be little need for the chronology of the sentence's edits, including identifying specific editors, as Misplaced Pages is a collaborative effort. No one owns their individual contibutions. Lastly, haven't we already reached consensus on this?? ] (]) 21:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
	::I find this whole discussion to be incredibly shallow and unnecessary. For Christ’s sake, It’s just wording. It’s laughable.--] (]) 21:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

	#By amateurishly-written vs. professionally-written, I meant written-by-everyday-folk vs. written-by-professional-writers.<br />I did not mean to disparage the hard work of editors who have made positive contributions to this article—many of whom have been driven away by its pervasively hostile and unpleasant editing environment.<br />This article meets many ] and is not poorly written, but its strength has never been criteria 1(a): that "its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard."<br />My point was that an accurate, reliably sourced term that is ''<u>not</u>'' slang, ''<u>not</u>'' a colloquialism , ''<u>not</u>'' informal language, and ''<u>is</u>'' used in professionally-written ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' articles, should ''<u>not</u>'' be excluded from use in this written-by-everyday-folk encyclopedia article.
	#I noted ''when'' the changed sentences were last revised—6 months, 8 months, and 7 months ago—to show that the sentences had been stable.<br />I noted ''who'' had last revised the changed sentences to show why they might be concerned about the changes.<br />I agree that editors do not own their Misplaced Pages contributions, but it is not unreasonable for an editor who has endeavored to find the best available references and carefully word a sentence to accurately reflect those references, would take issue with casual changes to it made for bogus reasons (e.g. claiming—based on unsubstantiated personal opinion—that "rising star" is "way to biased", or a peacock term, or slang, or a colloquialism , or informal English not used in professionally-written encyclopedia articles).
	#No, we haven't already reached consensus on this.
	] (]) 17:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

	===Very brief reply===
	You ], citing ], author of the EB article on Pres. Obama, as someone who used that phrase. Yet, you fail to mention that doesn't actually use the phrase. Do you care to comment a to why you think that might be? We are ''not'' a news outlet, a radio talk program, or any of the other sources you cite. That these sources call him that allows us to ''quote'' them calling him that, but to call him that in an encyclopedia article seems PEACOCK-y, and not just to me. There are others here who agree that if we use the term, it needs to be in quoting a source, and even Mullen himself didn't put that in the EB article, ''at all''. ]] 20:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

	#I was appealing to evidence that ten ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' articles using the term "rising star" to describe politicians demonstrates that it ''<u>is</u>'' used in professionally-written encyclopedia articles and is ''<u>not</u>'' informal English.
	#I did not say David Mendell used the term "rising star" in his ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' article about Barack Obama; I said he used the word "star" once in his ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' article about Barack Obama.
	#I cited chapters 17, 18, and 19 (pages 235–271) from David Mendell's book ''Obama: From Promise to Power'' as one of four sources for the sentence:<blockquote>In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won an unexpected landslide victory with 53% of the vote in a seven-candidate field, 29% ahead of his nearest Democratic rival, which overnight made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party and started speculation about a presidential future.</blockquote>because it is good source and refers to "his rising star" (on page 247) and being "a rising star" (on page 268).
	:] (]) 16:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
	::It shouldn't be necessary to say, I concur completely with Newross on the linguistic and encyclopedic appropriateness issues. The very section we are currently writing/reading was titled "RFC: The Use of slang or informal language in a featured article". On that basis several editors weighed in with support of removing the term, and in doing so repeated or expounded on the misnomers "slang" and "informal language". Yet the term in question, ''rising star'', is neither slang nor informal language, and this fact presumably comes as a surprise to those editors who have thus far weighed in. (Making it more surprising when someone claims a consensus has already been reached—on the basis of a collective misunderstanding that has already come to light?!) It seems to me that, at a certain point in time, the fact that Barack Obama was a "rising star" was the argument ''against'' him as much as it was the argument ''for'' him, so peacockery is an odd complaint now.

	::Jimmy Carter was anything but a rising star in the party in the years prior to his presidential run, with the popular response being "Jimmy who?" Richard Nixon, on the other hand, was so far from being a rising star as to be thought of as yesterday's news—"You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore". That some people are and others are not ''rising stars'' is neither an irrelevant nor a superficial aspect of their path to the White House. I don't see what the problem is with noting that here, given the plethora of reliable sources Newross points out for the term's application to Obama dating to that period of several months alone, that Obama was in fact a ''rising star''.

	::Where I differ from Newross, however, is the time period for which the term is most appropriately used. Election to the state senate doesn't make you a rising star, it makes you a state senator—one of more than a thousand otherwise anonymous state senators in the country—unless you distinguish yourself otherwise and/or fate or a recognition of your potential results in other doors opening for you. Obama's true rising star period—and the one worth acknowledging in the lead—revolves around his address to the convention, beginning with the second two-thirds of the refs Newross gives, which are about him being picked to give that convention address and not actually about his state senate win—and reverberating across the country with the national press coverage and increased name recognition afterward. It was his fame (and comportment, eloquence and compelling story, etc.) in this period, and not in the pre- and post-state senate win period—that allowed for his swift progression to U.S. senator two years later and president two years after that, a rather swift and biographically quite remarkable ascendancy. (Is a singer, for example, a rising star the moment a local showcase draws the attention of a big-time agent and manager and record company, or at the moment they make their national debut?) Did dozens of local and national media and Dem party people see Obama's potential earlier? Certainly. Is that the part of Obama's rising star status that bears being singled out in the lead? I would argue that it is not. Had Obama not been picked to give the convention speech—or had he fumbled it miserably—his star might well have been limited to that of big fish in the Illinois pond, at least for a few more years. Had Obama won the primary but merely came in a strong second in the general for the state senate, I'm guessing he would've been encouraged from inside and outside the party to run for U.S. Senate anyway, allowing for continued ascendancy. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, and setting a course or breaking a stasis may be the most significant point from the standpoint of the individual, but from the standpoint of the journey—the bio—the "rising" part within the party comes in the shift from a local to a national stage. To give more emphasis on star status in the national party to the state senate win specifically than we do on the convention speech, from pick to delivery to reaction, is I hope an obvious mistake, and I reiterate that Newross' own refs seem to support that.

