Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:20, 11 February 2009

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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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: 7 days

	Barack Obama is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article 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 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 A news item involving this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on November 5, 2008. Current status: Featured article

view · edit 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.

This article has not yet been rated 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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government 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). Template:USP-Article United States: Presidential elections Low‑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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. U.S. Congress High‑importance 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). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Illinois Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hawaii Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chicago Top‑importance 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. Template:WikiProject Columbia UniversityPlease add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Indonesia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics 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.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Africa: Kenya Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Kenya (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Spoken Misplaced Pages This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken 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.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages Template:WPCD-People

Template:Community article probation

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Jose Antonio Vargas (2007-09-17). "On Misplaced Pages, Debating 2008 Hopefuls' Every Facet". The Washington Post. Alison Stewart, Rachel Martin (2008-04-03). "'Round the Clock: Obama, Clinton Wiki-Warfare". The Bryant Park Project, NPR. Brooke Gladstone, Bob Garfield (2008-04-04). "Editors in Chief". On The Media, NPR. Eve Fairbanks (2008-04-09). "Wiki Woman". The New Republic. Jesse Brown (2008-04-10). "Hillary's Wiki Defender". Search Engine, CBC Radio One. Tom Foreman (2008-04-12). "Misplaced Pages Wars". This Week..., CNN. John J. Miller (2008-04-21). "Liberal Web". National Review. Kelly Heyboer (2008-05-28). "Clinton's entry in Misplaced Pages has a watchdog". The Star-Ledger. Paul Murnane (2008-05-28). "one of two pieces aired". WCBS Newsradio 880. Noam Cohen (2008-11-09). "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.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

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, 84

Special discussion pages /Article probation /Article probation/Incidents /Historical diffs /weight /race

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Redundant discussions

In case anyone is wondering if they have an original comment about one of the frequently-discussed issues for this article, here is a list of discussions at length which have taken place just in the past couple of months.

Race

• Talk:Barack Obama/race
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 47#Barack Obama is half-white
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Ethnicity in first sentence
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Media coverage of ethnicity controversy and the intro
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Mulatto, the term is Mullato
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 44#He's Multi-Racial.
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 43#Obama and race

Religion

• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 47#Religon
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Religion

Citizenship

• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Supreme Court Controversy
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 45#Still no mention on the birth certificate?
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 45#Donofrio v. Wells
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 44#Unverified Birth Hospital Needs Revision and Reference

Full name

• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Article Name
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 44#Barack Hussein Obama JR, not II

Give this some consideration before deciding to start another one. Bigbluefish (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Please skim this page first (and ideally the FAQ) before starting a new discussion on the "president elect" designation, or Obama's race/ethnicity. You'll probably find there's already a section there where you can add your comments. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there an article or section related to the Transition Team? Chadlupkes (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The "Race/ethnicity" section has (presumably by "Wikidemon", the self-styled "owner" of this page) not just been consolidated or shifted to another already existing section: it has, in effect, simply been removed. The contents are no longer available unless one presses a special link to enter the "archive". Misplaced Pages guidelines explicitly forbid tampering with other contributors' material on a Talk Page. The current treatment of the "Race/ethnicity" section (rendering none of the contributions visible on the main Talk Page, effectively "hiding" it all inside an "archive") is a violation of these guidelines.Jakob37 (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Anything that can be done to speed the loading of this talk page up, I'm all for it. It's taking forever to load, and old issues that have been discussed ad infinitum don't need to be here. It's hard enough to discuss current issues as it is. Dayewalker (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

In that case, there are several other "overly large" sections that could be archived. If User#1 thinks that Topic X is too long and boring, then that user may, without further ado, hide its contents inside an archive. But then User#2 thinks that Topic Y is too long and boring, so that user hides Topic Y's material inside an archive, although User#1 thinks it should stay visible. Is that how it's going to work?Jakob37 (talk) 05:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the issue of African-American, mixed race, Black, designation by oneself vs. by others, etc., this talk page has spiraled completely out of control. I was rather miffed a day or two ago to find that my contributions, along with others, on the subject had, without any consultation, suddenly been stuffed into an archive, and now I am doubly miffed to see that the same subject has grown another head, even much larger than the material subjected to archiving, and yet nobody is archiving it this time -- quite UNFAIR. In any case, the more important point I would like to raise is that 95% to 99% of the contributions on these interconnected topics have no PARTICULAR connection to Obama; these issues are part of the socio-political nature of American (U.S.) life. Since there seems to be no lack of Wiki-editors who love to manipulate other people's contributions, may I suggest that all this material, instead of being archived (effectively out-of-sight, out-of-mind), be used to construct a separate article on "race attitudes in the U.S." or something to that effect (cf. my comment in "Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama" ). The Obama article itself should contain an appropriately brief discussion of Obama's relationship to these issues, followed by a hyperlink to the (proposed) article where these issues are described/discussed in the larger context that they deserve. And the Obama Talk-Page will then hopefully return to a focus on Obama himself. The way that Obama has dealt with these issues is not so different from the way thousands or even millions of other people have done.Jakob37 (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

69.134.20.90 (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC) i have come to notice that some of the people on this board are extremely racist and wont admit in the text of the article that obama is half white ..i understand the importance to some of the people on here that he be considered black but face facts he isnt.. he is listed as the first african american when in fact ,he isnt ..he might be the first half african american ever elected then when a true african american is elected you wont have to undo all the lies you have spouted about this one.this is afterall,a place where people come for knowledge not some general idea that is put forth by some people

Your comments are totally off base from beginning to end. Baseball Bugs 15:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

69.134.20.90 (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC) bugs , nice brush off if i am so offbase then why isnt it mentioned anywhere in the text about his white hertitage..people are wanting to claim his citzenship but not the people who gave him the right to that citizenship his black father was not a citizen so why is everyone harping on his race and wont acknowledge the white side ..maybe if this source were more fair to other people there wouldnt be the rage about how a man with dual citizenship got elected president or about where he was born when anybody can have a birth certficate made up with about 30 minutes planning just a little research i can be anybody with a legitament birth certficate if you want to fair to the readers and to the man himself at least make it fair

Have you bothered to read past the first paragraph? Like where it states that his mother was white? Oh, and have you found any reliable sources that don't call him "the first African American President"? Of course he's African American. He's also English American. But that last part is hardly news, as most every President has been European American. Baseball Bugs 16:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

69.134.20.90 (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC) yes i read the entire article and have seen lots of things about his life not published or ignored but the point i am making which you seem to be dodging he is only half and should be noted that way.. it is not as if it is hidden by him or anybody else if you were half italian 1/4 english and 1/4 russian would you want to be considered just russian ..he is english arabian and kenyan

We describe him the way the reliable sources describe him. And this has been already discussed at length. Your comments bring nothing new to the discussion. Baseball Bugs 16:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

69.134.20.90 (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC) so you need to change the slogan from "the 💕" to the free " follow the masses rumormill" if you cant post truths about somebody

First rule: Misplaced Pages bases its information on reliable sources, not on the "rumormill" and not on someone's opinion of the "truth". Second rule: Kindly put your 4 tildes at the END of your comments rather than the beginning. Baseball Bugs 17:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

my apologies for posting incorectly ,but back to the main argument so you are saying that it isnt a reliable source that he is half white. if it is a reliable source it should be noted in the lead paragragh instead of half way down on one line69.134.20.90 (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

We go by reliable sources, and the wording is proper on that basis. Baseball Bugs 17:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm a bit intimidated by the attention this article receives, I'm not going to repeat an edit I've had to make several times in the past without some feedback. In the "Cultural and Political Image" section, it states: "With his Kenyan father and white American mother". This is a minor issue, but I think that "white" should be removed, simply because it is unnecessary. That he is of mixed ancestry is well-documented throughout the article. Originally, because I hate the whole concept of race, I wanted all mention of "black" (instead of Luo) and "white" (instead of English/American) removed, but as I am mostly satisfied with the White American article in how it addresses race perceptions in America, it works. The restating of it in the Cultural and Political Image section seems redundant if not obsessive. —Godheval 19:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the term "white", just as I wouldn't use "black" to describe Obama or his father. Since we are talking about the "Cultural and Political Image" section, I think describing his mother as European American would be appropriate. --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking it was redundant to mention ethnicity again at all - his father is listed simply as Kenyan, so the mother should be American. If there is need to mention ethnicity again, then either the used White American or European American are fine.—Godheval 20:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

End of term

There's seems to be an edit war going on over whether it should be mentioned when the current Presidential term ends. Let's discuss this, rather than edit warring. Should it be mentioned anywhere in the article? SMP0328. (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if it seemed like an edit war, but I just don't see why the end of term date should be on the George W. Bush article and not this one. Friginator (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted my own revert because I saw that it was in GWB's article before his term ended. Not an edit war. Just a simple misunderstanding. Ward3001 (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

←No, not exactly Ward - Friginator put it in, I removed it once, and he put it back instead of coming here to discuss - your edit was after that. Of course what happened on Bush's article doesn't dictate what happens here, but in any case, on the merits: Bush's exit was not put into his article less than a week after he took office in his first term - it was put in some time in January 2008 with some opposition to it, in fact. I think this is a wholly different situation, and it seems inappropriate to me for the introductory section of this biography. The Presidency of Barack Obama article might be an appropriate place for this, but not here, in my opinion. Tvoz/talk 04:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Technically, and not to be morbid, but Obama's term only ends in four scenarios: forced to remove from office (via legal process, incapacitation, or death); chooses to leave office; or January 20th, 2012 at 12:00pm EST, whichever comes first. Since arguably his term ends based on information and RS we have today, the only "valid" date to put in today is "January 20th, 2012 at 12:00pm EST", the RS that is the Constitution. The only question is 'should' it be in the article. From a purely technical standpoint, sure, it's valid to include it, since only one of those four other events can change the date. It's solely a question of do we put the current "known" date in. I'm neutral on it. rootology (C)(T) 07:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

2013, actually. And it's fair to include, for those who might wonder when his term is scheduled to end. There is one other scenario, that there might be an amendment to change the date. Rather unlikely. Baseball Bugs 14:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Not even going to bother logging in to ask. But isn't the constitution a primary source? Don't you have to rely on secondary sources writing about their interpretation of the constitution before you can cite? This does not seem to be one of the instances where a primary source is exempt from the guidelines which apply. Stating primary source information as if it were a fact about the practice of a thing would constitute invalidation of Misplaced Pages's continued role as a tertiary source. I don't come down one way or the other about the issue of IF the date should be included, but the US Constitution is a primary source document and only suitable for citation when talking about itself. If we're talking about how America's going to APPLY the constitution, secondary sources are necessary. 142.12.15.19 (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If the information is to be included at all, then it's "scheduled as" 1/20/2013. Anything else amounts to crystal ball. And if you find any secondary source that says anything other than what the Constitution prescribes, that would disqualify it as a "reliable" source. January 20th is not like the 1st or 2nd amendments. It's a straightforward and undisputed fact that doesn't require interpretation. Baseball Bugs 14:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

All sources require interpretation if they're challenged, since all sources can be interpreted. Independent analysis is the only way to work with a primary source which purports to be a matter of law. Otherwise supreme court interpretations of what information in the constitution means could be declared "not reliable sources" because they appear to countermand or strike down extant sections. The fact that the date is in there doesn't alleviate the need for a secondary source which flatly states the term's end, does it? The remark can be made in general, such as "the date prescribed in the Constitution of the United States of America places his term's end at January 20th, 2013", so that's cool. I thought the proposal was putting something definite like "Obama's term WILL END ON...". And a secondary source isn't invalidated just because it countermands a primary source unless the source is unreliable for all other purposes as well, since there is no inherent superiority to primary source a or b except from terms of understandability and reportage. 142.12.15.19 (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Since Obama may run for re-election, and the result of a re-election race is obviously unknown, we don't know yet when his presidency will end. Saying His current term will end on January 20, 2013. is a true but meaningless fact and makes it sound like he's some sort of lame duck. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Check the U.S. Constitution. A Presidential term is for four years. If he wins another election, that's known as a second term. No one has said that when his Presidency will end. Ward3001 (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we're getting too hung on the fine details, oddly. His Presidency is not mutually exclusive from his term, he's only "President" beyond the honorific of the title while his term runs. Simply put, legally, he's president unless he's forced from office by impeachment, resigns, incapacitated/death, or Jan 20 2013, whichever comes first. It's just a question of do we list Jan 20 2013 as term's end right now. It would be technically accurate to do so, since we have no reason or source to assume otherwise. That's the only real question. Do we or don't we? rootology (C)(T) 16:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with Rootology. Do we or don't we? It's as simple as that. Ward3001 (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying we don't. If he's re-elected, he will serve as the 44th president from 2009 to 2017, not as the 44th president from 2009 to 2013 and the 45th president from 2013 to 2017 (see the intro to Bill Clinton or George W. Bush). Yes, this would be two terms and requires a re-election but in this case the presidency is for all intents and purposes continuous. What I'm saying is that although it's true that his current term ends in 2013, stating this gives the incorrect impression that he will stop being president then. The biographically important date will be when his presidency ends which we don't yet know, not the end of his first term. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If anyone is getting hung up on the notion of his term not necessarily lasting until that date, how about the phrasing "his current term expires"? That conveys the meaning of why the date has any relevancy. I can't confess to caring whether it has a place in the article. Bigbluefish (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to be stupid here, but what exactly is the relevancy? Until he announces whether he's running for re-election, and if so whether he wins or loses, we have no idea if this date has any significance whatsoever. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The man's been President barely a week & there's already discussion over weither to show when his current term ends? GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Presidents of some other countries are in an indefinite term of office. The timespan of the term is relevant. Bigbluefish (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

While there is, no doubt, a way to correctly state the information about when a presidential term ends, this seems nowhere remotely close to relevant for the lead of the Obama article (and probably not anywhere in this article). If readers are interested in the legal details of US presidential elections/terms, they can read plenty of linked articles directly on that topic. We're not hiding that information. On the other hand, how this pertains to Obama himself is just WP:CRYSTAL. Maybe he'll resign, be impeached, or die (heaven forbid the last, and all). Maybe he'll not run for second term. Or maybe he'll run and lose. Or maybe he'll win a second term. Putting any such scenarios in the lead is in no way relevant to this biography. Readers don't need speculations and probabilities. LotLE×talk 18:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the issue of whether we should include anything, I don't think this is a WP:CRYSTAL issue if it is stated that "his current term ends" on a specific date. Even if he left office for one of the unforeseen reasons mentioned above, it's still his term. For example, it was commonly said that Gerald Ford finished the remainder of Nixon's second term, and Lyndon Johnson completed Kennedy's term. Ward3001 (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed it is not crystal. However, rather than arguing all of this on first principles, why not follow convention? This must come up in every article about every person elected or appointed to a position for a fixed period. How do other good / A / featured articles describe terms for other politicians? Wikidemon (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The WP:CRYSTAL issue is not about the date his first term ends, but about whether the end of his current term will have any special significance. Because he may run for re-election and win, we don't know whether this date will be the end of his term of office or basically just another Sunday. Here's how the only other FAs where this applies treat it:

• Ban_Ki-moon (no mention, but Secretary-General of the United Nations says when the current term ends and that he's eligible for reappointment)
• Richard Cordray (end of his current term is mentioned, but he was elected out of cycle to fill a vacancy so this is not a normal case)
• John McCain (no mention other than that he's intending to run for re-election in 2010)
• Yoweri Museveni (article has sections for each term and lists the current term as 2006-2011)

This is not really a large enough sample to draw conclusions from, but if forced I'd say the prevailing "style" is that the end of a person's current term is not mentioned unless there are special circumstances. President of the United States, which is linked from the very first sentence of this article, clarifies the term of office is four years with a two term limit. If the point is to clarify here how long he might be President we could perhaps change the last sentence of the first paragraph to He was inaugurated to his first term as President on January 20, 2009. which basically says he's expected to be President until 2013 and may be until 2017. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL has nothing to do with whether the end of his current term will have any special significance; that's WP:N. WP:CRYSTAL does not address significance; it addresses whether a future event is likely to happen. And regardless of whether we decide to include the end of Obama's term, it most certainly will happen. WP:CRYSTAL is irrelevant. Ward3001 (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

From WP:CRYSTAL: 1. Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and .... Let's turn this around. Regardless of WP:CRYSTAL, are you saying you favor including something like His first term ends in Jan 2013 in the lead? If so, why? -- Rick Block (talk) 02:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything about whether the end of his term should be stated in the article. That is an issue addressed by WP:N, and I'm not expressing an opinion about notability. Of course WP:CRYSTAL says that a future event should be notable; virtually everything in Misplaced Pages must be notable. But notability is not the major issue of WP:CRYSTAL. I am saying that his term will end whether it is notable or not, and that the concerns expressed by WP:CRYSTAL do not apply. The only concern here is whether a statement about the end of his term is notable enough to include. Ward3001 (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, so you have no preference about whether the end of his current term is stated (particularly in the lead). Is there anyone actually in favor of this, or can we just close this issue? -- Rick Block (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with those who say the term is four years long and ends on January 20, 2013. Anything before that and someone would be filling out Obama's unexpired term. Newguy34 (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no question about how long the term is or when it ends. The question is should a sentence like His current term will end on January 20, 2013 be added to the lead or, as SMP0328. asks way up yonder, anywhere in this article? Tvoz, LotLE, I, and (I'll assume) GoodDay are saying no, at least not in the lead. Friginator seems to be saying yes, in the lead. I've suggested an alternative (probably not for the lead) qualifying that his recent inauguration was for his first term (leaving it open what might happen later). No one else seems to be taking a stance. Is that about right? -- Rick Block (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

One giant impassioned 'don't care' here. Wikidemon (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel that there is zero notability about the end of a president's first term, other than for wishful anticipators. It has no place in the article. Tarc (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If he wins the second election for his second term - does he have to be sworn in again ? If so then it ends 2013 and starts again once sworn in 2013 - Also it's not like it's a horse race and if he falls someone else will get the win, he's there till that date and thats it, unless dead, caught with some nasty secret or lie or kidnapped. In the UK we have no fixed term so we wouldn't put a date, you do have a fixed term so I cannot see a problem putting a date. If something bad happens we change the date, if not then it's correct - The Day will end at midnight, unless the earth blows up or we get hit by a meteorite or the sun explodes - the day ends at midnight cause my watch says so.--Chaosdruid (talk) 04:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's customary to do the swearing-in again when the President wins a second term. Baseball Bugs 05:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not editors want to call it WP:CRYSTAL (which it is), adding this end-of-term bit is entirely unencyclopedic. For comparison, can anyone imagine adding "end of term" to the article on JFK?! We already know that past for sure, after all, even if we want to describe it as "Johnson served the latter part of Kennedy's term. For that matter, would anyone dream of adding to the article on Nixon that "He was elected to a term ending Jan 20, 1973; and reelected to a term ending Jan 20, 1977". While not quite as macabre, that would be equally strange sounding. At this point, we have no idea what the outcome of Obama's "first term" will be... and arbitrary insertion of content that happens to be relevant to the President of the United States or Constitution of the United States articles doesn't belong in the lead to this article. LotLE×talk 09:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

LotLE, Rick Block, Tarc, et al have it right. With Bush it could be argued that it was notable to include in the lead at the time it was added - January 2008, the start of his last year in office - as a countdown had begun regarding his lame-duck status. We've all seen the "1-20-2009 The End of an Error" bumperstickers and tshirts - the end of his Presidency was, in some quarters, as notable as the start of it. But regardless, a week into Obama's first term it seems out of place and unencyclopedic for this article, particularly for its lead. Presidency of Barack Obama perhaps, but not here. Tvoz/talk 09:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree - it is not notable, and should not be added to this article.--4wajzkd02 (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with LotLe's point. This is at best, a body, not lead para, point for the article about the Obama Administration, not the article about the person. ThuranX (talk) 06:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Political positions

I probably have formatted my inquiry incorrectly according to Misplaced Pages guidelines, so please excuse the mistake. I am concerned as to why President Obama's positions on abortion or gay rights are absent from the excerpt on this page. I recognize that there is an extended page detailing his views (including views on these issues). My honest worry is that people wish to remove these two social debates from the US political sphere. It is dishonest to manufacture an exclusion of these issues on an encyclopedia. Obviously, as an anonymous user, I cannot edit this page, or I would have made good-faith edits.

195.154.156.71 (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

See Political positions of Barack Obama, where many of the individual issues, such as LGBT and women's reproductive rights are addressed. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I, as I mentioned, was aware of the page devoted to his political positions. I am inquiring into how the political positions extract on this page was decided (I do know there are many edit wars, debates on popular pages like this one). Also, I want to know how can I propose an inclusion, or a further discussion as to why certain issues were highlighted in this page over others. I would contest the right-to-life/abortion debate along with the gay rights issue have importance equally with the other issues presented on this page. Again, I would expect the 'lock' on this article to bar me from edits even with a newly created username. Thanks. 195.154.156.71 (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

All of the issues are important — to somebody or other. So I find the rationale for singling these two out to be less than compelling. However, overall the section should be brought more up to date with the main subarticle on political positions, and should specifically attempt to be a summary of the content there. In particular, it currently seems to dwell disproportionately on foreign policy, and gives quite a dated account of his economic policy. Also, I am going to move (right now) the paragraph about the HIV summit to the subarticle. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I understand revamping in general. I hope, rather than singling out certain issues, to understand why the issues in the excerpt were selected, as well as why others were left to be exclusive to the sub-article. That includes, of course, the two issues I mentioned. It does seem to focus more on economy and international policy, with little substance on social issues. The discussion of Obama's appeal to the evangelicals doesn't reveal much in terms of his political positions.195.154.156.71 (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

May I ask the reverse question to you, why do you feel that the Gay Rights/Abortion stances should be placed in the main article over any other issue. Reasoning stands to say that no one issue should be put in the main article and that they should all be left in the daughter article. My thoughts are that we should remove the entire section and just leave the link to the sub article for the readers to follow if they want. That way we are not equating one issue as more important then any other issue. Brothejr (talk) 18:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I would not be against removing the section. Since I've entered the edit process with the current section the status quo, any inquiry or wish to edit is now perceived as undermining the importance of the other issues. I am not attempting to do so. Instead I wish to learn why these issues were selected above others.195.154.156.71 (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The best answer would be that when previous editors were writing that section, they were just showing a wide and very general examples of what his positions are. One of the things that needs to be remembered, is that this article was written in summary style. That means that we don't go into all the details and all the issues. Instead we just cover the over all picture and leave it to the daughter articles to go into the nitty-gritty. Plus, another issue here is what issues you believe in. The reason I say this is that those issues you believe in strongly are going to be the ones that you feel should be highlighted and are the most strongest to you. Yet, this does not mean they are more or less important then any other stance on an issue that Barack Obama takes. Also on a side note: if you truly want to edit this article, then why not take that last step, create an account, edit a few other articles for a very short bit, then come back and start editing here. Having an account does give you more choices and options then anonymous IP editing ever will. Brothejr (talk) 10:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

what is barack obamas position on serbias' kosovo and metohija region? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.187.11 (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

see Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama#Kosovo. Discussion of changing the article text of that position probably belongs on the talkpage of that article rather than this one. regards, --guyzero | talk 00:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Steelers Fan

Can we add that he's a Pittsburgh Steelers fan under the Personal section. Here is the source- http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/obama/2009/01/30/obamas-big-endorsement-steelers-over-cardinals-in-super-bowl.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.138.187 (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No. He's a Bears fan first and foremost. And there isn't enough space in this biography for every little tidbit of trivia known about him. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No matter how smart he is about his football, it's not relevant. Grsz--Review 00:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Only maybe if he sends a sure-fire play to the coach, the way Nixon did once. Baseball Bugs 01:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Given all the interest, I'm wondering if it would be a good idea or not to branch off a "personal life of Barack Obama" (or under some similar title) where people could add stuff about chili cooking, sports fandom, basketball playing, left-handedness, favorite pizza topping, etc. I know it sounds like it might be a bad idea, but it just might work. Wikidemon (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That would make it easier to truncate like a dead leaf, in case someone posts an AFD. How about "Worshipful attention to everything about Barack Obama"? I voted for him, but it seems like McCain's comments about Obama being a celebrity were right on the mark. P.S. I'm making fun of the idea, but I wouldn't oppose it. Baseball Bugs 03:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Or better, Useless and completely unencyclopedic trivia about Barack Obama. --Bobblehead 03:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't hold back. Baseball Bugs 03:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

And don't assume it's useless. Some readers will want to know not just that he likes chili, but what kind of slow-cooker he uses; the specific kinds of chili beans; the types of spices used; and what brand of antacid he takes when he ate too much of it. The companies that make Tums, Rolaids, and Pepto-Abyssmal will be hanging on every word. Baseball Bugs 03:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

How about Information for obsessives of Barack Obama? SMP0328. (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, we're putting way too much trivial stuff in this article, stuff like this isn't necessary at all. Wizardman 03:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

We need a separate site called "wikitrivia" to cover this sort of thing. I'm sure it will be at least as well-sourced as "wikiquotes". Baseball Bugs 03:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I hear he puts two tablespoons of splenda in his coffee, and only drinks using his right hand, unless it's past 11:30 CST, in which he switches to his left hand. Just saying. OrangeMarlin 19:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I heard Obama beat up Chuck Norris. It can stay out, it's just trivia... rootology (C)(T) 01:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

What was Obama's school performance?

Why there is zero information about his school performance? What was his average mark/how many tests he failed, etc. I think we should write that, even though that was bad/good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.145.160 (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

We have magna cum laude from Harvard Law School. That might trump any earlier stumbles, if there were any, but I haven't seen a hint of any cite for such. PhGustaf (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Was it ever an issue, at any time? The grades of Kerry and Bush became media fodder during the `04 election, but I don't believe the same ever came about for either Obama or McCain. Tarc (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

McCain was fifth from the bottom of his class at Annapolis, but nobody brought that up during the campaign. PhGustaf (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you know where are you? We talk about Obama's school performance, and not Mccain's or my grandmother's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.144.8 (talk) 08:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be worth discussing and reviewing if we had sources for his college performance, so we could decide if it's worth including (but probably would be better in the Early Life article). Sources? rootology (C)(T) 01:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Presidency Section

I suggest Section 4 (Presidency) to be moved into a position as 2.4 (under Political Career), seeing how his previous political career is featured there in a time-lined fashion. His career as a President should thus be featured there, as a summary like it is now, with the main article linked to from there! 80.216.56.89 (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Presidency is too major to be a subsection, but I added years to the Political Career subhead to clarify. Thanks for the suggestion. Tvoz/talk 07:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

First non-white western leader???

I think I would classify Jamaica as part of the west to where they've had black leaders, as well as South and Central America for hispanic people. Therefore Obama isn't even close to being the first non-white leader in the west. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.222.112.34 (talk) 06:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget about Alberto Fujimori. A Japenese-Peruvian who was President of Peru.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And South Africa is historically part of the west. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Open intellectual challenge: Why is Barack Obama considered African-American?

Oh good grief...here we go again with the African American race thing.

Obama is called what he identifies with. If that's OK with him, then it should be OK with all of us, regardless of what some newspaper is trying to define as "African American" (which it is never in a position to do, in the first place.

A view from a colored, Negro, Afro-American, Black, African American person (yes, we've been called all of these labels throughout our lifetimes) with people in my family from both sides of the aisle...really, becoming hung up of race definitions is not of major importance in the grand scheme of things.→Lwalt 23:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

FAQ Q2

This is a dynamic website and just because some text stood there for a longer period doesn't mean it can't be changes. In this article we use a broad non precise term. But for an example Rod Blagojevich article talks about the first Illinois Serbian American Governor, not European American, because we know who his ancestors are. Blagojevich calls himself American of Eastern European descent and talks about Serbia as often as Obama talks about Luo and Kenya, meaning rarely, but we still don't use that in the article. But in here we call him African American. (full stop) Despite the fact we know he is first of all not entirely African American and more importantly we know that he is exactly Kenyan Luo American. So in two similar articles in one we use a broad term and in the other article we use the most specific one. Why?

The current FAQ is not some final truth and perhaps we should change it to this:

Q2: The article refers to him as person of African descent but Obama himself and the media identify him, the vast majority of the time, as African American or black. Should he be called "person of African descent," "biracial," "mixed," "Kenyan-American," "mulatto," "quadroon" or something else ("African American," "black", etc.)?

A2: Obama himself and the media identify him, the vast majority of the time, as African American or black. However Encyclopedia Misplaced Pages tries to contain as much as precise information as possible. It tries to avoid media generalization in order to also avoid misinterpretation and defamation and to provide readers with more thorough and encyclopedic data. That is why this article refers to Barack Obama as person of African descent. As you can see in other articles when person's ancestry is known, for an example Rod Blagojevich or Rahm Emanuel, they are referred according to their specific ethnic groups, in this example Serbian-American and Jewish-American. As for Barack Obama this would be Kenyan-American, however Barack Obama is not entirely of this descent. His mother was of white European ancestry and therefore we say that Barack Obama is a person of African descent.