	::To the initiator of the RfC, Jayron32, then, from "'''the linguistic point of view'''", there is no basis to object to the use of the term, free from quotes or textual attribution, in the manner that QueenofBattle added it (as the result of discussion at the time, if I recall correctly), and the way to deal with it is to restore it as it has stood these past six months (or in some improved way), linked to the period surrounding his convention speech, and not to his state senate win. ] (]) 08:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
	*'''Reply to RFC''' Restricting my commentary to the nature of the language of "rising star," I think Newross' research on this point is conclusive, and it can be used without scare quotes in the narrative voice of the article. <strong>]</strong>] 16:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
	*'''Reply to RFC''' The term "rising star" is widely used in several fields, it clearly applies here, it has and can be used in professional writing, it is engaging. Thus, it is fine for use in this article without quotes or in-text attribution. ] (]) 22:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

	Thank you for your responses.<br />
	I don't quite understand Abrazame's references to Obama's election to the ].<br />No one said his elections to the ''state'' Senate (in 1996, 1998, and 2002) made him a rising star in the ''national'' Democratic Party in 2004.
	* I am not recommending using "rising star" in the lede, which per ] is a summary of the article and does not cite any references.
	* I am saying that in the ] subsection of this article, "<span class="plainlinks">" is the best and most historically accurate description of Obama's status in the national ] the morning after his March 16, 2004 U.S. Senate primary election landslide victory—as reported in the cited references: ]'s 2007 book '']'' and in contemporaneous news articles "" in '']'' and "" in '']''.
	* Obama's status as a rising star in the national Democratic Party and the favorite to win an important Republican-held U.S. Senate seat (the U.S. Senate was then narrowly divided with a 51-49 Republican majority), landed him on the ]'s ] of potential Democratic National Convention keynote speakers along with several Democratic governors from ]: first-term Governors ], 45, of ]; ], 46, of ]; ], 49, of ]; ], 56, of ]; and second-term Governor ], 53, of ].
	* Kerry selected Obama as keynote speaker after being impressed by Obama while campaigning with him in Chicago on April 8–9, 2004 and again on June 29, 2004,—four days after ]'s '']'' column "" and the withdrawal of Obama's Republican opponent ],—and one day after the July 5, 2004 issue of '']'' magazine hit the newsstands with a large color picture of Obama accompanying the two-page article "" on pages 34–35, followed on page 36 by the article "" about the Kerry campaign's tepid support by blacks. On July 2, 2004, the Kerry campaign informed Obama that they had chosen him to be the DNC keynote speaker.
	* After the ] adjourned at 8:13 pm CDT on Saturday, July 24, 2004, Obama flew from ] to ] to appear on ] of the five television network news ].
	** As the lead guest on ]'s '']'' on ], Russert's second question to Obama was about ]'s '']'' article ""
	** As the lead guest on ]'s '']'' on ], the show began with:<blockquote>SCHIEFFER: So we'll ask our guests, Senator Obama, and we must say Senator Obama is now being talked about as being kind of a rock star of Democratic politics. He's run a sensational race for the Democratic nomination for the Senate out here. And he has been chosen to give the keynote address. Do you feel any pressure?</blockquote>
	] (]) 02:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
	*The last I'll say about this is, I thought we were writing an ''encyclopedia'' article, not a ''magazine'' article. If one person in this discussion can cite even ''one'' example of an encyclopedia article using such a term without it being a direct quote from a source, I'll completely cede the point. I don't think you'll find such an article, because that doesn't sound like encyclopedic language. ]] 02:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
	::IMO using a metaphor such as "landslide victory" doesn't seem encyclopedic either. -- ] (]) 03:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::Newross, I acknowledge that the rising of Obama's star notably includes his primary and electoral wins. But as I pointed out, 2/3 of your usage references in your main post here are actually from the time ''after'' he was chosen in July to give the DNC keynote speech. Even in your response most recently above, your quoting of questions dated to July 25 and reference of then-yet-unpublished articles support my assertion, not your own, as of course the velocity of the rise in his "rock star" status had just been given the turbo boost of its first national evidence: the gathering decision and ultimate choice in July as the convention's keynote speaker. That trajectory would not have been spoken of so frequently in that period if Kerry had chosen Bill Richardson or Tom Vilsack, as you note having been on his short list, to give the keynote instead of Obama, and Obama had not had that opportunity to take the national stage.

	:::I do have ''that'' timeline straight. My apologies for condensing the broader election cycle timeline in my statement—his progression to U.S. senator was a few ''months'' later, not two years later. Indeed, there are only 100 actively serving U.S. senators at a given moment, unlike the thousand-plus state senators; there are two major party nominees for each seat that is up, so that particular point of mine is diluted though not nullified. I also take your point that you are speaking about the article, not the lead, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to stand corrected on both points.

	:::Obviously he was everything he was in either timeframe, and obviously the leap in going from state senator to U.S. senator is automatically a hugely significant one in notability, national relevancy and "stardom", so it's not that I'm disagreeing with you or your refs, nor would I object to the usage of the term where you suggest, I simply think it's more appropriate (and, again, supported by the refs) for the period a few months later, represented by the following paragraph in the bio, where it originally had been.

	:::To Unitanode and Gordon Ecker (and Newross), and most relevant to the question posed in this RfC, am I also mistaken that Newross has correctly cited the Encyclopædia Brittanica as using the term "rising star"? After the two supportive replies following my post, the most recent two posts here completely ignore the bulk of Newross' statements above. Do the Encyclopædia Britannica articles of which Newross speaks cite quotes by others rather than using the language themselves? Could we get quotes featuring a couple of ''those'' usages to help us clarify the encyclopedic issue and make/revise our decisions here? ] (]) 07:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

	* Obama's March 2004 U.S. Senate primary election landslide victory <u>''made''</u> him a rising star in the national Democratic Party—as reported by news articles from March 17, 2004 to July 14, 2004.
	* Obama <u>''being''</u> a rising star in the national Democratic Party led to his selection as Democratic National Convention keynote speaker—as reported by news articles from July 15, 2004 to July 27, 2004.
	* If Obama had not been selected as DNC keynote speaker, the '']'' would still have published Ryan Lizza's article "<span class="plainlinks"></span>" (which does not mention the Democratic National Convention nor Obama's selection as its keynote speaker) on the first day of the Democratic National Convention on July 26, 2004.
	* If Obama had not been selected as DNC keynote speaker, then like the other rising stars on the short list to be keynote speaker but who were not selected, he would have had another prime-time speaking role at the convention.
	* If ] had been selected as DNC keynote speaker over Obama instead of vice versa, Obama may have only appeared on one of five television network news Sunday morning talk shows (e.g. Bob Schieffer's ''Face the Nation'' on CBS).
	* Being selected as the keynote speaker of a national political party convention is an honor, but it doesn't make someone a political "rock star" if they are not already at least "rock star-esque":
	** Fornek, Scott (April 12, 2004). "<span class="plainlinks"></span>." '']'', p. 7:<blockquote>Vying to become only the third African American elected to the U.S. Senate in the last 100 years, Obama has enjoyed mostly positive media coverage since his victory, with party leaders and pundits invariably dubbing him "a rising star." Last week, a CNN reporter dubbed Obama a "rock star-esque candidate."</blockquote>

	<u>Some professionally-written ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' articles using the term "rising star"</u>:
	* "<span class="plainlinks"></span>." ''Encyclopædia Britannica''. 2009.<blockquote>Abbas grew up in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria and, under the nom de guerre Abu Abbas, became a rising star in Ahmad Jibril's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine–General Command, which was known for its daring, ruthless, and frequently disastrous attacks on Israel.</blockquote>
	* "<span class="plainlinks"></span>." ''Encyclopædia Britannica''. 2009.<blockquote>Bailey enjoyed considerable success around the country prior to establishing his presence as a rising star on the New York state circuit in 1982.</blockquote>
	* "<span class="plainlinks"><span class="plainlinks"></span>." ''Encyclopædia Britannica''. 2009.<blockquote>Bracegirdle retired at the height of her career, about 1707, when she began to be eclipsed by the rising star of Anne Oldfield.</blockquote>
	* "<span class="plainlinks"></span>." ''Encyclopædia Britannica''. 2009.<blockquote>After his election to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000, Cantor was considered a rising star among House Republicans; he became chief deputy whip of the Republican caucus after only two years.</blockquote>
	* "<span class="plainlinks"></span>." ''Encyclopædia Britannica''. 2009.<blockquote>Furthermore, instead of seeking the assistance of petty eastern European princes, Tokhtamysh hitched his wagon to the rising star of Timur, with whose support he reasserted Mongol supremacy in Russia.</blockquote>
	* "<span class="plainlinks"></span>." ''Encyclopædia Britannica''. 2009.<blockquote>A rising star in the automotive industry, DeLorean helped to revitalize Packard before leaving in 1956 to join General Motors.</blockquote>
	* "<span class="plainlinks"></span>." ''Encyclopædia Britannica''. 2009.<blockquote>In 1929 Fermi, as Italy's first professor of theoretical physics and a rising star in European science, was named by Italian Prime Minister Benito Mussolini to his new Accademia d'Italia, a position that included a substantial salary (much larger than that for any ordinary university position), a uniform, and a title (“Excellency”).</blockquote>
	* "<span class="plainlinks"></span>." ''Encyclopædia Britannica''. 2009.<blockquote>Cathy Freeman's silver medal in the 400-metre run at the 1996 Games in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S., introduced this rising star from Australia to the Olympic world.</blockquote>
	* "<span class="plainlinks"></span>." ''Encyclopædia Britannica''. 2009.<blockquote>The work established them as rising stars in the comic world, and soon the two were noticed by publishers on both sides of the Atlantic.</blockquote>
	* "</span>." ''Encyclopædia Britannica''. 2009.<blockquote>Lechon was considered a rising star of new Polish poetry.</blockquote>
	* "<span class="plainlinks"></span>." ''Encyclopædia Britannica''. 2009.<blockquote>Well regarded for his affable manner, he was seen as one of the rising stars of the Fianna Fail party, along with his ally Charles Haughey--later prime minister--whom he succeeded as minister of justice in 1964.</blockquote>
	* "<span class="plainlinks"></span>." ''Encyclopædia Britannica''. 2009.<blockquote>He promoted Kinnock’s modernization agenda and ensured high media profiles for some of Labour’s rising stars, then in their 30s, such as Blair and Brown.</blockquote>
	* "<span class="plainlinks"></span>." ''Encyclopædia Britannica''. 2009.<blockquote>Osborne entered Parliament in 2001, and he was quickly seen as a rising star.</blockquote> * "<span class="plainlinks"></span>." ''Encyclopædia Britannica''. 2009.<blockquote>Early in his parliamentary career, Najib Razak smoothed relations between the government and the hereditary ruling class in the Pahang region, and he was seen as one of the rising stars within the United Malays National Organization (UMNO).</blockquote>
	* "<span class="plainlinks"></span>." ''Encyclopædia Britannica''. 2009.<blockquote>After hearing “It’s Yours,” Russell Simmons, who was already a rising star in the hip-hop scene, joined Rubin at Def Jam.</blockquote>
	* "<span class="plainlinks"></span>." ''Encyclopædia Britannica''. 2009.<blockquote>At one point Republicans appeared poised to replace a rising Democratic star, Sen. Robert Torricelli of New Jersey, who was admonished by his Senate colleagues following an ethics investigation into his campaign contributions and acceptance of personal gifts.</blockquote>