Btw I tried discussing this with one user, but it can't be discussed because he literally wrote to me that he considers talk page correspondence to be harassment. Can we get some input from more serious editors?--Avala (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC) A bit off topic, but Avala is lying when he wrote about me: "he literally wrote to me that he considers talk page correspondence to be harassment". This is my response to him after he used a harsh tone with me about reverting his edit regarding ethnicity against consensus: "please don't make your arguments about Obama's ethnicity on my talk page. It goes on Talk:Barack Obama where the entire Misplaced Pages community can read it. ... please read WP:HARASS if you plan to repeatedly put your comments on my talk page instead of the appropriate page." Here's the diff if he denies it. Ward3001 (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The "current FAQ" is the reflection of the broad consensus that has been reached on this matter. The entry will remain "African-American" unless it is determined that consensus has changed, which appears to be extremely unlikely. otherwise, all this is is digging up the same ol horse and re-beating it. Again. And Again. And again. Tarc (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus of whom? I don't like such arguments as "oh this is a closed chapter, we decided on that. any questions regarding that are not welcome". Either you can address the specific thing I wrote here (about FAQ) and specific questions (consensus here going against Misplaced Pages-wide consensus that can be seen in other articles. why?) or you can't. If you can then please do so, if you can't then don't waste your time to write how you are not interested in discussion - if you don't post it will be an obvious thing.--Avala (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

To read the history of the consensus on this matter, there are links at the top of this talkpage to the many archived discussions regarding identifying Obama as African American or something else. Consensus has continuously been the former, following the language of the overwhelming majority of reliable sourcing. In short, he made headlines for being the "First African American President", not "person of African descent" .... so we report A-A per WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:BLP. To answer your question, comparing this bio to Blagojevich or Emanuel does not demonstrate going against wikipedia-wide consensus -- we can find bios that handle the subjects ethnicity in a wide variety of ways, depending on the subject and the relative notability of his or her ethnicity, etc. We describe the details of Obama's parentage in the appropriate section. thanks, --guyzero | talk 20:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your constructive answer. However regarding the substance, I am still unconvinced that it is per Misplaced Pages rules to handle the very similar subject in different manners. It's very hard to find articles that match this one. For an example Alberto Fujimori, it says in the lead Japanese not Asian etc. And regarding Blagojevich - he campaigned as Eastern European American not Serbian American (though some media obviously emphasized the exact ethnic background due to the fact, that like Obama it's rare to have them in top politics). Even in his official biography it says his religion is Eastern Orthodox and not precisely Serbian Orthodox. Yet the article here deals with the subject in encyclopedic manner - it gives precise information. That is why I still can't figure out why do we put Obama on one side and all the other articles on the other side? Consensus doesn't mean much if it was made by people who dislike Barack Obama, if their intentions weren't good, if they edited in manner which can't be described as good faith etc. For consensus as you all know, it's necessary to have prevailing arguments, not votes support or oppose. It's per WP rules that consensus is not a set of votes but arguments. And I am still looking for an argument why are we using incomplete information here. The only thing I get is that Obama refers to himself in general as African American but like I said Blagojevich did the same and many others, they generalized for the media - you don't expect Obama to go around saying "Hi, I am Barack Obama, the first Luo-Kenyan and Anglo-Saxon American president". Nor Blagojevich to say all the time that his religion is "Serbian Eastern Orthodox Christian". Article on Bill Clinton begins with words "William Jefferson" and per this logic, he doesn't use that and everybody calls him Bill - we should drop it? --Avala (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

As Guyzero points out, we are bound by what can be verified in reliable sources, particularly in the context that the reference to him being A-A is used. In the context that A-A is being used it is not saying that Obama is only African-American, only that he is the first African-American to be elected president. It's a nuanced difference, yes, but an example of what I'm talking about is Daniel Akaka. One of Akaka's parents is Chinese and the other is Native Hawaiian and yet, it is perfectly acceptable to say that he was the first Native Hawaiian to serve in the Senate and he is also the only Chinese-American in the Senate. The sentence is highlighting the notable part of his ancestry. Applying this to Obama's ancestry, there isn't anything particularly notable about him being the 43rd white person to serve as president that part of his ancestry is not included in the lead. --Bobblehead 21:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That I agree and is less important issue to me then the one that says African American when known perfectly where in Africa his roots are. Why are using broad terms if there is specific information? Arnold Schwarzenegger - the first thing we learn in the article that he is Austrian-American, not European American. Why? Because Arnold came from there and it's a known fact. Just like Obama knows his father is not somewhere from Africa but from Nyang’oma Kogelo. E-A term is not widely used like A-A for one simple reason - it is the unfortunate fact that most of the African American can't trace their ancestors to the exact spot in Africa while most of the Europeans know their roots. Nonetheless Barack Obama is luckier, he knows very precisely where his African ancestors are from (obviously because his ancestors came to the US in different time, more recently then ancestors of most of the A-A). So why is it the problem to say "of African descent"? It discreetly covers both the issue of him having other than African ancestors (and without going into unnecessary detailing in the lead) and him knowing his roots. I am not proposing anything radical, just the slight change of wording for greater precision.--Avala (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Because we follow the language that the vast majority of RS's use to describe him: First African American President, which, given the significant number of sources that report this idea, is noteworthy for the lead. The details of his specific parentage (and his father's origin) are also described in the appropriate section, so no information is missing and it is all located in the article with the same weight that the RS's discuss it. If the RS's later give significant prominence (in proportion to the other items in the lead) to the fact that his father is Luo, then we should look at this again, and consensus would maybe change. As a side note, (and I'm not at all trying to be snarky) my own POV -- and presumably that of most scientists -- is all of us are "of African descent", but applying that label to all bios in the encyclopedia would probably not be policy compliant (as RS's don't claim this per subject and it would be synthesis to do so.) Anyhow, apologies for the digression... regards, --guyzero | talk 22:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes but like I said according to that logic we can drop the William Jefferson from Bill Clinton article because no one ever calls him that way neither he refers to himself as WJC. And I think it is rather clear that we when say "of African descent" we mean of Barack Obama as person, not human being.--Avala (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ahhh, sorry, must have misunderstood what you were saying, but anywho, in the US the term African-American is more a representation of race than a country of ancestral origin. So a black person that is from Jamaica may be referred to as African-American even though their lineage is not a direct path from Africa to the US. Granted, in the case of Caribbean blacks, you're more likely to be corrected and informed that they are from the Caribbean, not Africa, but the term still applies to them. --Bobblehead 22:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with asking the question, but I am not interested at this time in a major substantive change to FAQ A2 or the determination it explains of referring to Obama as African-American as a primary racial identification. It's there because it represents long-term stable consensus, and avoids the endless repetition of the exact same discussion every day or two. It's also there because those discussions keep coming up - if 100% of the people agreed we would not need to put it in a FAQ would we? Let's call it 88%-92%. Wikidemon (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed the answer to FAQ Q2 and I think it's pretty good (although possibly it digresses somewhat when discussing race in the second sentence). Regarding the article content and lead, the former is meant to provide a comprehensive account of what has been published by reliable sources, and the latter is supposed to be a brief summary of the most important information about the subject. As such it is appropriate that, in the body of the article, we provide all significant information, with reference to what our sources judge to be important, and in the lead, we look at how our sources describe the subject in their headlines and article leads. As others have noted, most sources providing a brief or summary description of Obama describe him as either African American or black. I hope this explains why our article lead uses the term African American. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 23:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The FAQ is written by people who have followed most or all of the 49 pages of discussion about this article. It summarises good faith discussions in which the majority agreed on certain editorial outcomes. It exists so that people with a particular idea about the article can see at a glance if their issue is a frequently visited subject without reading through all the archives. It presents the rationale by which the consensus has generally been reached.

If you think there is a flaw in the rationale you are entirely welcome to discuss it. However, my problem with your alternative is that the details of his ancestry are not nearly as important as his ethic identity, which is a matter of self and public identification. Obama is African-American, by definition, just as he is also Kenyan-American, bi-racial and so on. What matters is that in terms of historical significance, in terms of the context in the civil rights movement and in American history, the most notable perception of Obama is as African-American. The rest of the article and its sub-articles make it quite clear the specifics of his ancestry and the factors in his racial identity. Bigbluefish (talk) 13:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to say I found the term Encyclopedia Misplaced Pages amusing. Thanks for making me smile. Paliku (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Public Service: Obama Race Arguments Reference

No telling whether it really will help, but I wrote up some of the "We shouldn't call Obama African-American" arguments on my user page, along with responses for each argument. It's effectively a longer FAQ Q2/A2. Perhaps referring the racial identity-questioners to a more complete response will help shorten these endlessly-recurring discussions. I copied the text to my talk page so feel free to comment on my Q's and A's. If it helps we might want to give it its own page. CouldOughta (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You say "Note that there is no Misplaced Pages page for Person of African Descent, Afro-Caucasian, Luo-American, Other Term I Prefer, and so on. This is just a clue that the term you prefer is not superior to African American, which is a term known and understood by the overwhelming majority of English-speakers". But what about the article for term Multiracial American, where Barack Obama is listed anyway? He undoubtedly is that. African American or black is misleading - looking at the article Multiracial American I learned some new things, which media never emphasize. For some people they always call black, it turns out that they have mixed heritage. Luckily their WP articles are precise - they say in the lead that they are Multiracial Americans. Multiracial American actually doesn't exclude the term African American, on contrary it includes it, as well as any other term that could be used to describe Obama's ancestry.--Avala (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The other aspect of this argument, one that is unspoken, is that the people who do not prefer A-A and say that he should be described as African Descent or Mix-Race have something personal here. Either they completely disagree with the term African American or they do not apply it to themselves, if it could be applied to themselves. There are many variations of that same thought, but it all boils down to the same thing. While this argument is only about the FAQ, it is still exactly the same argument that had been used before. Plus, it will soon lead to the article itself. To restate what other editors have said, we only report what reliable sources call him, nothing more. Brothejr (talk) 11:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The definition of 'reliable sources', a term this list is very reliant on, is never clearly explained. In my mind, if a cite states something which is demonstrably false, it is by definition NOT reliable on this subject. You've also missed out a big argument - called Barack Obama black is an insult to his mother and generations of her ancestors (not least Barack's maternal grandparents who raised him), by simply erasing their involvement in him. Mr. Obama met his father TWICE and did not like him, so how can his father take precedence over his mother? Another theory is that 'African-American' is an acceptable term for a multiracial person if both that person's parents identified as black - people such as Will Smith, Beyoncé Knowles and Colin Powell can thus be regarded as black. As a counter-argument, Lewis Hamilton's page calls him mixed-race (and notes his 'first black F1 driver' status) in the intro, and Lewis' father has had a much bigger role in his life than Obama's. Barack Obama is the Harvard-educated son of two well-educated people, one of whom happens to be black - his election says little about the plight and achievement of inner-city blacks in most US cities.--MartinUK (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well if you have an issue with the term: reliable sources then this is not the place to discuss it. Please bring it up in the appropriate policy: WP:RS. Also, I have not missed a single thing about this argument. A variety of sources that have already been judged to be reliable, accurate, and verifiable refer to him as African American. He allows his friends to call him an African American, and so on and so on. Like I mentioned before, this all boils down to what you perceive him as and how you want the article to refer to him. This argument can be said a hundred different ways with a hundred different types of argument and debating styles, but it all boils down to the same thing. Brothejr (talk) 11:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is denying the fact that Obama is A-A as most of the media call him, but that is only one part of him. Barack Obama is a Multiracial American and while the media might ignore his maternal ancestry as uninteresting we should not do it for the sake of encyclopedic precision. And I have no relation to the term African-American one way or another. I just think that it is not precise in this particular example. This reminds me of a vigorous fight of some users a few years ago to have the article called Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and to use that wording in the lead. And they had consensus so it stayed like that while I was the odd user who proposed to use just Elizabeth II. Luckily Misplaced Pages matured over time and that as you can see now redirects to the article Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom which talks about Elizabeth II. I am sure that these partisan attempts of users who dislike Obama or who simply can't get a good view over some issues will go away in some time and that then we will have a mature, encyclopedic, neutral and precise article.--Avala (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

And I found this interesting text so I will share it with you: "Unless the one-drop rule still applies, our president-elect is not black. We call him that -- he calls himself that -- because we use dated language and logic. After more than 300 years and much difficult history, we hew to the old racist rule: Part-black is all black. Fifty percent equals a hundred. There's no in-between... To me, as to increasing numbers of mixed-race people, Barack Obama is not our first black president. He is our first biracial, bicultural president. He is more than the personification of African American achievement. He is a bridge between races, a living symbol of tolerance, a signal that strict racial categories must go."--Avala (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course Americans of mixed race identify with Obama, and want to claim him as one of their own. They are quite right to do so, their campaign is laudable, and when it is successful enough that most of the media decribe Obama as mixed-race or biracial rather than African American or black, I will be at the forefront of those urging the article lead to change. But until then, Misplaced Pages is not here to right great wrongs. We report what reliable sources say and we'll continue to do so. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 14:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well-stated. What we see in wikipedia from time to time is the desire to "set the public straight" about what some editors see as some perceived popular misconception. That is not wikipedia's purpose, and it's why reliable sources are so important. I'll give you a more mundane example. The sources will all tell you there have been 43 men who served as President, but there have been 44 Presidents, because Cleveland is counted twice. I claim that's incorrect, because the President is a man. 43 men, 43 Presidents. There have been 44 Presidencies or presidential administrations. However, the conventional sources say 44 Presidents. Hence, that's what we report also. Baseball Bugs 15:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Many media reported on Obama becoming 44th president, 43rd person to hold an office. Let's not twist it. It looks like a deliberate attempt to present this issue in wrong light. It is quite clear that the fact of his ancestry comes from reliable sources too, sometimes even the same but they don't go each and every time through this. So you will find CNN discussing Obama's multiracial background in one report but in everyday news they will probably not mention it and if they do, they will probably just call him black or African-American. To sum it up: His multiracial background is not disputed, the only question is whether we should ignore it. Just like I said with Bill Clinton - using this logic - what most media use in 99% of the time and what he calls himself we would have to drop the William Jefferson. But we don't. It's another issue where I had a dispute with a bunch of users a few years ago who thought that the article should omit his full name because no one ever calls him that way. In meantime it became an article that features his full name and his birth name in the lead section for which I am glad. I am 100% sure that this article will come to that level of maturity through time, perhaps I am asking for that too early but nonetheless I know it will.--Avala (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There's the basic flaw in your argument. You're claiming wikipedia is "ignoring it". That is absolutely false. There is a section in this article that explains it. There is an entire separate article that discusses his diverse family. Your complaint boils down to a claim that "mixed race" should be in the lead. But the sources don't put "mixed race" in the lead of their articles. Nor should we. Baseball Bugs 16:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The article as it is now is already at that "level of maturity". Perhaps some editors just need to catch up? As others have noted, the only place where this "multi-racial" or whatever the euphemism-of-the-day is is left out of is the lead, since most reliable sources do not refer to him that way. They refer to him as simply "African-American" as a general description, then go into further detail later in their own reporting, if desired. That is precisely what the Misplaced Pages does as well; the general introduction, then the specifics later on. You're the one trying to swim against that. Tarc (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that didn't go too badly. I'm a supporter of using "African American" in the lede and following with a clear, early paragraph that makes his heritage clear. My purpose in putting the arguments on my talk page was to provide a reference, and try to create clear, concise statements of the reasons to use "African American". Definitely not to start up the debate here again. MartinUK (talk) has brought up an arguemnt I didn't cover, the loss of Barack's (Nuts! I keep using his first name for some reason!) Obama's mother's contribution to his heritage. Rather than address MartinUK's new argument here, I'll respond on my talk page, since he echoed his response there. We're all free to debate here what term to use; if anyone wants to debate the specific arguments, feel free to go to my talk page. Not to debate what to call him-- but to address & refine the arguments. I'm intending to add all the counterarguments as well; with luck, future debates on this page can be conducted by cutting & pasting from the predefined list of arguments and counterarguments, thus saving time for everyone. CouldOughta (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Religion yet again