	<u>Re: landslide victory</u>
	* Multiple contemporaneous news articles described Obama's March 16, 2004 U.S. Senate primary election win as a "landslide victory":
	** Fornek, Scott; Herguth, Robert C. (March 17, 2004). "<span class="plainlinks"></span>." '']'', p. 2:<blockquote>Maybe it wasn't such a bad ballot name after all. Barack Obama, who went from Hawaii to Harvard to Hyde Park, won a landslide victory in the Democratic primary Tuesday, bringing him one step closer to becoming the only African American in the U.S. Senate.</blockquote>
	** Mendell, David (March 17, 2004). "<span class="plainlinks"></span>." '']'', p. 1:<blockquote>Barack Obama, an African-American state senator and former civil-rights lawyer from Hyde Park, won a landslide victory over six competitors Tuesday to assume the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate, setting the stage for a crucial contest in November that could tip the balance of power in Congress. Obama, 42, whose initial campaign strategy was to build a coalition of blacks and liberal whites, instead surprised even his strategists by amassing broad support from throughout the party. He won over not only urban black voters, but also many suburban whites. With 89 percent of precincts reporting around the state, Obama led his next closest rival, Illinois Comptroller Dan Hynes, by 54 percent of the vote to 23 percent, as expected strong support for Hynes from Chicago's Democratic machine failed to materialize.</blockquote>
	** Moe, Doug (March 18, 2004). "<span class="plainlinks"></span>." '']'', p. 2A:<blockquote>Barack Obama, who won a landslide victory in Tuesday's Democratic U.S. Senate primary in Illinois, is "of counsel" with the law firm Miner, Barnhill and Galland, which has offices in Chicago and Madison. Obama was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review and a highly-sought-after attorney upon graduating. He picked the Miner, Barnhill and Galland firm because of its strong reputation as a civil rights firm. "A spectacular guy," Chuck Barnhill said Wednesday of Obama, who, if elected, would be the third black ever to serve in the U.S. Senate. One of the others, Carol Moseley Braun, also was an attorney with the Miner, Barnhill firm.</blockquote>
	** Fornek, Scott (March 18, 2004). "<span class="plainlinks"></span>." '']'', p. 9:<blockquote>He ran television commercials featuring images of white and black Democratic icons—from the late Sen. Paul Simon to the late Mayor Harold Washington. He built a coalition that spanned racial, ethnic and religious lines. He talked about issues with universal appeal to Democrats—from his opposition to the war in Iraq to his call to repeal President Bush's tax cuts. And he embraced his African-American heritage while reaching out to all voters. Those were the building blocks of Barack Obama s landslide victory in the Illinois Democratic primary for U.S. Senate. But the foundation was the candidate himself. The product of a racially mixed marriage, he had a stellar resume that includes a Harvard education, years of community activism and experience as a state senator from Hyde Park, factors that contributed to his ability to win votes across racial lines.</blockquote>
	** Polansek, Tom (March 18, 2004). "<span class="plainlinks"></span>." '']'', p. 7:<blockquote>In Tuesday's Democratic primary, Obama won a landslide victory with 53 percent of the vote in a field of seven candidates. On the Republican side, Ryan won 36 percent of the vote in an eight-way race.</blockquote>
	** Howlett, Debbie (March 19, 2004). "<span class="plainlinks"></span>." '']'', p. 4A:<blockquote>Three weeks ago, state Sen. Barack Obama appeared to be an also-ran among the eight Democrats running in Illinois for the nomination to an open U.S. Senate seat. Today, three days after his landslide victory in that crowded field, the self-described "skinny guy with the funny name" is the odds-on favorite to win in November and become the only African-American in the Senate and only the third black senator since Reconstruction. Partisans in Washington consider him a shooting star in the November elections. A few whisper about a presidential future.<blockquote>
	** Polansek, Tom (May 3, 2004). "<span class="plainlinks"></span>." '']'', p. 1:<blockquote>Days after Barack Obama won a landslide victory in the Democratic U.S. Senate primary, former Gov. Jim Edgar said skin color had ceased to be an issue in Illinois politics. Obama, an African-American state senator from Chicago, ran strong in white areas and beat opponent Dan Hynes in Hynes' own Chicago ward.</blockquote>
	* The noun "landslide" is:
	** according to '']'', 171 years old and as:<blockquote>2a : a great majority of votes for one side<br />2b : an overwhelming victory</blockquote>
	* The term "landslide victory" is used in many professionally-written '']'' articles, including:
	** "<span class="plainlinks"></span>." ''Encyclopædia Britannica''. 2009.<blockquote>Running on the slogan “Keep Cool with Coolidge,” he won a landslide victory over conservative Democrat John W. Davis and Progressive Party candidate Robert La Follette, gaining about 54 percent of the popular vote to Davis's 29 percent and La Follette's nearly 17 percent; in the electoral college Coolidge received 382 votes to Davis's 136 and La Follette's 13.</blockquote>
	** "<span class="plainlinks"></span>." ''Encyclopædia Britannica''. 2009.<blockquote>Democrats again selected Adlai E. Stevenson and named Senator Estes Kefauver of Tennessee as his running mate, but Eisenhower's great personal popularity turned the election into a landslide victory, the most one-sided race since 1936, as the Republican ticket garnered more than 57 percent of the popular vote and won the electoral vote 457 to 73.</blockquote>
	** "<span class="plainlinks"></span>." ''Encyclopædia Britannica''. 2009.<blockquote>Nevertheless, her New Congress Party scored a landslide victory in the 1971 elections, and for a period it was unclear which party was the true rightful heir of the Indian National Congress label.<br /><br />In the parliamentary elections held in March 1977, the opposition Janata Party scored a landslide victory over the Congress Party, winning 295 seats in the Lok Sabha (the lower house of India's Parliament) against 153 for the Congress; Gandhi herself lost to her Janata opponent.</blockquote>
	** "<span class="plainlinks"></span>." ''Encyclopædia Britannica''. 2009.<blockquote>This “New Labour” agenda, combined with highly professionalized political marketing, produced a landslide victory in the general election of 1997, returning Labour to power after 18 years of Conservative Party rule and securing Tony Blair's appointment as prime minister.<br /><br />In 2001 the party won a second consecutive landslide victory, capturing a 167-seat majority—the largest-ever second-term majority for any party in the House of Commons.</blockquote>
	** "<span class="plainlinks"></span>." ''Encyclopædia Britannica''. 2009.<blockquote>Renominated with Agnew in 1972, Nixon defeated his Democratic challenger, liberal Sen. George S. McGovern, in one of the largest landslide victories in the history of American presidential elections: 46.7 million to 28.9 million in the popular vote and 520 to 17 in the electoral vote.</blockquote>
	** "<span class="plainlinks"></span>." ''Encyclopædia Britannica''. 2009.<blockquote>After Labour won a landslide victory in the general elections of May 1997—in which the Conservatives lost all their Scottish seats and the SNP took 6 seats in Parliament—the Labour government of Tony Blair called a referendum for establishing a Scottish Parliament with a broad range of powers, including control over the country's education and health systems.</blockquote>
	** "<span class="plainlinks"></span>." ''Encyclopædia Britannica''. 2009.<blockquote>Thatcher won election to a second term in a landslide—the biggest victory since Labour's great success in 1945—gaining a parliamentary majority of 144 with just over 42 percent of the vote.</blockquote>
	:] (]) 00:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

	== Obama declares H1N1 emergency ==

	<span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Are you proposing an addition to the article? If so, not only is ], but such an addition would go better in a different political article than this one. If not, ]. --] (]) 01:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

	::This is not a minor issue in USA, currently there are 1240 confirmed deaths and probably million of cases in US. This is the first pandemic flu in 21st century. So it is very important how and what the president acts in this issue. But currently there is 0 word about flu in the article. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:::What the president does about the issue may or may not be worth including in this biographical article about him - it all depends on what he does and how significant the sources say that is. It also depends how severe this epidemic becomes. 1,000+ deaths and millions of cases is far less than the typical seasonal flue, although it is still too early to say how it will unfold. I wouldn't think that merely declaring a state of emergency by itself is doing very much. - ] (]) 12:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

	::::"worth including in this biographical article". My point is, assuming it is of ], wouldn't an addition be better in ] than in this article? BTW, declaring a ] could well be a notable action (a historical review of prior such declarations would help). According to the New York Times: <blockquote>The declaration allows hospitals to apply to the Department of Health and Human Services for waivers from laws that ... are intended to to protect patients' privacy and to ensure they are not discriminated against based on their source of payment for care... As a practical matter ... the waiver could allow a hospital to remove , and any ER visitors suspected of having the illness, to a location ... to segregate such cases for treatment</blockquote><p>--] (]) 16:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

	== Deadliest month for the U.S. military ==

	{{hat\|Closing this per ] and ]}}


	" With the deaths of two troops on Sunday, a total of 24 Americans -- most of them military -- have been killed in a 48-hour period. That makes October 2009, with 58 fatalities, the deadliest month for the U.S. military since the Afghanistan war began in October 2001."

	Why we can't read about it on the main article? It seems that Afghanistan is the Nobel peace prize winner Obama's Iraq. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Short answer-No. --] (]) 16:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
	::Also-"It seems that Afghanistan is the Nobel peace prize winner Obama's Iraq"-why do you have to insert such a snide comment? I'm just going to assume you're trolling. Just go away and fantasise about Sarah Palin why don’t you.--] (]) 16:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
	{{Hab}}

	== IPA ==

	A small point - might /ɵ'bɑ:mə/ be preferable to /oʊ'bɑ:mə/? ] (]) 17:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
	:"Uh" bama preferable to "Oh" bama? It would not preferable because it is not how the name is pronounced. ] (]) 05:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
	::What sound do you mean by "uh"? Misplaced Pages uses /ɵ/ to represent the first syllable of '''o'''mission or '''O'''hio. ] (]) 09:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::No, it does not. Even if it did, we're not talking about dialectal pronunciations of other common words, we're talking about the proper pronunciation of a name, ''Barack Obama''. The "O" sound in ''Obama'' is the long "o", the pure monophthong represented by ''oʊ'', as in ''go'' or ''oh'', as I stated earlier: "Oh" bama. The shortened, secondary stressed (sometimes referred to as unstressed) schwa of ''ə'', when attributed to the letter ''o'', is generally pronounced "uh", as in ''eloquent'' or ''harmony''. I know several people from Ohio, who pronounce it "Oh"-hio, and even a California-esque "Oeuw"-hio.

	:::Merriam-Webster gives the pronunciation for those two words as '' \ō-ˈhī-(ˌ)ō, ə-, -ə\ '' and '' \ō-ˈmi-shən, ə-\ '' respectively, offering the schwa as a secondary (read: dialectal) pronunciation, so if our article were to give that primacy, I'd hope you'd go suggest changing ''that'' unless it is supported by a better ref than Merriam-Webster.

	:::In fact, however, contrary to your claim, Misplaced Pages's article ] offers '' /oʊˈhaɪ.oʊ/ '' as the sole pronunciation, and has not been edited to that effect in recent days. Misplaced Pages has no pronunciation for any article involving the word "]", so far as I can tell. So what's the deal, Lfh?

	:::Even in the event that they did, it's not reason to come here and degrade the strong vowel sound as enunciated by those who are not prevented by saturation in their dialects or accents from pronouncing the name correctly. (See separate thread on this page referencing what the British tendency to clip pronunciation does to their handling of his first name, as "Barrack".)

	:::I would not argue against changing our article to read '' /ō'bɑ:mə/ '' (with an ]), but your suggestion is, as I already stated, not preferable. ] (]) 23:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

	== "Barrak Obama" ==

	Is there any reason for why this re-directs here, or is it just a spelling thing…
	(I also noticed there are a fair few similar re-directs)--] (]) 12:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
	:Spelling is exactly the reason. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">] {{!}} ]</span></small> 12:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
	::Just wanted it to make sure it wasn’t anything malicious like that “Ogabe” thing.--] (]) 12:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::Well, it's maybe not possible to be 100% sure, but it was , and I hear his name pronounced "Barrak" (although I'd use "Barrack" as in "Barracks"), with the accent on the first syllable, quite often on the BBC News Hour radio program. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">] {{!}} ]</span></small> 12:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

	== preventive detention plan ==



	please place this somewhere. ] (]) 13:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

	:That link is to a news report about something that ''may'' happen and as such is a ] item; even if it does happen, this is an article about the man, not a blow-by-blow account of every political report about his presidency. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">] {{!}} ]</span></small> 13:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

	::actually, it is a published report on something that ''has'' happened, namely, a conversation with the president about preventive detention plan. ] (]) 14:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
	::in addition, it received considerable news attention: , , , , , ] (]) 14:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

	:::This article is still not a blow-by-blow account of Obama's presidency. If the subject is notable, perhaps a ] article should be started. If not, perhaps an addition to ] would be appropriate. Possibly an entry into ]. But it's not appropriate in a biographical article about the man. Later on, if events prove it to be a major topic of his life, perhaps...but not now. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">] {{!}} ]</span></small> 14:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

	::::in this biographical article i see there is a whole section on 'political positions'. ] (]) 15:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

			== Black, not African-American ==
	That still doesn't mean that we should include something like this right here, right now. There are always dozens of news reports on everything Obama does; just ''having'' news reports doesn't mean that the event has any special significance and must be included in this man's biography. Yes, perhaps it belongs somewhere else. It's about being reasonable - if we included ''everything'' about Barack Obama that had a few dozen news reports on it on this article, the article would look pretty silly. ] ] 14:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

			Changed "African-American" to "Black" because not all African people are considered "Black". Is ] Black? Nope. ] exist. I, myself, am an ], and I sure as hell am not Black. ] (]) 12:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
	== the leader of the NWO illuminati? ==

			:The category of ] is clear if we are not pretending it means something other than what it means. For its use in this article, we defer to the language used by our sources, and Obama is most frequently described as an African American man. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 12:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
	{{hat\|Closing this per ] and ]}}
			:] isn't Black, and he isn't ] either. He's ]. In the USA, the terms Black and African American are both commonly used with a variety of meanings, ranging from people descended from ], to members of a subculture defined by that legacy, to any American with dark skin, to Americans with ancestral or cultural ties to Africa. Most of those categories apply to Obama, and he is widely described as African American by published sources. White Americans of African descent are not normally called African Americans by themselves or others, but even if they were, that wouldn't mean the term ''doesn't'' apply to Obama. -- ] ] 17:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	comments: http://www.illuminati-news.com/000-spiritual/html/how-to-fight-the-nwo.html please read interesting stuff. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			::Most Black Americans (not including immigrants or those descended from them) are more likely to genetic relations with White Americans than they are with someone from Africa. That continent for most of its history never had a singular identity. African-American is a ridiculous term. ] (]) 15:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Yeah i'm sure it is. --] (]) 22:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
			:::It doesn’t matter, the term is already well established. Remember, Misplaced Pages aims to describe, not to prescribe. ] (]) 08:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{Hab}}