The addition of the second site reflects through the use of the preterit, that Obama is no longer affiliated with the UCC. I believe that we should remove the cite or use it fully to show the separation from the denomination. This is an official communication from the denomination and can thus be used to corroborate that he is no longer a member of the denomination. there is nothing in the article that disputes this : ]Die4Dixie (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I read the article, and typical of anything in which Microsoft is involved (my personal dead horse that that I keep kicking), I'm left confused. The implication is that he resigned from UCC when he resigned from the church, but is that true? I don't mean to impugn the quality of MSNBC journalism, but I am. Anyways, sans verification that he still belongs to UCC, we should remove any church affiliation. Honestly, I think he's non-religious, but that's just an opinion and original research. :D OrangeMarlin 19:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I assume you're referring to "The United Church of Christ, the denomination from which Obama resigned when he left Wright's church, issued a written invitation to join a UCC denomination in Washington and resume his connections to the church."? I don't think it would hurt to find an addition cite stating he resigned the denomination because I think a writer could easily mistake congregation with denomination. Grsz_Review 19:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The source added to his religion box uses the preterit when describing his church affiliation with the UCC, that in conjunction with the AP piece that msnbc promulgated that stated that he resigned from the denomination would tend to be corroborating evidence. I think the gratuitous mention of the UCC cite without more explanation of the resignation and Wright issue is undue weight. I believe we should remove the second citation from the information box, as it does nothing to clarify that he is currently a christian. You are correct in assuming that that is the part to which I referred, Grsz.Grammatically, the church's press release, by using the preterit, shows that he is not in. Were this not so, then it would have used the present perfect to show a continued affiliation.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

] third paragraph. I will try to find the comments from a more reliable reporting source. The one who allegedly stated this is without a doubt a reliable source if he indeed did say this.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

]. The horses mouth. The Obama's are no longer in fellowship with the UCC.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Has anything changed factually, since the last time this came up? Baseball Bugs 20:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No; however, someone added a new citation to the box. I think that it should go, or be a lead in to a more developed discussion in the article about Wright and the leaving of TUCC. It is a dor opener that I imagine we don't want opened.Die4Dixie (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice try D4D, but we're not any closer to resolution on this matter. Thomas says he hopes the Obamas "will consider retaining their United Church of Christ membership" (bold added). You cannot retain something you do not already have. I would like to retain the $20,000 I just spent on a car, but it's not mine to retain. I can, however, retain the $20 that's in my pocket right now. Although it's still vague, to me the statement says that Obama (at least in Brown's view) is still a member of UCC (something that Brown wants him to retain). If Brown had said "return to membership" that would be much clearer. But you can't retain something that you have given up. Ergo, the Obamas have not given up membership in UCC, just the Trinity congregation. So we are left with conflicting sources. Nothing in the article about UCC membership should change, although I don't have a problem with removing the second cite that was added to the infobox. Ward3001 (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what I'm asking for. How an individual arrives at removing it is fine with me. The source is clear, however, that they are not in "fellowship" with UCC any longer.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's clear that Obama is not "in fellowship". The press release says "grieve when any of our members chooses to leave our fellowship". It doesn't say he did leave, just that it would be sad if he did. It's too vague. Ward3001 (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

] this source refers to his membership in the preterit. It is dated after the other. Preterit is used for completed/finished action. The present perfect would have been employed if his membership continued into the present. This source is an official release from the church.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It says "spent more than 20 years as a UCC member". That's still too vague. I've spent more than 20 years on Earth, but that doesn't mean I have left or that I'm planning to leave any time soon. I don't think this statement clarifies anything beyond what we have already discussed. Ward3001 (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you have made my point by using a contracted form of the present perfect "I've spent" ( for I 'have' spent). If you had said " I spent 20 years on earth," it would mean there was some interruption to your presence on earth and that it was a completed event.Die4Dixie (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree again. I spent 20 years on Earth. I plan to spend many more years on Earth. But all of this is extreme semantic quibbling, and I don't think we can reach any conclusions analyzing to death a couple of words that the writer probably didn't give two seconds of thought to. Ward3001 (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to take a wild guess here that "in fellowship" is a flowery term for "attending", or attending on a regular basis. I get the feeling this may have been brought up before, but has anyone contacted the church hierarchy to find out definitively whether Obama is still considered to be a member or not? So far, what we've got are smidgens of comments from different writers that we're trying to interpret like some Papal pronouncement from 500 years ago. How about actually asking someone that knows? Baseball Bugs 00:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That might be interesting info and I'd love to have it, but for Misplaced Pages's purposes, as you probably know, it would be off limits because of WP:NOR or WP:SYN. But the UCC hiearchy might point us toward a published source that's clearer. My guess however, is that the top dogs at UCC might not know or might disagree with each other. I doubt that anyone speaks with the authority that the Pope or Cardinals have in Catholicism. In fact, that's probably one reason we can't get a clear idea of what the truth is, if there is a truth here. This may remain vague unless/until Obama makes a clear statement, which may never happen. The Obamas may just simply start attending a church and, as we have discussed, attendance is not necessarily equivalent to membership. Ward3001 (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. Not as a source, but as confirmation or to tell us where to go, so to speak. And if the hierarchy can't even agree on what their own rules are, then the so-called reliable sources have no basis for whatever they might say, and therefore there is no choice but to say his church is still UCC until he declares otherwise. Baseball Bugs 00:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I offered to contact the Church directly if the community would accept their response, but was not encouraged by the lack of interest. If you are interested, I will do it and make any response, favorable or not, available to whomever desires to see it. If they are truly still members of the denomination, nothing would make me happier that an accurate reflection of their status. Accuracy is my only agenda with all this.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and ask. It may or may not help clear this up, but it can't do any harm. I think we need (1) their general rule for a hypothetical situation that matches Obama's; and (2) their position on Obama specifically, if they ineed have a position on it (they might or they might not). Baseball Bugs 01:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Their denominational head quarters are closed. I will call in the AM to get the email address of the answerer of questions :). I will identify myself as an editor here at Misplaced Pages, state that editors would like a definitive answer if it is possible to give one, and that our goal in asking is not to disparage nor denigrate the denomination nor the Obamas, but rather encyclopedic accuracy.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Baseball Bugs 02:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually D4D, there isn't any question whether "the community would accept their response". We can't. Policy is very clear: no OR or synthesis. The most we can hope for is a suggestion by UCC about a published source specifically about the Obamas. Even if they direct you to one of their general policies, it violates WP:SYN for us to apply that to the Obamas. We can't interpret their policies. I also would oppose a statement such as "The Obamas resigned the Trinity congregation which, according the UCC policy means ..." That's synthesizing information not specifically pertaining to the Obamas and reaching our own conclusions. Whether our conclusions are right or wrong is beside the point. Either way, it violates WP:SYN. Ward3001 (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The need at this point is to try to find the right answer. That should make sourcing easier. Right now the so-called sources, which are little more than offhand comments in news sources that contradict each other, are of little use. Baseball Bugs 02:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I just don't want us getting swept off our feet in the excitement of a general statement by UCC and applying it the Obamas when we are not allowed to do that. Then we have another lengthy debate on this page. We can put UCC policy on United Church of Christ, but we can't put it on Barack Obama and imply something about Obama's church membership. That's where we cross the WP:SYN line. Ward3001 (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm with OM. I read all the above citations and sites as saying that Obama left both his congregation and the denomination following the Wright second shitstorm. Some articles note he hasn't been back to any church much since, and has picked no church or Church as his new choice. Hardly the actions of a man secure in his faith. ThuranX (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be an original-research conclusion. He's been kinda busy. It would be interesting to find out if the family has attended any DC churches at all. Baseball Bugs 01:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thuran, Obama has also said his faith is not contingent on his church affiliation. The question for me is not if he has faith or does he have security in that faith, but rather if he has an official affiliation or denomination.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm with D4D here and as long as there are no reliable sources about his up-to-date '"affiliation or denomination" we should just leave Christian in the info-box without foot notes, remarks or what-so-ever.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with just "Christian" in infobox and no footnotes, but there should be no statement in the article that he has left UCC. That just isn't clear. Ward3001 (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right. It would leave us all in a strange place : We would know the fact had a positive (or negative) truth value, but would be unable to allow the article to reflect that truth. (I also responded to one of your earlier comments above, Ward)Die4Dixie (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The info-box and the article are two different issues, so I say. Of course details of his past can and should be included in the article or a sub .--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And if Die4 can get the "official" answer, that should tell us which sources to use, if any. Baseball Bugs 02:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's going to be difficult to get anything "official" from so non-hierarchical and Congregational a group as the UCC. The pastor's blog D4D cited isn't much of a source. "Christian" is fine in the infobox until something interesting happens. PhGustaf (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This source seems to take the synth problem away from us, and connects the dots, again from UCC:]Die4Dixie (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry again, D4D, but I must differ. If you're referring to the statement "withdrawing his membership from the church", are we talking about the church known as Trinity, or the church (Church?) known as UCC. In fact, the statement is made immediately after reference to Trinity, thus raising much doubt about the possibility that it refers to UCC. It still is not clear. Someone can belong to St. Thingamajig Church, or the Worldwide Church of Whatsits. We don't know what "church" refers to. I applaud you tireless efforts to get an unequivocal source, but this is just too vague. Ward3001 (talk) 03:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking more about the 5th paragraph and the sixth where the connection between leaving TUCC is turned into how UCC members lament the breaking of fellowship. Perhaps still a tad ambiguous. Are emails ever considered reliable sources? I know that I have been able to use them for MLA styled papers and scholars certainly use letters in their scholarly writing. Anyone know if an official correspondence from the denomination would be a reliable source?Die4Dixie (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately not really unless there is a third party source confirming such statement.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

My response was to e-mails, just to clarify.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"5th paragraph and the sixth where the connection between leaving TUCC is turned into how UCC members lament the breaking of fellowship": Except it doesn't say he left TUCC. It says he withdrew "his membership from the church". Trinity Church, or UCC?? Back to square one. Ward3001 (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hence the ambiguity and seeming contradiction among the sources. The possibility has to be considered that the sources may not know the right answer either. Baseball Bugs 03:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Back to the email question, forgive my ignorance, but isn't there something about emails sent to the mysterious "OTRS" being official if the source is verified as authentic? I've never understood OTRS, but I see the term tossed around as a way to verify something like an image as authentic. It's probably a moot point anyway because I think there's an iceberg's chance in Hades of officals at UCC making an official statement about Obama's membership. Ward3001 (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It depends. Whatever the UCC would state we could only use it as a statement of theirs, not as a fact. To use it as a fact we need at least one reliable 3rd party source.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about that, but basically there are 3 possible answers to the question "Is Obama a member of the UCC?" - (1) "Yes"; (2) "No"; (3) "I don't know." Let's see what they have to say. We're waiting for an answer like it was an expected child. Give it a chance to hatch. :) Baseball Bugs 04:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Answer number 4: We don't give out personal information about our members. Ask Mr. Obama. His number is 202-456-1414. Ward3001 (talk) 04:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Silly me. Yes, that's the most likely answer. Die4 could still pose the hypothetical and see what they have to say (or if they hang up). Thanks for posting the number for the White House. I'm thinking I'll call him right now and tell him to drop whatever he's doing, like trying to fix the world's problems (or watching Leno or Letterman), and answer some nosy questions from a wikipedia busybody. :) Baseball Bugs 04:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

When you make that White House phone call, mention me, because I know how we can fix many of the things that need fixing (or poke fun at if we can't); the burdens shouldn't be all his. Modocc (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary break

To turn this discussion in a more productive direction, I suggest that the following Newsweek article should be added to the article as a source on Obama's faith: Lisa Miller; Richard Wolffe (July 12, 2008). "Finding His Faith". Newsweek. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 04:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you leave your crap out of this discussion since you don't seem to understand the point anyway? Thanks, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's really not helping here.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That article is pretty much all speculation, as well as being half a year out of date. It's a good thing nobody pestered Lincoln about this stuff, or wouldn't have stood a chance. Lincoln was, in fact, probably the closest thing we've had to a non-religious or non-Christian President, although he seemed to gain faith as time went on. Baseball Bugs 04:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a "horse" in this race, as it were. But the Newsweek source appears to be about two years more current than the other sources for Obama's religion. Regardless, it is some further somewhat in-depth coverage of Obama's religious beliefs from a major US news outlet. I'm sorry if Newsweek is taboo, and I also agree that the article isn't great, but you seem to contend that Newsweek is no longer a reliable source for anything pertaining to Obama's religion. I find this puzzling, as well as the above comment by MCK. Did I miss something? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for refactoring your comment, Silly Rabbit :) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for your reception. The answer that we were searching for was about present affiliation. I certainly don't think your offer was crap. I have no idea if you have any history with clean keeper. I'm not sure how the information would fit in, and what information from the article/piece you would want included. Again, the reception was less than amicable, however I believe the fellow explained it didn't have anything to do with you personally. I hope he will reconsider, and that you will continue to contribute here at this and related pages. Another voice would be welcome, whatever the point of view.Die4Dixie (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have spoken with the denominational headquarters and have received an answer to our question. I am unsure how to share it with the community. Please email me via Misplaced Pages and I will forward it to those who are interested.Die4Dixie (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The postulated four possible answers to the question, "Is Obama a member of the UCC denomination," were (1) Yes (2) No (3) We don't know (4) We won't say. Which of those four best describes the response you got? Baseball Bugs 19:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Because of the reluctance to come forward on Die4Dixie's part, I'm guessing their answer is "Pending" thus is both 3 and 4. They won't say we don't know, and are giving Obama an unofficial grace period. So lets label this answer 5, cause I don't care to begin secretly inquiring into unofficial emails responses. Modocc (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I spoke with Barb Powell by fone, and then sent her an email which she had agreed to answer. According to her, Obama ceased to be a member with the termination of the TUCC membership. She expressed the hope that he would reconcile. This is not a secret email, however, I used my name and school email account. I expect one might understand why I would prefer to forward this to those who are comfortable with me having their email addresses. Nothing secret nor sinister about that. If anyone has had experience with this kind of thing, could they tell me if there is a forum where by admins can authenticate an email and remove the personal information and share it with the community at large?21:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is the correspondence, with Die4Dixie's real name removed. Looks to me like this is solid enough to keep out assertion of UCC membership (though not verifiable enough to assert UCC non-membership.)

Dear Mr. "Die4Dixie",
Thanks so much for contacting us.
In the United Church of Christ, membership resides on the local church
level. When someone joins a local congregation, that person becomes a
member of the UCC. Similarly, if one resigns membership from a local
church, the person technically ceases being a member of the UCC. If a
person then joins a different UCC congregation, he or she is, once
again, a member of the denomination. The United Church of Christ is a
non-hierarchical denomination, and the relationships between its
settings are covenantal. The local church, then, becomes the
determinant for membership. Therefore, at this time, the President and
his family are not members of the United Church of Christ.
Thank you for taking the time to inquire.
-- Barb Powell
---
Barb Powell
Director for Production and Administration
UCC Proclamation, Identity and Communication
700 Prospect Ave.
Cleveland, OH 44115
216-736-2175
<email redacted>
>On 2/3/09 12:07 PM, "Die4Dixie" <someone@some.college.edu> wrote:
Dear Ms. Powell,
I am an editor at Misplaced Pages, an online encyclopedia that anyone can not
only use, but also edit. In such a project, it has proven necessary for
the community to implement rules that govern the the way that we decide
what can be used to write articles and the manner in which it can be
used. As a community, we strive to present factual information in a
neutral way, and are particularly mindful of the information that is
added to biographies of living persons.
Currently, the article on President Barack Obama reflects that he is
Christian. Until the last week, the article reflected that he continued
to be a member of the UCC. As editors, we are unable to read the
Constitution and Bylaws of the Church and apply our personal
interpretations to arrive at a determination as to if the First Family
have retained their membership at a denominational level. Some of the
national media reports have also interjected a degree of ambiguity. In
light of this ambiguity and our prohibition on original research, a
group of editors felt that direct contact with the Church might help to
clarify the situation.
We would be extremely gratified if you could explain to us the Obamas'
current official relationship with the Church, and specifically if they
retain membership at the denominational level and the reasons they do
or do not. Your response will be shared with other members of the
community in order that the article be as accurate as possible.
I want to thank you for your having so graciously called me and for
your time and willingness to help us clarify the matter.
Sincerely,
"Die4Dixie"

--jpgordon 22:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's really cool (I mean, the process, no opinion about the substance). There are some sourcing problems to work through I suppose, but that's as close to the horse's mouth as anyone ever gets on Misplaced Pages... Wikidemon (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Should we import the following (along with its link to the Wright controversy sub)?

From "Religious affiliations of United States Presidents":

Christian/formerly United Church of Christ.: http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/obama : An Associated Press 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 himself with the UCC. (See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27775757/.)

↜Just me, here, now … 22:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• The fact is, most Christians have had denominational affiliation. The "religion" entry in an infobox is usually used to fill in the public on this point. Obama is formerly UCC, and otherwise is unaffiliated. Should this be included in the infobox with wording akin to the "Religious affiliations of United States Presidents" article's "Formerly United Church of Christ"? ↜Just me, here, now … 00:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

What is your reliable source that he is formerly UCC (and the email above is original research). If you can't come up with a reliable source (and none of the rest of us have been able to do this), it can't go in the article. Ward3001 (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ward3001, the reason I started this thread was to discuss this issue in more detail. Those who mentioned in the above thread that they favor no mention of Obama's former affiliation should be allowed to defend their positions in this one. For example, D4D mentioned that the UCC should only be referred to if the Wright controversy was; but this objection may be met by way of my suggested edit's inclusion of a link to the article about the Wright controversy in its footnote. ↜Just me, here, now … 00:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well looking at it, Obama has not picked another denomination to associate with. It is clear he is not part of the UCC anymore. So for now I feel that the religion part should just be left as Christian. I also see this as a way to bring the Wright controversy back into the article and give it more weight then it has now. Personally, I do not see a need to rush and do this now, next week, or next month. Obama will be in office for at least four more years and in that time he will most likely make some kind of announcement as to which denomination he chooses to associate with. I do not think we should or need to be rushing things and there is certainly no urgency to decide this now. Brothejr (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

What is your reliable source that "it is clear he is not part of the UCC anymore" (and the email above is original research). If you can't come up with a reliable source (and none of the rest of us have been able to do this), it can't go in the article. Ward3001 (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Which source claims Obama still is a member of the UCC? The UCC itself says that Obama was a member of the United Church of Christ for over twenty years. Then the Jake Tapper piece fleshes out the fact that Obama is no longer a member. Although I've never been a Protestant Christian, I've been somewhat curious about the rationale behind the various Protestant denominations for some years now...therefore I sensed that historical Congregationalism was not a-Church-one-"belonged"-to through baptism so much as it was a "congregation" of fellow believers who accepted a "Calvinistic understanding" of the Christian creed -- and thus had the hunch that the premise we've been arguing -- namely, whether a member of the UCC (one of the main, contemporary inheriters of Congregationalism) would still be UCC despite having quit his congregation -- would be out of synch with a basic premise of Congregationalism. Which is "original Research," I know. But, after we add in the UCC citation and Tapper, what more encyclopedic homework need be done? ↜Just me, here, now … 02:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

To answer my own question: I guess if someone believed in Congregationalism -- and this despite their not being a member of a congregation of such believers -- they could remain a Congregationalist or self-identify as one. So I retract my statement immediately above. ↜Just me, here, now … 02:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC) (PS I'd gotten this article by Jake Tapper confused with D4D's AP piece. Sorry.) ↜Just me, here, now … 03:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"Which source claims Obama still is a member of the UCC?": First, that's not needed. If you want to say "formerly UCC" you have to provide a source that says he is not UCC. That's what much of the earlier debate focused on. Please read it, including the archives. Secondly, I did provide a source earlier: . Again, please look at the archives.
As I have said, you have provided no new information. This issue has been discussed in detail. Ward3001 (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

We wnt to the proper board and consensus was that that was not a relaible source.Die4Dixie (talk) 03:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Amended proposal

Instead of "Formerly UCC" we simply state Obama was a member for over 20 years, leaving his present identification ambiguous (retaining our mention of his having resigned from Trinity and our link to the Wright controversy article in the footnote). ↜Just me, here, now … 02:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree to this proposal. I think most of us in all the previous discussion came to the conclusion that identifying him in the infobox as simply "Christian" will suffice, and details about his leaving Trinity (but not UCC) can be provided in other parts of the article. Ward3001 (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Combine the email that confirms the reliable source ( the ap story that I have linked to ad naseam) and we have grounds for formerly. The email corroborates the ap story. Don´t believe the email, email me and I will send you Barb Powell´s number. christian is fine. Mention UCC, and we have to deal with Wright. Leaving a denomination after 20 years is a significant event in the life of a person of faith, which Obama claims to be. As far as the other page, the article (ap source) is reliable for formerly on that page. I don´t understand what the problem is here other than disruption.I have reomved protesdtant as it is ORDie4Dixie (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, the email is OR and not available for official use, so it does not officially corroborate anything. It might be interesting info for us as individuals, but it is simply not a part of this process. We all agreed in good faith before even contacting UCC headquarters that such information cannot be used in the article. So we are left with conflicting sources about "formerly UCC", and, with respect, I consider it bad faith to now try to change the good-faith agreement (not to mention violation of WP:NOR) and try to circumvent the previous discussion by using email to decide the issue of "formerly UCC". And please carefully note the words of admin jpgordon about the email: "not verifiable enough to assert UCC non-membership". If we follow such a path I will not hesitate to go to RfC, mediation, or arbitration. Ward3001 (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don´t know where bad faith comes from. I just reverted the article to the consensus version, which I want to maintain. The about.com, per consensus at the prper board is not rliable and the other source that claims he is in the denomination was considered suspect by others here as to if it is a relaible source. Please note: I want to maintain Christian, and nothing else. The email is not OR, it is a primary source, and they are usable, in certain circumstances, if the article is not based on them. I am not pushing this. So , please assume good faith ,and not BAD Die4Dixie (talk) 03:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

And please behave in good faith if you want me to assume it. Please explain, in detail with links to Misplaced Pages policies, how an email sent to an individual user, which is not in any published work or on any reliable website other than Misplaced Pages, is not OR. And the about.com is no more suspect than the possibility that the writer of the msnbc article simply misstated himself. Let me repeat for about the fourth time. There is nothing new here. We simply have the same discussion popping up again. And at this point we certainly don't have consensus to state "formerly UCC". Ward3001 (talk) 03:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, you are trying to pick a fight that I do not want. I am in favor of the consensus version we have. ¿Why are you being so god cursed antagonistic?Die4Dixie (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm fine with using "Christian" and with taking out "Protestant". Where I have a HUGE problem is trying to slip the email in under the radar as an acceptable source for "formerly UCC" and pretending like it's not OR or that we have a consensus for "formerly UCC". Drop that issue and we're fine. Ward3001 (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't tell your not trying to pick a fight. Nobody wants to slip a fucking thing under any damned radar. I converted the article back to the fucking consensus version. I have not suggested we had any consensus for formerly UCC on this page. I was referring to the page that Just me mentioned. Now if you want to be pissy about it, I'll get fucking pissy. You have accused me of bad faith several times tonight. Now if you like, I will take the other pitiful source that you offered last week declared as unreliable as your about.jokes.com offer and have the ap article review as to if it is a reliable source and run with it. Now if you doubt the veracity of the email,( Barb informed me that she does the PR at the denominational level) or truly believe that he is a member of UCC, then say so. We can get this in with out the email. I'm happy with Christian. Now it might be more productive to find who ever keeps putting in Protestant and jump his shit. i'm only saying that if you mention UCC there, we will discuss Wright. I have a shit load of reliable sources about their relationship. Drop ity? You're the only one that has picked anything up.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said I "doubt the veracity of the email". I said that the email is OR. And if you will read your words above, you're trying to say it isn't OR. There's a difference between "veracity of the email" and what is considered OR. Please read WP:NOR. I have no opinion about the Wright matter at this point. My only concern in this discussion is using the email to determine the contents of the article, in violation Misplaced Pages policy. I do believe you received the email, and that you received it as it is written above. The issue is not your truthfulness about the email. I believe the email is genuine. But that does not mean it is not OR. Why do you think admin jpgordon said "not verifiable enough to assert UCC non-membership"? Why do you think Misplaced Pages articles aren't full of citations to personal emails? It's because the email is OR, plain and simple. And if you think an email sent to an individual user is not OR, please give me the policy stating such. This is the second time I've asked you to do that. If you are willing to acknowledge that there is no such policy, then you and I are fine and we can bury the hatchet. But I don't intend to see anyone run roughshod over WP:NOR, whether you or anyone else, so please don't take that personally. You did a great job getting that email. But that doesn't negate Misplaced Pages policy. Ward3001 (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. The AP reporting is by definition a reliable source. The AP is explicitly mentioned in WP:RS to be a relible source. The idea that he might have mistated is lunacy. The email cannot be cited in the article. You are absolutely correct. The AP source can. The DC gossip mongering publisher that doesn´t enjoy a history of fact checking is unreliable. As I have looked more deeply into the source, the more troubling it is. About.com is unreliable. It can be verified that the publisher has stated that she doesn´nt know sht from shinolah about the issue. Now I am happy with Christian. If someone wants to build a consensus in usuing the AP source to say formerly, then I am willing to discuss it. If no one does, then it should remain as the consensus version. If someone wants to take the other source you offered last week that contradiscts the AP source to the reliable source board, then I will support that too. The AP source alone, with about.com already being declared unreliable and the other source likely to be, would stand alone and support Justme´s proposal. Hatchet buried.Die4Dixie (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

.Oh by the way, Mary just updated your about.com article that you have maintained is reliable. You might want to check it again. Quote "I did provide a source earlier: "Die4Dixie (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree, hatchet buried if you're not trying to use the email in a non-OR manner. And now that about.com has been updated, I think there is more weight to the position that "formerly UCC" might be used, although we still need consensus. And I'm with you that anyone can discuss using "formerly UCC", but currently there is no consensus. I've never felt that "formerly UCC" was an erroneous statement per se; I just wanted it decided by consensus. I really don't think you and I had any new differences of opinion until you made the statement that a personal email is not OR. That's really the only point where I had a serious problem. But as long as you don't push the issue of the email as not OR, I think we are OK. Sorry if I overreacted, but it was more in defense of policy than anything personal about an editor. I do sincerely believe you did a superb job getting the email, and it convinced me that we should just use "Christian" unless another consensus emerges. Ward3001 (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for my intemperate language and my abiguous statements. I should have said that the email should allow us to evaluate the other sources. We cannot quote it directly in any article; however, I think that common sense would allow us to have it in our minds. I am half tempted to contact that Hill source and ask them to run a correction. It would seem that it was more likely that that gentleman made the offhand remark than the AP reporter. Again, I apologize for my attitude.Die4Dixie (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems this forum is being "Baled" (...'though I don't know which of us arguers is Christian Bale.) ↜Just me, here, now … 04:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

D4D → Sms your usr nam should b Di4Dixi.<wink> ↜Just me, here, now … 03:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

New laptop.Spell check is in Spanish and I am a lousy typer. We used pencils when I was a kid.;).Die4Dixie (talk) 03:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

<laughs>

Re BHO/Protestantism (being "O.R," etc....): I think it'd be totally cool if he started attending an Eastern Rite church! :^) ↜Just me, here, now … 03:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Agree that the email, although a primary source, since it's not published, would make for a problematic citation.
• Nonetheless I boldly implemented my subsection-opening proposal, which is adaquately supported by an agreement among current, reliable sources. ↜Just me, here, now … 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Number of men serving as President

Some weeks ago, someone was making a thing over Obama saying that 44 men had taken the oath of office. It occurs to me that while Cleveland counts as 2 Presidents but only as 1 man (even though he was big enough for 2 - n'yuk, n'yuk) that Obama may have been right, even if for the wrong reason. Cheney served as acting President a couple of times during Dubya's administration, and presumably he would have taken the Presidential oath of office. Voila. 44 men. Baseball Bugs 01:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Except the same could be applied to Bush Sr following the assassination attempt on Reagan. Technically, Secretary of State Alexander Haig at one point claimed he was in charge while Bush Sr. was in transit. In which case, Obama was still wrong because if you count "Acting Presidents", there have been 45 or 46 men. --Bobblehead 01:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Except that Bush Sr eventually became President anyway. And I do recall Haig saying he was "in charge", but I don't think he was ever constitutionally the Acting President, since there was no declaration of disability by Reagan or Bush Sr at that time. Baseball Bugs 02:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I never thought of that. When Younger Bush went under the knife, did Cheney actually take the oath? What about when Reagan and Older Bush, and Clinton and Gore, and anyone that came before? I usually know all this Presidential trivia, but I have no idea on this one... rootology (C)(T) 01:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The Vice President takes his own oath of office when he is sworn in, so I don't think he needs to take the Presidential oath of office before serving as "Acting President"... his Vice Presidential oath of office would suffice. I think he only needs to take Presidential Oath (which is different than the VP one) in the event that he becomes the actual President... I could be wrong on this, but I don't think so. Blueboar (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be interesting to find out for sure. Not that it matters much. Baseball Bugs 02:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If a person is Acting President, it means he has the Presidential powers without occupying the office of President. The numbering is based on how many times the office has changed hands (that's why Grover Cleveland counts twice). Neither time Dick Cheney was Acting President did he enter the office of President, so he doesn't count towards the numbering of Presidents. As for Al Haig, he was a usurper. SMP0328. (talk) 02:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's 44 with an asterisk, then. :) As for Al Haig, he was called other things that were less polite. :) Baseball Bugs 02:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not "Acting Prez" for Haig, since not even in his twisted fantasy were the Speaker of the House and President Pro Tem of the Senate also disabled. There aren't many polite words to accurately describe Haig. LotLE×talk 07:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Aw, poor Al. He was just trying to help even though it did sound a bit like a coup . Tvoz/talk 07:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe people are trying to defend Obama's misstatement. He (and probably his speechwriter) simply got a little confused by parroting the official count. I doubt it had anything to do with some sneaky, technically correct definition that only some political junkies would be aware of. marbeh raglaim (talk) 13:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"Defending" is a little strong. As I said at the time someone brought it up and was trying to make a big deal out of it, it's entirely possible they said it the way they did just to keep things simple and not divert the inaugural address into a classroom lecture about the two Cleveland administrations. When I was reminded of the "acting President" situation, it occurred to me they might have been right after all, but just for the wrong reason. Baseball Bugs 13:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the famous JFK statement, "Ich bin ein Berliner," and how, by his not-quite grammatical statement, he was literally comparing himself to a pastry. I asked a German colleague about that once, and he said, "We knew what he meant." The meaning can be more important than the pedestrian details. Baseball Bugs 13:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've heard that the JFK story is an urban legend (see Snopes for the details), but I get the point. Being a political junkie myself, I noticed the error as soon as Obama said it, but I knew that if I heard anyone point it out, my reaction would be to roll my eyes and say, "Whatever." marbeh raglaim (talk) 02:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, VP Cheney in 2002, 2007 & VP Bush in 1985 did not take any oath to assume (under the 25th Amendment) the Presidential powers & duties. During those incidents both men continued as Vice President. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what Snopes says but "ein berliner" is a pastry in Germany. The grammar of his statement was akin to saying "I am a German" vs. "I am German". But, as Bugs friend pointed out everybody knew what he meant. Same as in English when a person says "I am hungry" no one actually thinks the person has turned into the embodiment of hunger. As for the "44 men" thing, what I understood he was referring to is the recitation of the oath of office. Since it's done every time, re-election or not, VP promotion notwithstanding, it's been given 44 times now (his being the 44th). Right? Padillah (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review - First 100 days

Please see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 4 for a DRV on a First 100 days article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Television Interviews as President

{{editsemiprotected}} Barack Obama's first television interview as president was with Arab news network Al-Arabiya, in which he stated that it would be possible to see a Palestinian state "that allows for trade with other countries, that allows the creation of businesses and commerce so that people have a better life." So far, Obama has also appeared on the TODAY show with Matt Lauer, ABC News with Charlie Gibson, and FOX News with Chris Wallace.

The fact that Obama gave his first interview to Al-Arabiya is probably worth mentioning somewhere for its symbolic value, which was quite intentional. However, a generic statement about wanting to see a Palestinian state is something I think every American president has done. Paliku (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree with the need for this edit. This is not the level of detail that should be going into a summary style article, and it would seem this would give the event undue weight. Furthermore, "completeobamaspeecharchive.com" is not a reliable source as far as I can tell. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Presidency of Barack Obama touches on the theme of Obama's outreach to the Muslim community; currently I think his statements about his approach are more important than specific gestures like this. Let's see if people hark back to this interview when talking about the issue in the future, then it might be relevant. Bigbluefish (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template.

Agenda as president in lead

There should be a sentence in the lead section about his planned agenda as president, or what he had campaigned on, or however you wish to phrase it. I'm sure there will be a debate over every single word of the sentence, but I think things like restoring America's image abroad (whether the need to do so is real or perceived) merit mention as his central focus was a change from the previous administration. Paliku (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The lead should represent a summary of the article and even so you have a point here it can't go as far as "cherry-picking" points that one might prefer. Yet a short addition could be added after presenting/discussing it on talk to reach some consensus (especially when it comes to the lead).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not see a need to add any of this in the lead. The lead is only for the most major over all representative overview of the article. It's kind of like a quick snap shot of the man. I do not see Obama's agenda as that important to merit a line or two in the lead. Brothejr (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This is Obama's biography, not an article about his presidency. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a valid concern here, although maybe not about his political positions per se. The last paragraph of the lead discusses exclusively his political actions or achievements as a senator. His actions addressing the subprime mortgage crisis and Guantanamo Bay are at least as important and influential as this. I was going to add the following to the lead but then thought that there should be some feedback first:

Upon assuming the presidency, Obama's early actions included steps to address the subprime mortgage crisis and order the closure of Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

How does that sound? Bigbluefish (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm still going to say no. I even will go so far as to say that we should remove that paragraph all together. To try an include some but not others brings up questions as to why we note some positions and actions, but not others. To simplify and also to stem any further "why can't we include this..." arguments, I say lets remove the entire paragraph. If people want to find out what he has already done, they can look down into the article or follow the links to the sub articles. Brothejr (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit: Being Bold I went ahead and removed the paragraph that should never have been there in the first place. The lead is there as a quick overview of the extremely major events of Barack Obama's life covered in the article. It is not there for highlights of his presidential positions, his political positions, stances, or any derivation there of. Brothejr (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Applaudably bold, and I for one agree. I now just wish I had been the one to realise the unnecessariness of that paragraph! Bigbluefish (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Listed occupation or profession

(I.) Should we take off "Community Organizer"? (II.) "Politician"?

This is not something to be placed on the greater scale of someone who ranks as high as the President of United States. --96.232.61.149 (talk) 06:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, scratch that part of his resume. Let's try instead that he was a war hero. No? OK, how about hot-shot plaintiff's lawyer? ...A television evangelist? A business tycoon? </sarcasm> ↜Just me, here, now … 06:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does not seem to be a significant part of his professional development, more like an occasional duty at some of the political positions he held.Wikidemon (talk) 07:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep it. If only to encourage other Community Organizers who might be President some day. Come on, it's an important part of his career. PhGustaf (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep it. His role as a community organizer turned out to be pivotal, as it was where he honed his skills for politicking, public speaking and mobilizing people. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Obama is also on record saying that he views the Presidency as a large-scale community organisation project. It is an important part of his background. Bigbluefish (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

" former community organizer"? BTW, WIkipedia does not exist to offer career encouragement for would be organizers.Die4Dixie (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Ronald Reagan's acting career and Gerald Ford, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Grover Cleveland's law careers, to name the other presidential FAs, ended long before their ascension to Presidency. That space in the infobox is specifically to list previous notable professions, and Obama's pre-political career is without question defined by community organising. Bigbluefish (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds right, even if gustafs reasoning was specious.Die4Dixie (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

← And it was just removed yet again, despite this discussion, by an editor who seems to think that consensus doesn't apply to him. I personally don't care if it's in or out at this point, but I do care if it keeps getting changed. So are we in agreement that his profession should read Community organizer, Attorney, Politician? I am going to temporarily revert to that if it hasn't been done already, pending the outcome of this conversation for the 9,999th time. Tvoz/talk 01:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Ah - I see Gustaf beat me to it. Tvoz/talk 02:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Politician could be left out, as I was swayed by the Ronnie Reagan article´s use of actor. I think politician is redundant.Die4Dixie (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed politician, but Tvoz assume a bit of good faith please. There is no indication that the user had read the talk page, regardless of whether it was good practice to have not done. Bigbluefish (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, this editor is not at all new, and as I mentioned on his talk page, he also made a similar edit without regard to consensus regarding the religion field in the infobox. On that, he has already been around the "Protestant Christian" block - so to just go ahead and make the edit again now without acknowledging an awareness of the talk discussions and the fact that he himself was reverted on it previously seems disingenuous to me. If he doesn't read talk, then I guess he won't be bothered by my lack of AGF on this. And if he does read talk, then why does he make the same edit that he was reverted on in November without comment? Not really a big deal, but it's hard enough going over the same ground with new editors - having to go over it with editors who've been editing this article on and off for many months is irritating. Tvoz/talk 06:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(III.) Lecturer/professor status

The article states that Obama was a "professor" for 12 years at the University of Chicago. It then goes on to tell that he worked as a Lecturer for the first 4, and then as a Senior Lecturer for the last 8. The rationale behind calling him professor is that Senior Lecturer (but not just Lecturer) is included in what University of Chicago defines as "professor"-category positions. However, very different interpretations exist on the word professor, some (for example French speakers) wrongly interpret it in English as almost any kind of teacher position including below university level, but many English speakers will interpret the word professor as being a tenured, full time professor, and Obama's job was never tenured.

Senior Lecturers at Chicago are part time university teachers who have the right to call themselves professors by that university, but it would be wrong to confuse the position with a full time, tenured professor position which a lot of people would associate the term "professor" with.

I propose changing "For twelve years, Obama served as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School teaching Constitutional Law. He was first classified as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996 and then as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004."

to

"Obama served as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and then as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004 at the University of Chicago Law School, teaching Constitutional Law. University of Chicago recognizes these positions as professor positions by the strength of their senior status and faculty membership, although they are not tenured or full time professor positions."Baggrbag (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Been there. Done that. Several times. Ward3001 (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Baggrbag: IMO re "professor" versus "lecturer" an encyclopedic case could be made either way. ↜Just me, here, now … 17:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Lecturer not needed, every prominent attorney as well as politician gives lectures, this is nothing out of the ordinary. Nar Matteru (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate efforts to bring an advanced understanding of legal biography to Wiki-editing decisions yet I remain unconvinced that your argument overcomes the simple fact that whereas many presidents have been lawyers, but a select few have lectured. ↜Just me, here, now … 18:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(IV.) Literary career as a memoirist

• Note: I've added law school lecturer and mention of BHO's phenomenally incredible occupational success as a memoirist in this blank: which latter occupation's success eclipses that of many notable American memoirists who've documented their upbringings and early careers and this success also occured essentially in tandem with BHO's reaching notability as a politician. ↜Just me, here, now … 16:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

1. According to The New Yorker Obama was paid by his publisher and also granted a sabbatical to write about law/politics but instead concentrated on his memoir, putting all his time and effort into his writing for an extended period of time, without the services of a ghost writer. ↜Just me, here, now … 17:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Quote: "Senator Barack Obama released his 2007 tax return on Wednesday evening, reporting a household income of $4.2 million due to a sharp increase in the sales of his books..." (see http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/us/politics/17obama.html ). ↜Just me, here, now … 17:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Everybody writes books these days, it's not a profession to write one or two memoirs/autobiographies. Grsz 17:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"Everybody writes books these days" is a non-argument re notability of someone famous as an author. ↜Just me, here, now … 18:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm for a very weak keeping of author as he wrote them before his presidency, as I said tho, this is a very weak support. All the rest of the stuff you added though, right out of the window. Its expected that he give lectures. And nice subtle changing of religion after it already got reverted with the explanation why. 18:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nar Matteru (talk • contribs)

The religion section is above. I don't understand your argument in this regard (or rather you didn't give one. Nor for that matter a signature!... Some people's kids.) ↜Just me, here, now … 18:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC) And as for "It's expected that prominent lawyers lecture" I hope upon reflection you'll admit this undocumented line of attack is a bit bizarre! ↜Just me, here, now … 18:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Teddy Roosevelt was an author - he wrote 35 books. The Clintons, Stephen Colbert, Barack Obama - not authors by profession. Grsz 18:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up these examples! Yes, certainly, Teddy and Barack are both indeed memoirists by occupation. (Barack has a number out and will eventually no doubt produce something comparable to TR's career-long output.) As was Winston Churchill an author of note. The Clintons less so. And Colbert's infobox includes certainly includes, as it ought, the medium of books. ↜Just me, here, now … 18:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I did my 4 tildes, it just got cut off somehow. Or did you fail to notice the "y. 18:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)" at the end of my last post? Furthurmore, signatures are not required on talk pages, they are a courtesy. I could very easily choose not to give that courtesy and not deserve scrutiny for that choice.

The infobox is supposed to be concise. Not list everything he has done. Theres plenty of mention in the article of his books. Furthermore look at other presidents articles that have written books and it is not listed.

As for the "some peoples kids" comment, that's funny considering you accused me of violating WP:OR after deleting your addition of unsourced content. You are the one with the bizarre thinking, not me. Nar Matteru (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"Some people's kids" was a lame attempt at humor since I didn't know who I was responding to, since they -- now I know you -- hadn't signed, that's all. ↜Just me, here, now … 18:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Various editors would edit variously. Speaking to redundancy, to my eye, noting only "Attorney" below a politician's name seems fairly close to something akin to it. But, filling in "law professor"/"memoirist," to my eye, provides concise encyclopedic coverage to what it is that is notable about the pre-political career of this particular law school grad in the person of Obama. ↜Just me, here, now … 18:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Bill Clinton just has "Attorney" as his previous profession, And I guarantee you he has given lectures and written a book. Considering he wasn't born into wealth, he probably worked in a grocery store in his youth too, should we go ahead and put sales clerk too if we find a source for it? Hell, lets go international and add "lecturer" to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's page for giving his lecture at Colombia. Do you know see what I mean about infoboxes being a concise overview? Nar Matteru (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll assume good faith and not that you're a troll, Nar Matteru. IAC I'd suggest you follow the link to Wiki article lecturer and see, of course, that in our context the term refers to a "non-tenured professor"! ↜Just me, here, now … 02:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Also please read Misplaced Pages:Other stuff exists. ↜Just me, here, now … 02:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Dead soldiers

How many soldiers died under the Obama administration in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why isn't this data in the article? Under Bush it was known and news agency almost every day reported this growing number. Pikacsu (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to research the matter. Baseball Bugs 00:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

And hold your horses. He's been in office just over two weeks. Let the news happen before we start reporting it here. Ward3001 (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There has been a whirlwind of activity since the 20th (hard to believe it was just 18 days since he took office) and there are only so many stories that get front-page coverage. I'm sure there are sites that keep a meticulous count. It's important to keep in mind that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, especially the latter, were seen as "Bush's wars". As time wears on, if Obama fails to take the action that he promised, they will become "Obama's wars", just as surely as LBJ's Vietnam War became Nixon's. It's also important to keep in mind that Obama is the commander-in-chief, and is duty-bound to conduct those wars properly and in a way that he takes to be in America's best interests - and an immediate withdrawal likely does not qualify as such. Baseball Bugs 00:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

At what point would such statistics be germane to this article? Some sort of guidance should be given so as to avoid edit wars. SMP0328. (talk) 02:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless he personally takes his Uzi to Iraq or Afghanistan and starts shooting enemy soldiers, I don't see where it has much to do with his bio - and if it's in Dubya's bio, maybe it shouldn't be there either. Its more proper place, other than the obvious (articles on the wars themselves), would be in the article on the Obama administration. Baseball Bugs 02:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, but trying to get that material out of the George W. Bush article would likely be like pulling teeth. At a certain point that material will have to be added to this article, if it's still in the other article. Otherwise, there will be the appearance of a cross-article POV push. SMP0328. (talk) 02:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

And that would be a fair cop. I haven't spent much time on the Bush articles, as I like to avoid nauseating subjects. So I must ask, is there a separate article about the Bush administration? If so, the first step might be to discuss moving that material from the one to the other, and point out that what's good for the goose is good for the gander, politically speaking. In short, it should either be in both places, or neither. It might also be useful to check the other Presidential bios and see which of them, if any, discuss the casualty counts in their articles (if so, obviously Lincoln's and FDR's would be horrific by comparison with Dubya's). Baseball Bugs 02:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous. It is overly simplistic and quite frankly a bit intellectually dishonest to state that if the citation of soldier deaths appears in one president's article, then it must appear in anther's. The facts at this time are that the previous president presided over a war, a very politically unpopular one like it or not. The reporting of casualties under that administration became a widely reported and notable event, much as Vietnam casualties were a notable event under Johnson and Nixon. If reliable sources begin to make a notable issue of soldier casualties under the Obama administration, then by all means it can and will be added to the article. Dunno if I'd count on that occurring though, as the war is in all likelihood winding down, and as troops are withdrawn, the opportunity for casualties will diminish. But this "if there, then here also" is pure bunk. Tarc (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

What would be even more itellectually dishonest not to acknowledge that it will be due to media biases rather than wind downs that those figures won´t be as noted ;)Die4Dixie (talk) 03:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that the so-called "liberal media" in general harped so much on American casualty counts on a daily basis, but rather when it was "newsworthy", such as when a round-number milestone was reached or when a particularly fierce battle or bombing occurred. I do know that the McLaughlin Group (which I have not watched lately) used to mention the war casualties thus far, every week, faithfully - and I wouldn't label John McLaughlin a liberal. As to whether it belongs in the Obama article - Tarc makes a good point that reliable sources talked about it under Bush, and maybe less so under Obama. I wonder, though, if the conservative media would take up the slack and start emphasizing the body counts? I doubt it, because then they would go down the slippery slope of implicitly criticizing the war that they championed. A vaguely similar situation occurred in the Civil War, when Mathew Brady held his exhibition, "The Dead of Antietam". War proponents hated it, because it de-romanticized the war. That's why hawks don't like to talk about body counts. So now we have the dilemma that the "liberal" media will probably cut Obama more slack (at least for awhile) and the conservative media probably won't talk much about the body count either. Thus leaving a sparseness of reliable sources to justify making it "notable" for the Obama article. Baseball Bugs 03:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I imagine that Kieth Olbermann won´t say to much about the hunt for Obama Osama either, but that´s just my guess ;).173.28.159.111 (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"The hunt for Obama"? You don't have to hunt very far. I counted them at the checkout lane today. He's on more magazine covers than Jessica Simpson is. Somewhere, John McCain, who ran an ad comparing Obama's celeb status to tabloid fodder like Paris Hilton, must be doing the "Told ya so" dance. Baseball Bugs 04:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation

This article is under the "Big O" disambiguation page? Really? I mean....really? I have never heard any source whatsoever call Obama the "Big O."--Ryudo (talk) 10:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. Someone must have just been having some fun on the disambiguation page. I'll check it out and probably remove the link.Wikidemon (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Multiple unexplained redirections to Barack Obama

WHY? Both "Barack" and "Obama" redirects to this article directly. So both surname and even the first name! Just a quick try shows that this isn't true for the last president: "George" or "Bush" doesn't redirects to George W. Bush. Can somebody give me a clue? I would redirect them to the disambiguation page. Pikacsu (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

In the English language, "George" is an extremely common name, and "bush" is most often associated with plant-life, not the former Presidents. "Barack" and "Obama" on the other hand are almost universally associated with the current President. In cases like that, it makes sense to have them redirect to this article instead of disambiguation. --GoodDamon 23:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read WP:Redirect, but the short form is that in cases where there is a primary usage of a term where that term is not the name of the article, then a redirect is used. In the case of Obama, there was a discussion at Talk:Obama (disambiguation) about whether it should be a redirect or a dab page back in 2007 and it seems redirect won out there. There was also a discussion on Talk:Barack_(brandy) about whether that article should be move to Barack or remain a redirect here and it seems there was no consensus on moving Barack (brandy) over the redirect. As far as why George and Bush are not redirects to the article on George W. Bush, I can think of a couple reasons why George isn't. --Bobblehead 23:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I presume you were replying to Pikacsu, not me? --GoodDamon 23:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually both names are not very common. Redirects to this article seems to be OK. By the way, if you just type in Nixon, it will take you to Richard Nixon's article, so there is precident for this particular redirect.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

And you are correct, GoodDamon.;) My comment was aimed at Pikacsu. :) --Bobblehead 00:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Left-handedness

This is just as notable as his cigarette smoking and which baseball clubs he follows. I suggest it remains in the article.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

All of those are of dubious significance to this article, which is primarily about Obama's career and major life events. Whether we remove one, or remove them all, we've generally given only light treatment to these less-than-major life details of a purely personal nature. They might be more appropriate for a "personal life of..." article if there is one. Wikidemon (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure about him being left handed as all that notable, and definitly not his favorite baseball teams (Are we kidding). Yet his cigarette addiction is notable, especially in this charged climate of anti-smoking, and that fact that he is a role model for millions of our children.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, this is not notable as compared to his smoking and much less notable as compared to what baseball teams he likes. Though, the baseball teams thing could probably be removed too. Plus, it is a poor reason to include it because of the baseball info. Brothejr (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll play devil's advocate for a second. Left-handedness is a pretty fundamental physical / cognitive trait that can make some difference in a person's education and development. Advocates can point to higher accident rates, discrimination, learning disabilities, etc... yet left-handed people as a group are often seen as more creative. The US has had a disproportionate number of left-handed Presidents. There are probably a number of traits of left-handed people that set them apart from the general population to a statistically significant degree. If your issue was left-handedness, the fact that the president is left handed is rather important. So the point is plausible at least, it's not just trivia. I think the issue is mainly whether it is relevant to this article, not whether it is a notable thing or not. Wikidemon (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Not notable enough, unless one can find citations from credible handedness/psychology writers relating his handedness to his performance as a lawyer, politician, president. ThuranX (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I basically agree with Wikidemon. Being left-handed is a notable thing, although it might not exactly be the most important thing about Obama. But if we're going to remove the statement about his handedness, then the statement about all the sports teams that he follows needs to go, too. Just about everyone is a fan of at least one sport or team, whereas only 10% (if I recall correctly) are left-handed. And there is an article entitled Handedness of Presidents of the United States; there is no Favorite Sports Teams of Presidents of the United States. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Cosmic Latte on this one.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm mildly in favor of including a very brief mention of the left-handed thing. But to include it, I think, as per some other editors, that we should find a citation that says not just the fact that Obama is left-handed but also makes some claim about its biographical significance. Even if it is just some WP:RS speculating that it had some effect on his personality, experiences, etc. LotLE×talk 21:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hell, just add it to the infobox : Handedness:Left. Die4Dixie (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

And how about blood type, astrological sign, and chest size? Well, I'm not sure where I stand. But one request, could y'all please not call things that fall below your notability threshold junk or trash or nonsense? You know who you are! You might startle some people with that kind of language and then they'll be cross.Wikidemon (talk)

(EC)<Sarcasm>Well hell, if we going to include this then we need to also include how he parts his hair, how tall he is, what his first pet's name was, what his first car was, who his first crush was, and on and on. Heck, There are so many insignificant things about him we should include in this article, why should we just stop with his left handedness? We should create an article just on all these things so that people can learn everything about him. Anyone want to hazard a guess at how we should name that perspective article? </Sarcasm> Brothejr (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

discrepencies in Obama birthplace and asymmetrical treatment wrt to Chester A. Arthur

NOTE: Since the following discussion had becoming very long, with arguments on both sides becoming quite repetitive, I boldly "archived" it. Contributors should feel free to open a new section to offer any new thoughts or present a clearer encapsulation of what they'd already presented or argued. ↜Just me, here, now … 06:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Canvassing on possible upcoming RfC on Obama birthplace and Chester A. Arthur

Polls on reopening discussion

. . . Cont.

Let's all take a moment for a nice cup of tea.

That's better. Now. Eclectix (talk · contribs) has produced two sources saying that Obama was born in the Queen's Medical Center, in conflict with the majority of other sources, and contends that this constitutes an ambiguity. This has been dignified with a number of responses predominantly considering the grounds presented unsufficient.

Eclectix has every right to disagree in good faith with any particular response and continue the discussion. The discussion is still there, you just have to click a link to let it eat your scrollbar.

The position I think most people are in agreement on is that of these sources, neither is as reliable as the sources for his actual birth hospital, neither constitutes a tertiary source to describe a disagreement or ambiguity and neither identifies the source of the claim he was born in the QMC. The Chester A. Arthur ambiguity is far more reliably documented and is a poor comparison.

Perhaps if this is inadequate explanation Eclectix could establish concisely why this does not justify the status quo of the article content. If there is any more to say on this matter let it be about content not disruptive wikipoliticking. Bigbluefish (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

IMO while Eclectix should indeed be politely reminded to keep legitimate canvassing of experienced editors neutral in tone, I also believe that scrolling up threads on this talkpage -- which threads, incidentally (I don't need to remind anyone here), become automatically archived after sitting idle, with no further commenting, for a week -- should only be done in cases where consensus has been reached that any remaining participant or participants in it is/are troll/s. And my !vote in the present case is that Eclectix seems no troll. ↜Just me, here, now … 03:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There was an active discussion with much new information. The discussion was suddenly hidden. Even the titles are now misleading. I had added the point about the discrepancy in handling between Obama and Andrew Jackson main pages. But the discussion has now been archived and I am being boxed in by being forced to repeat myself here when I had already given reasons, information, and suggestions (mostly new) already in the now hidden discussion. The editor that hid it justified it by "TL:DR" which means too long, did not read. With all due respect, I request un-archiving it to permit discussion, and you should respond to what I wrote and respond to all my points rather than ask me to repeat myself as if I had done anything wrong. Much of the length is from editors who erroneously claimed nothing new or were uncivil. Why not delete the uncivil and non-responsive remarks rather than hide the discussion? That would make it shorter and easier to read. The persons whose remarks are uncivil or off point or not constructive or helpful would be welcome to re-add their comments in a civil manner. That's earlier business, and the stuff about canvassing which I regret as a newbie is aftermath and is not pertinent and anyway would not have happened at all had the civility policy and policy for using talk as a place to make and discuss constructive suggestions in good faith been adhered to in the first place. Any concern about canvassing is newer and goes away if the old business (incivility and arbitrary hiding of original discussion in good faith) is taken care of first. If I repeat points now hidden here, it seems to me self-evident that it will be also subject to being hidden, this time as redundant, and then editors would only be given a quasi-legitimate reason to block me for now and the future. And someone can perhaps add Andrew Jackson to the title, or let me know it is OK to do so, because I confess the environment is such now that I am discouraged from trying to suggest something in good faith for fear of violating some obscure ancillary point of procedure. Also the closing of the old poll inside the hidden topic and the start of two polls here rather than one is all unclear, why two polls, what is A and what is B? Should there be just one poll, reopen the topic? Should people agree to keep all contributions from here on be civil without ad hominem or swear words? Eclectix (talk) 07:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I should like to bring up the topic of "bad data injection." Passing around bad information can lead to a large volume of entries in a database apparently in near overwhelming agreement with each other. The problem is if the information is wrong to begin with, or the source is inherently unverifiable, or both. Source: Fault Detection and Reliability: Knowledge Based & Other Approaches. Singh, M. University of California and Permagon Press, 1987. I have cited an undisputed third party source that says the hospital that Obama was alleged to have been born in is conflictingly reported in sources, unverifiable and controversial. No one here has provided a counterclaim to that. I could cite more sources but then I would be open to charges here of excessive length. So give this point of view an honest break and please cease the unjustified use of the Goldilocks defense (too much, not enough, and in practice, never just right). Eclectix (talk) 07:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The 2nd and 3rd polls have just now been deleted with no justification given. I request reopening for an RFC. At the time they were closed there were two votes in favor of keeping discussion open and one vote in favor of closing discussion. Thank you. Eclectix (talk) 07:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I gave the justification in the template and edit summary when I closed the polls - opening and closing discussions is not subject to polling, and the discussion is such a mess that it is pointless. The meta-discussion is getting us sidetracked. Occasionally one can delete or move a particularly bad comment but when an entire discussion falls apart you can't effective clean it up. It's better to archive discussions and try again than start editing lots of people's comments. What I would suggest is for the original poster and anyone who thinks there is a legitimate issue or discrepancy between two birth hospitals to make a succinct, to-the-point proposal for what the article should say, together with any evidence and argument for changing the existing text. Please stick to the point, on this article and on the encyclopedia, and let's not get sidetracked about what editors think of each other or of off-wiki events. You don't need permission to make a proposal, just go ahead and do it. But please be ready to accept it if people don't agree. An RfC at this point is premature. Let's see the proposal first, minus all the bickering. Wikidemon (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and a suggestion. Don't be afraid to just cut and paste your earlier proposal, and say that you're doing it to start fresh because the old discussion got messed up. If people want to litter the discussion with incivility, comments that there's nothing new, etc., you have to be proactive about it... Create a section break after your proposal, like ===proposal=== ... and then another called ... ===Discussion=== It's considered bad form to delete all but the worst incivility, but don't be afraid of moving off topic stuff to a different heading area where it belongs. If you stay on top of it, you can sometimes keep things from degenerating like they did. Wikidemon (talk) 07:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

A new discussion would simply invite the same inappropriate archiving giving an additional justification of redundancy. In principle, the root problem is that the discussion was prematurely closed; policies should be applied such that obtaining accuracy should not involve wars of attrition; moderation should be used to help, not hinder progress; discussion pages are for discussion. If principle is to be preserved, it seems to me that the best way to handle this is to unhide the discussion and if necessary monitor and put those who were uncivil and did not contribute positively or censored prematurely on probation instead of penalizing and marginalizing the persons who acted in good faith. Eclectix (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This is where I would start WP:RSN, and have the source evaluated. If the sources that are in conflict with the present article are declared by consensus there to be reliable, or that with conflicting sources reliability cannot be ascertained, I will support a change in the article. Please do this. It will establish credibility for your case, and is exactly why that board exists. I´m not unsympathetic, but I am not satisfied that the sources are reliable. If you convince me that they are I will tenaciously advocate a change to reflect what the majority of reliable sources do not contest.Die4Dixie (talk) 08:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Before this circular debate continues on, I highly recommend that each source that disputes where Barack Obama was born be posted up on WP:RSN where they can be independently judged to be reliable sources as per Misplaced Pages policies and standards. Brothejr (talk) 11:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think reliability is the issue though, it is a simple matter of weight and numbers. Given 1,000 sources, some guy digs up 2 that say one hospital, with 998 that say another. Which do we go with? Tarc (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Not even that; are the two reliable sources without a history of partisanship? Are these nationally accepted, mainstream sources, or are they something like the Washington Times, or some random blog thing? The value of the 2 sources matters as well for weighting them up (all but unlikely, as they're clearly meeting even a kid's level version of WP:FRINGE by numbers alone) or weighting them down (likely, based on the value the media as a true story has placed on this). rootology (C)(T) 15:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Both sources are perfectly reliable in their own right, but mention Obama's birth hospital as a matter of anecdotal detail. There's no evidence that they deliberately rather than erroneously contradict the mass media. You may delete my reply if you redact your comments since you clearly didn't read the discussion very carefully. Bigbluefish (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think in terms of level of detail, it is apples and oranges. Taking a suggestion from earlier, let's start afresh (while avoiding redundancy). I have cited a non-disputed source that claims the birth hospital is *not* identifiable, and why, with *timely* *contemporary* *investigative* *detail*. It cites a primary source (Kapo'aliani Medical Center official and exact quote) why it is *not* identifiable. There is nothing anecdotal about that. The non-disputed non-anecdotal source effectively questions the other two sources currently cited in the main article-- which have now become disputed by way of a timely non-discredited non-anecdotal source, and therefore are now thrown into doubt, regardless of the quantity-equals-accuracy argument...

Let me stop you there. The Honolulu Advertiser does not say that his birth hospital is hard to identify. It says it's hard to document. It makes no challenge to the veracity of the family's claims of place of birth, just notes that the primary documentation is not publicly available to check. The subject of this tangent is the genealogical study of Obama's life, not Obama's life. How people find out facts and decide on what is commonly acceptable (and in the Advertiser, Kapiolani Medical Center is identified as commonly acceptable) is not of biographical interest in the main article. Sorry to split up your post but I think if we address these points individually people are more likely to read it and take the discussion more seriously. Bigbluefish (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I could not find where in either of the currently cited articles (Maranis and Serafin) state anyone or anything, much less anyone in the family, as a source of any information concerning birth hospital. If someone asserts someone in the family is the unambiguous source of that information, someone should provide a specific citation that is currently in the main article or in one or more of the *cited* sources. Assumptions are just that, assumptions, and assuming facts not based on independently verifiable facts or independently verifiable primary sources regrettably does not make any secondary sources any more accurate. Any family claims concerning the birth hospital are not sourced here or in any sources so there is no reason to consider them here and no reason for needing such a challenge in the HA article, which proceeds to go beyond any lesser claims in any case and go direct to the hospital itself. Yes, the HA article says "document," not "identify," but the distinction is moot where accuracy is concerned, and accuracy is an issue now. The article chronicles the difficulty in documenting the birth hospital, specifically, the writer's lack of success in that regard, despite previous published secondary reports. That is precisely one of the main points of the article-- there is no there there. As to how people find out facts, that is in constantly in flux. The words "commonly" and "acceptable" do not appear in the HA article. Consider UPI. Consider the HIPA law. Kapo'aliani Medical Center spokesperson specifically declines to confirm any of the secondary sources. What may have been routine at one time (to some here anyway) regarding confirmation of a specific birth location is now not possible in Hawaii. That is documented in the HA article. So the convention, presuming there is one for establishing a birth location, needs to reflect the current reality implied by the HIPA law. Eclectix (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't the HA article say in the paragraph after the one you keep quoting say that Obama's family and other sources say he was born at Kapi'olani? If the HA article were added as a source for saying he was born in Kapi'olani resolve your concerns? --Bobblehead 23:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, (if it is OK to quote an excerpt here) I read that it says that "he desire of historians to pinpoint where Obama's life began has crashed head-on with the modern American propensity toward confidentiality. The federal Health Information Privacy Act of 1999 ... prevents hospitals from confirming births, administrators contend." I think that more accurately reflects the current reality. I was led to Wiki in the first place by sources that cited the main Obama article as where it had been written at one point in time that Obama had been born at Queen's Medical Center. The current version does not seem any more accurate to me than previous versions when viewed from a dispassionate logical framework. Wiki does not start with a clean slate. The history of the main Obama article is evidence of some of the confusion. The improvement would be to back off the specificity until a better quality (not quantity) source is identified. Even more forthrightly, the difficulty can be explicitly acknowledged as in the HA article. The HA article at least attempts to inform the readership about the current and so far uncontested accuracy concerns. I think the difficulty and underlying controversy is what drove the the HA article to be written to begin with. More may be under the surface waiting to come up and bite someone who unambiguously states a fact without citing sources that cite unambiguous (who/what/where/when) and ideally independently verifiable primary sources-- no one knows right now. I think it would be better to be more conservative. Eclectix (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that's where you're getting mixed up. You're confusing the aims of historians with the aims of Misplaced Pages. Obama's biography is not concerned with how certain historians want the facts to be, but what the world generally acknowledges. The abundance of sources give no second thought to his birth at Kapi'olani. I'm not entirely convinced that the hospital is necessary in the article (the dearth of concrete sources like official biographies containing this piece of information gives a hint as to how interesting most biographers see that information) but if we are to do so, the current representation is both justified and sufficient. Bigbluefish (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The lack of concrete sources may be more due to the lack of official biographies on Obama as a whole, than a lack of interest in the information. Not sure how mch weight one should give it, but a search on Google Books came up with this. --Bobblehead 00:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is one article where some of the conflicting articles may have drawn information from. "Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961 at the Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii... Obama ... lived with his grandmother Madelyn Dunham and half-sister of our very own, Maya Soetoro.... Ms. Soetoro explained, "He's my brother. We share the same mother, though our fathers are different..." A New Face in Politics, by Bennett Guira, Rainbow Edition Newsletter, November 2004. Vol. 2, Issue 3 (p. 2). This is a concrete source and quotes a family member, Maya Soetero, in November 2004, in Chicago, Ill. If family members are relied upon for Obama's birth hospital as Kapo'aliani Medical Center, at a minimum, they evidently conflict, and the contradicting source or sources cited so far are decidedly less specific as to who/what/where/when. A discriminant and tiebreaker would be a primary authoritative source such as a medical center official or document-- but we don't have that. Eclectix (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay... I don't think a high school newsletter can be considered a reliable source... --Bobblehead 00:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, it should be noted that nowhere does Maya actually say that Obama was born in Queen's hospital. Rather it is included in the lead of the article. At the time this story was written, Misplaced Pages identified Obama's birth hospital as Queen's Hospital so it is likely the author of the story got that bit of misinformation there. --Bobblehead 00:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, please note that the February 1, 2009 HA article by Wayne Harada (http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090201/COLUMNISTS17/902010311/1153) does not quote Obama directly-- only a third party. Eclectix (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Based on your comment you seemed to give the impression that Maya was the source of the claim that Obama was born in Queen's Hospital:This is a concrete source and quotes a family member, Maya Soetero, in November 2004, in Chicago, Ill. If family members are relied upon for Obama's birth hospital as Kapo'aliani Medical Center, at a minimum, they evidently conflict, and the contradicting source or sources cited so far are decidedly less specific as to who/what/where/when. I was merely noting that Maya did not claim that Obama was born in Queen's Hospital, but rather it was the author of the story that made that claim. Maya was quoted in the article, but not in regards to her brother's birth hospital. --Bobblehead 02:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I conceded with the Nov. 2004 Rainbow Edition Newsletter article that it is not *irrefutably* Maya as the source. Likewise, please note that it is not *irrefutably* Barack Obama as the source in the February 1, 2009 Honolulu Advertiser article source, but a third party who is not a family member or a direct witness to the birth and who is merely reading (what he claims is) a letter from Obama. So I think it's even in that regard. Eclectix (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Neither of the (two) other sources currently used in the article cite any independently available primary source, and so cannot be independently verified as correct. They offer more detail, but less verifiable detail. There has been no counter citation to offer a source with more verifiable detail. Therefore I assert here that the birth hospital is at this time thrown into doubt by the source(s) I cited in the topic that is now archived and hidden. The problem with shutting down the discussion and moving it somewhere far away from anything directly under Obama is that there may be more and more detailed non-disputed and non-anecdotal sources out there, and someone who is following Obama in particular may know it and cite it here in support of one or another view. Finding those additional sources is best accomplished by keeping the discussion under Obama Talk, not moving the discussion to somewhere else not explicitly under Obama. Still as of now no one has challenged (with a countering non-anecdotal non-discredited source) the fundamental *accuracy* of the source(s) I cited. So if the primary point of Obama Talk here is to improve the Obama main article quality, and that is what seems to be claimed here, I think the discussion about Obama's birth hospital is most appropriately re-opened here, under Obama Talk-- because that is where the vast majority of users and potential editors with new, non-contended information on Obama that can possibly help will congregate for discussion. Prematurely shutting down discussions in Obama Talk before conflicting and more informative non-discredited sources have been solicited, discussed, supported, or discredited, and avoiding fundamental logic, such as happened to my original input right here, indicates to me and any other dispassionate reader that something is wrong right here (yielding the appearance of institutional bias). The partisan parrots on both sides are easily spotted by lack of logic or new sources or repetition, and so relatively easily defended against and/or ignored-- unavoidably, the relatively small and relatively harmless price paid for any collaborative open discussion containing any new information or observation. In the archive I also cited the discussion of conflicting/obscured birthplace reports in the Arthur and Jackson main pages as precedent for discussing the conflicting/obscured Obama birthplace in the Obama main page. Here is a new, slightly amended, amended proposal:

Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, United States (at which specific location within Honolulu is explicitly reported as not independently verifiable and in other earlier reports , reported with no independently verifiable primary source cited; explicitly documents an unsuccessful attempt by the writer to verify the claim of and with an independent primary source),...

antedates and and if people contend and represent something that eclipses in some manner they should by the same argument consider that the writer and publisher of is therefore fully aware of and and has nevertheless chosen to add more information to the public view in good faith-- which so far is not contested here. I contend there is currently on the table an identified problem with the main page, and I think the discussion should rightfully be, given the issue now documented in the archive, as amended above, does anyone have an improvement on it and justification for that improvement? I urge any and responders to give detail and logic in support of any constructive alternative, or find citable detail that supercedes, not uncivil unresponsive invective or repetition of unverifiable secondary detail. Eclectix (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on the above, which source you referring to as ? UPI? About.com? Can you please report the link for your source so we can be clear on what you are discussing? thanks, --guyzero | talk 20:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, "" refers to:

Will Hoover (November 9, 2008). "Obama's Hawaii boyhood homes drawing gawkers". Honolulu Advertiser. http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081109/NEWS01/811090361/-1/SPECIALOBAMA08. Retrieved on 6 February 2009.

In the interest of attempting to achieve greater consensus I avoided (for the moment) the concern about the November 2, 2008 UPI article, as one person seemed in the hidden archive to have a problem ("dubious") with it. At the time I initially mentioned the UPI article, I was only generally aware of the historical and generally favorable reputation of UPI, and its scattered use in Wiki. Eclectix (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Your proposal is not supported by this source. This source merely states that is hard for folks to call a hospital and ask if someone is born there because the hospital is bound by privacy and HIPA laws to not reveal that information. Your proposal is synthesis of multiple sources which is expressly forbidden in our biography of living people policy and no original research policy. We have dozens/hundreds of reliable sources that plainly state he was born at Kapi'olani. We have a single or few marginal sources that say something else. The BLP and RS policies dictate to us that we must follow the preponderance mainstream reliable sourcing. thanks, --guyzero | talk 22:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not perceive it to be a synthesis any more than any other article, especially in regards to the articles currently cited without any attribution as to the source of the birth location. It reports new information, a direct quote from a hospital. Apples and oranges. I see now there is a caption on the right that attributes the claim he was born at Kapo'aliani Medical Center to (unspecified) family members ("according to his family"), yet there is still no specific attribution and no independently verifiable confirmation. Which family member and when is not stated, so it remains incompletely confirmed by even this source. There is a who/when/where/what rule for establishing veracity (fundamental journalism). This article is still not cited in the main Obama page and so can't be used in arguments in support of of the main page or unvouched items in other articles, cited in the main Obama page, in which at least I could not find any attribution of the source for the birth hospital. Also, I have not presented any original research. I have used all third party articles. Please show where I have presented any original research as defined by Wiki policy (i.e., unpublished) (thanks). Eclectix (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, or unfortunately depending, we don't have to meet your standards in order to include "facts", just Misplaced Pages's standards. While there are sources out there that list Queen's Hospital as his place of birth, the preponderance of sources indicate he was born at Kapi'olani, including the one your trying to include to support your claim that his birth hospital can not be verified. --Bobblehead 23:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, the alleged application of the standards evidently led many to believe Wiki as an authority for Obama's birth hospital as Queen's in past years, would you not concur? A better phraseology and/or more definitive citations would alleviate that. So far we have plenty of documented confusion and documented conflict, but no independently verifiable primary sources, and no direct statement from Obama the individual, and no direct statement from any witnesses. We do have specific semi-informed answers in the forms of an interview of a sister and a comment from a Congressman-- which it would be fair to be reported as they are, an interview of a sister and a comment from a Congressman, with citation attribution. The prior long term confusion here justifies *more* caution, not the same amount (or less), unless wiki collectively wants to be doomed to repeating mistakes from not learning from recent past history on this. Eclectix (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Eclectix, rather than adding to this little meta sub-discussion here of yours with my attempting to defend WP's operating procedures and principles, I'll just link to the essay WP:Truth. ↜Just me, here, now … 05:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay... At the risk of repeating myself, the article in The Rainbow Edition is not an interview with Obama's sister and it certainly does not meet the reliable source requirements. What we have here is a student journalist that unfortunately used an unreliable source (Misplaced Pages) to create the lead to an article about Barack Obama that included quotes from his sister. None of these quotes from his sister included any information about Obama's birth hospital so to attribute the error from that article to Maya is not only inaccurate, but dishonest. ::::::: The only thing the inaccurate inclusion of Queen's Hospital in this article from 2004 to 2006 shows is that it is extremely important to include sources for anything we include here because people use Misplaced Pages as a source even though they shouldn't. Fortunately, we now have three sources for Obama being born in Kapi'olani, one of which is a quote from a letter from Obama. At this point the discussion is closed, you just appear to be unaware of this. --Bobblehead 05:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not make any formal proposal in the above to add the Rainbow article, but did note it in passing as containing an interview with Maya. I agree it is probably not totally clear that Maya gave the Queen's information to the writer. I personally don't know if the writer was a student or not. If she was, then there seems a chance that Maya got an advance copy for comment and markup, but that is admittedly speculative since mistakes can be made. Did the writer use Wiki for the article? What is the proof of that? Either she did, or there is a third, earlier common source that has yet to be found. Personally I think the earlier common source is possible and so not to be discounted. Eclectix (talk) 07:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The existing main page states Obama was born at Kapi'olani unconditionally and without any primary source attribution in the two citations (Maraniss and Serafin). The February 1, 2009 HA article contains a citation, an address given by Neil Abercrombie at a local hospital event, who in turn cites an (unpublished) letter from Obama, which is still secondhand. It also acknowledges that a question concerning Obama's birth hospital exists. So in the interest of clarity and accuracy, I would argue for transparency: the main article should reflect that Abercrombie read a letter from Obama (or technically that he alleged to be from Obama) and he (Abercrombie) stated Obama stated in the letter that he was born at Kapi'olani. That's what happened, without dispute. We can't go further to assert it proves anything unconditionally (we don't an article where a reporter transcribes part of the Obama letter to Abercrombie, or an article containing a direct quote from Obama himself, or an eyewitness hospital employee to the birth, or an article containing a reference to the birth certificate containing the address of the birthplace-- these are all still lacking from the citations given to date) but it *does* indicate that prior to the reading of the letter, that some questions concerning Obama's birth hospital remained, which had not been dispelled by the currently cited Maraniss or Seraphin article citations-- this tends to dispel-- for whatever reasons, please don't blame the messenger-- contentions that the current Wiki main page reflects incontrovertible fact in an incontrovertible manner. To me, it indicates that there is room for constructive improvement to the current main Wiki page. Again, don't shoot messenger-- I have been in response mode since starting the now archived discussion many hours ago almost without stop, in fear that at any moment this discussion too will be prematurely frozen. I hope there is at least consensus that there is room for improvement with the two "new" (to Wiki) HA articles. The first step to resolving a problem is recognizing that a problem exists. If there is consensus that