			== "]" listed at ] ==
	== Irish-American ==
			]
			The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink\|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 1#FirstName LastInitial redirects for presidents}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Change "African-Amereican" to Multiracial ==
	Shouldn't it also be mentioned that Mr. Obama is the 10th consecutive Irish-American to be President of the United States, while also mentioning his African-American heritage? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:I ~~will~~ ~~take~~ ~~your~~ ~~word~~ ~~for~~ it ~~that~~ ~~his~~ ~~ancestry~~ ~~includes~~ ~~Ireland~~. ~~However,~~ ~~unless~~ ~~there~~ is a ~~very~~ ~~large~~ ~~percentage,~~ we ~~don't~~ ~~consider~~ it ~~worth mentioning.--~~] (]) 10:43, 31 ~~October~~ ~~2009~~ (UTC)		Most Black Americans don't have immediate ancestors from Africa like Obama does. Not to mention Obama has mixed raced ancestry through his father and mother ] (]) 15:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:See ] (also found at the top of this page). ] ]] 15:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Should we add a permanent-top-thread version of the faq, like at ]? It's more visible, especially for mobile-users I think. ] (]) 09:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I'm not sure anything could address the appalling logic of the OP here - that having an immediate African ancestor somehow prevents Obama being African-American. ] (]) 09:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::There is ] that people who weren't American slaves doesn't "count" when deciding who's African-American. Of course, on this website we go by ''"Obama himself and the media identify him, the vast majority of the time, as African American or black. African American is primarily defined as "citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa", a statement that accurately describes Obama and does not preclude or negate origins in the white populations of America as well."'' ] (]) 10:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::] wrote at one time "President Barack Obama, who is the son of a Kenyan immigrant, although technically African-American, is not black." Another time she wrote "African-American, in our political and social vocabulary, means those descended from West African slaves, because Obama is not a descendant of West Africans brought involuntarily to the United States as slaves, he is not African-American." ] (]) 10:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

			:::::That's definitely a point of view that some people hold, and the wiki discusses that view at ], but to justify changing what we say about Obama we would need to show that the consensus in the reliable sources is not to describe him as African American. In actual fact although a few sources take Debra Dickerson's point of view, most sources don't. If you think the article should follow Debra Dickerson's point of view, you need to show that her point of view is the consensus one among the reliable sources. -- ] ] 16:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	::]. (But no, it doesn't belong in the main article). <font color="darkgreen">]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">]</font> 22:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::According to ], Obama's mother's side is mostly English. The Irish is mixed in with a small amount of other things, such as Scottish, Welsh, French, and many other things. Were we to be that strict, we could probably find a lot more than 10 Irish American presidents. We'd also have to list Obama as a French American president. Hell, I have a tiny bit of Irish ancestry myself, but I would not be considered an Irish American. Obama's primary ancestry is Kenyan and English. --] (]) 04:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
	::::Currently, the ] article lists 29. -- ] (]) 05:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
	:::::Yeah, and it's really digging to make that list, and has a bunch lacking citation. Even among those with citation are somewhat dubious, such as ]. He isn't ethnically Irish, he's Scots-Irish, he's ethnically Scottish, with ancestors that moved to Ireland and then America. His own article lists him as Scots-Irish American, not just Irish American. --] (]) 08:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:24, 17 January 2025

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barack Obama article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84Auto-archiving period: 30 days

faq page Frequently asked questions

To view the response to a question, click the link to the right of the question.

Family and religious background Q1: Why isn't Barack Obama's Muslim heritage or education included in this article? A1: Barack Obama was never a practitioner of Islam. His biological father having been "raised as a Muslim" but being a "confirmed atheist" by the time Obama was born is mentioned in the article. Please see this article on Snopes.com for a fairly in-depth debunking of the myth that Obama is Muslim. Barack Obama did not attend an Islamic or Muslim school while living in Indonesia age 6–10, but Roman Catholic and secular public schools. See , , The sub-articles Public image of Barack Obama and Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories address this issue. Q2: The article refers to him as African American, but his mother is white and his black father was not an American. Should he be called African American, or something else ("biracial", "mixed", "Kenyan-American", "mulatto", "quadroon", etc.)? A2: Obama himself and the media identify him, the vast majority of the time, as African American or black. African American is primarily defined as "citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa", a statement that accurately describes Obama and does not preclude or negate origins in the white populations of America as well. Thus we use the term African American in the introduction, and address the specifics of his parentage in the first headed section of the article. Many individuals who identify as black have varieties of ancestors from many countries who may identify with other racial or ethnic groups. See our article on race for more information on this concept. We could call him the first "biracial" candidate or the first "half black half white" candidate or the first candidate with a parent born in Africa, but Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source which reports what other reliable sources say, and most of those other sources say "first African American". Readers will learn more detail about his ethnic background in the article body. Q3: Why can't we use his full name outside of the lead? It's his name, isn't it? A3: The relevant part of the Manual of Style says that outside the lead of an article on a person, that person's conventional name is the only one that's appropriate. (Thus one use of "Richard Milhous Nixon" in the lead of Richard Nixon, "Richard Nixon" thereafter.) Talk page consensus has also established this. Q4: Why is Obama referred to as "Barack Hussein Obama II" in the lead sentence rather than "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr."? Isn't "Jr." more common? A4: Although "Jr." is typically used when a child shares the name of his or her parent, "II" is considered acceptable, as well. And in Obama's case, the usage on his birth certificate is indeed "II", and is thus the form used at the beginning of this article, per manual of style guidelines on names. Q5: Why don't we cover the claims that Obama is not a United States citizen, his birth certificate was forged, he was not born in Hawaii, he is ineligible to be President, etc? A5: The Barack Obama article consists of an overview of major issues in the life and times of the subject. The controversy over his eligibility, citizenship, birth certificate etc is currently a fairly minor issue in overall terms, and has had no significant legal or mainstream political impact. It is therefore not currently appropriate for inclusion in an overview article. These claims are covered separately in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Controversies, praise, and criticism Q6: Why isn't there a criticisms/controversies section? A6: Because a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praise and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per the Criticism essay. Q7: Why isn't a certain controversy/criticism/praise included in this article? A7: Misplaced Pages's Biography of living persons policy says that "riticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." Criticism or praise that cannot be reliably sourced cannot be placed in a biography. Also, including everything about Obama in a single article would exceed Misplaced Pages's article size restrictions. A number of sub-articles have been created and some controversies/criticisms/praises have been summarized here or been left out of this article altogether, but are covered in some detail in the sub-articles. Q8: But this controversy/criticism/praise is all over the news right now! It should be covered in detail in the main article, not buried in a sub-article! A8: Misplaced Pages articles should avoid giving undue weight to something just because it is in the news right now. If you feel that the criticism/controversy/praise is not being given enough weight in this article, you can try to start a discussion on the talk page about giving it more. See WP:BRD. Q9: This article needs much more (or much less) criticism/controversy. A9: Please try to assume good faith. Like all articles on Misplaced Pages, this article is a work in progress so it is possible for biases to exist at any point in time. If you see a bias that you wish to address, you are more than welcome to start a new discussion, or join in an existing discussion, but please be ready to provide sources to support your viewpoint and try to keep your comments civil. Starting off your discussion by accusing the editors of this article of having a bias is the quickest way to get your comment ignored. Talk and article mechanics Q10: This article is over 275kb long, and the article size guideline says that it should be broken up into sub-articles. Why hasn't this happened? A10: The restriction mentioned in WP:SIZE is 60kB of readable prose, not the byte count you see when you open the page for editing. As of May 11, 2016, this article had about 10,570 words of readable prose (65 kB according to prosesize tool), only slightly above the guideline. The rest is mainly citations and invisible comments, which do not count towards the limit. Q11: I notice this FAQ mentions starting discussions or joining in on existing discussions a lot. If Misplaced Pages is supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, shouldn't I just be bold and fix any biases that I see in the article? A11: It is true that Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and no one needs the permission of other editors of this article to make changes to it. But Misplaced Pages policy is that, "While the consensus process does not require posting to the discussion page, it can be useful and is encouraged." This article attracts editors that have very strong opinions about Obama (positive and negative) and these editors have different opinions about what should and should not be in the article, including differences as to appropriate level of detail. As a result of this it may be helpful, as a way to avoid content disputes, to seek consensus before adding contentious material to or removing it from the article. Q12: The article/talk page has been vandalized! Why hasn't anyone fixed this? A12: Many editors watch this article, and it is unlikely that vandalism would remain unnoticed for long. It is possible that you are viewing a cached result of the article; If so, try bypassing your cache. Disruption Q13: Why are so many discussions closed so quickly? A13: Swift closure is common for topics that have already been discussed repeatedly, topics pushing fringe theories, and topics that would lead to violations of Misplaced Pages's policy concerning biographies of living persons, because of their disruptive nature and the unlikelihood that consensus to include the material will arise from the new discussion. In those cases, editors are encouraged to read this FAQ for examples of such common topics. Q14: I added new content to the article, but it was removed! A14: Double-check that your content addition is not sourced to an opinion blog, editorial, or non-mainstream news source. Misplaced Pages's policy on biographies of living persons states, in part, "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims." Sources of information must be of a very high quality for biographies. While this does not result in an outright ban of all blogs and opinion pieces, most of them are regarded as questionable. Inflammatory or potentially libelous content cited to a questionable source will be removed immediately without discussion. Q15: I disagree with the policies and content guidelines that prevent my proposed content from being added to the article. A15: That's understandable. Misplaced Pages is a work in progress. If you do not approve of a policy cited in the removal of content, it's possible to change it. Making cogent, logical arguments on the policy's talk page is likely to result in a positive alteration. This is highly encouraged. However, this talk page is not the appropriate place to dispute the wording used in policies and guidelines. If you disagree with the interpretation of a policy or guideline, there is also recourse: Dispute resolution. Using the dispute resolution process prevents edit wars, and is encouraged. Q16: I saw someone start a discussion on a topic raised by a blog/opinion piece, and it was reverted! A16: Unfortunately, due to its high profile, this talk page sees a lot of attempts to argue for policy- and guideline-violating content – sometimes the same violations many times a day. These are regarded as disruptive, as outlined above. Consensus can change; material previously determined to be unacceptable may become acceptable. But it becomes disruptive and exhausting when single-purpose accounts raise the same subject(s) repeatedly in the apparent hopes of overcoming significant objections by other editors. Editors have reached a consensus for dealing with this behavior:

Efforts by established single-purpose accounts to introduce such poorly-sourced content will be summarily deleted.
On the second such attempt, the source in question will be immediately reported to the reliable sources noticeboard for administrative assistance.

New editors who wish to engage in discussions on previously rejected content are encouraged to ensure that their sources do not violate any of Misplaced Pages's policies and sourcing guidelines. Other Q17: Why aren't the 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns covered in more detail? A17: They are, in sub-articles called Barack Obama 2008 presidential campaign and Barack Obama 2012 presidential campaign. Things that are notable in the context of the presidential campaigns, but are of minimal notability to Barack Obama's overall biography, belong in the sub-articles. Campaign stops, the presidential debates, and the back-and-forth accusations and claims of the campaigns can all be found there.

Barack Obama is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 18, 2004, and on November 4, 2008.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 12, 2004	Featured article candidate	Promoted
August 18, 2004	Today's featured article	Main Page
December 21, 2007	Featured article review	Kept
January 23, 2007	Featured article review	Kept
July 26, 2007	Featured article review	Kept
April 15, 2008	Featured article review	Kept
September 16, 2008	Featured article review	Kept
November 4, 2008	Today's featured article	Main Page
December 2, 2008	Featured article review	Kept
March 10, 2009	Featured article review	Kept
March 16, 2010	Featured article review	Kept
March 17, 2010	Featured article review	Kept
June 17, 2012	Featured article review	Kept
October 22, 2012	Featured article review	Kept
December 4, 2021	Featured article review	Demoted
A news item involving this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on November 5, 2008.
Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 5, 2013, November 4, 2016, and November 4, 2022.
Current status: Former featured article

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This

level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Barack Obama (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama

Biography: Politics and Government / Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Top-importance).

United States: District of Columbia / Presidential elections / Presidents / State Legislatures / Government Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as High-importance).

This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance).

This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Top-importance).

This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. State Legislatures (assessed as Low-importance).

This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Top-importance).

More information:
/
	This article has been selected for use on the United States portal.
	This article has been selected for use on the Illinois portal.
	This article has been selected for use on the Chicago portal.
	This article has been selected for use on the Hawaii portal.

U.S. Congress High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) person(s).

Politics: American High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Hawaii High‑importance

	Hawaii portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HawaiiWikipedia:WikiProject HawaiiTemplate:WikiProject HawaiiHawaii
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Illinois High‑importance

	Illinois portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chicago Top‑importance

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York (state): Columbia University Low‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state)
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Columbia University (assessed as High-importance).

African diaspora Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Africa: Kenya Mid‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Kenya portal This article is supported by WikiProject Kenya (assessed as High-importance).

2010s Top‑importance

	2010s portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Law Top‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Jose Antonio Vargas (September 17, 2007). "On Misplaced Pages, Debating 2008 Hopefuls' Every Facet". The Washington Post.
Alison Stewart, Rachel Martin (April 3, 2008). "'Round the Clock: Obama, Clinton Wiki-Warfare". The Bryant Park Project, NPR.
Brooke Gladstone, Bob Garfield (April 4, 2008). "Editors in Chief". On The Media, NPR.
Eve Fairbanks (April 9, 2008). "Wiki Woman". The New Republic.
Jesse Brown (April 10, 2008). "Hillary's Wiki Defender". Search Engine, CBC Radio One.
Tom Foreman (April 11, 2008). "Misplaced Pages Wars". This Week..., CNN.
John J. Miller (April 21, 2008). "Liberal Web". National Review.
Kelly Heyboer (May 28, 2008). "Clinton's entry in Misplaced Pages has a watchdog". The Star-Ledger.
Paul Murnane (May 28, 2008). "NJ Man Appoints Himself Misplaced Pages Watchdog". WCBS Newsradio 880.
Noam Cohen (November 9, 2008). "Updating a Reference Site on the Fly". The New York Times.
Adrian Bridgwater (January 22, 2009). "Obama Misplaced Pages page under possible security attack". ZDNet.
Aaron Klein (March 8, 2009). "Misplaced Pages scrubs Obama eligibility". WorldNetDaily.
Joshua Rhett Miller (March 9, 2009). "Obama's Misplaced Pages Page Distances President from Wright and Ayers". Fox News Channel.
Mark Coleman (March 10, 2009). "Barack Obama 'receives preferential treatment on Misplaced Pages', report claims". The Daily Telegraph.
Noam Cohen (July 19, 2009). "Misplaced Pages May Be a Font of Facts, but It's a Desert for Photos". The New York Times.
Staff (August 17, 2009). "The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph.
"Misplaced Pages co-founder Larry Sanger says online encyclopedia scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics". Fox News. 2020-05-21. Retrieved 2020-05-22. The first example pointed out by the site's co-founder is that President Barack Obama's page "completely fails to mention many well-known scandals" such as Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP phone records scandal and the so-called "Fast and Furious" operation.

Bookmarks:

Other talk page banners

This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 155 million views since December 2007.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 6 times. The weeks in which this happened:

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2020.

Section sizes

Section size for Barack Obama (56 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	8,784	8,784
Early life and career	14,093	73,909
Education	29,943	29,943
Family and personal life	21,864	21,864
Religious views	8,009	8,009
Legal career	1,665	1,665
Legislative career	23	28,357
Illinois Senate (1997–2004)	10,948	10,948
2004 U.S. Senate campaign in Illinois	5,331	5,331
U.S. Senate (2005–2008)	12,055	12,055
Presidential campaigns	27	22,503
2008	13,238	13,238
2012	9,238	9,238
Presidency (2009–2017)	123	136,327
First 100 days	5,305	5,305
Domestic policy	13,196	75,048
Racial issues	8,067	8,067
LGBT rights	3,177	8,968
Same-sex marriage	5,791	5,791
Economic policy	21,828	21,828
Environmental policy	8,995	8,995
Health care reform	13,994	13,994
Foreign policy	9,784	55,851
War in Iraq	5,658	5,658
Afghanistan and Pakistan	4,468	9,734
Death of Osama bin Laden	5,266	5,266
Relations with Cuba	4,237	4,237
Israel	7,588	7,588
Libya	6,464	6,464
Syrian civil war	4,207	4,207
Iran nuclear talks	3,681	3,681
Russia	4,498	4,498
Cultural and political image	3,921	18,345
Job approval	8,511	8,511
Foreign perceptions	5,409	5,409
Thanks, Obama	504	504
Post-presidency (2017–present)	21,359	21,359
Legacy and recognition	14,189	15,983
Presidential library	619	619
Awards and honors	1,111	1,111
Eponymy	64	64
Bibliography	69	5,471
Books	1,134	1,134
Audiobooks	216	216
Articles	4,052	4,052
See also	98	1,214
Politics	474	474
Other	64	64
Lists	578	578
Notes	24	24
References	49,333	50,987
Bibliography	1,654	1,654
Further reading	2,508	2,508
External links	308	8,466
Official	463	463
Other	7,695	7,695
Total	395,902	395,902

There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages.

The rationale behind the request is: "Important".

Black, not African-American

Changed "African-American" to "Black" because not all African people are considered "Black". Is Brad Binder Black? Nope. White South Africans exist. I, myself, am an Afrikaner, and I sure as hell am not Black. Anonymous and proud (talk) 12:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The category of African Americans is clear if we are not pretending it means something other than what it means. For its use in this article, we defer to the language used by our sources, and Obama is most frequently described as an African American man. Remsense ‥ 论 12:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Brad Binder isn't Black, and he isn't African American either. He's South African. In the USA, the terms Black and African American are both commonly used with a variety of meanings, ranging from people descended from victims of American chattel slavery, to members of a subculture defined by that legacy, to any American with dark skin, to Americans with ancestral or cultural ties to Africa. Most of those categories apply to Obama, and he is widely described as African American by published sources. White Americans of African descent are not normally called African Americans by themselves or others, but even if they were, that wouldn't mean the term doesn't apply to Obama. -- LWG 17:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Most Black Americans (not including immigrants or those descended from them) are more likely to genetic relations with White Americans than they are with someone from Africa. That continent for most of its history never had a singular identity. African-American is a ridiculous term. TheFloridaTyper (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

It doesn’t matter, the term is already well established. Remember, Misplaced Pages aims to describe, not to prescribe. 2607:FEA8:529E:C300:A5F9:49C9:82BF:7CC5 (talk) 08:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

"Barack O" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Barack O has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 1 § FirstName LastInitial redirects for presidents until a consensus is reached. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 03:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Change "African-Amereican" to Multiracial

Most Black Americans don't have immediate ancestors from Africa like Obama does. Not to mention Obama has mixed raced ancestry through his father and mother TheFloridaTyper (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

See Q2 of the FAQ for this article (also found at the top of this page). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Should we add a permanent-top-thread version of the faq, like at Talk:Muhammad#Frequently_asked_questions,_please_read_before_posting? It's more visible, especially for mobile-users I think. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure anything could address the appalling logic of the OP here - that having an immediate African ancestor somehow prevents Obama being African-American. HiLo48 (talk) 09:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

There is this view around that people who weren't American slaves doesn't "count" when deciding who's African-American. Of course, on this website we go by "Obama himself and the media identify him, the vast majority of the time, as African American or black. African American is primarily defined as "citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa", a statement that accurately describes Obama and does not preclude or negate origins in the white populations of America as well." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Debra Dickerson wrote at one time "President Barack Obama, who is the son of a Kenyan immigrant, although technically African-American, is not black." Another time she wrote "African-American, in our political and social vocabulary, means those descended from West African slaves, because Obama is not a descendant of West Africans brought involuntarily to the United States as slaves, he is not African-American." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

That's definitely a point of view that some people hold, and the wiki discusses that view at African_Americans#Terminology_dispute, but to justify changing what we say about Obama we would need to show that the consensus in the reliable sources is not to describe him as African American. In actual fact although a few sources take Debra Dickerson's point of view, most sources don't. If you think the article should follow Debra Dickerson's point of view, you need to show that her point of view is the consensus one among the reliable sources. -- LWG 16:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: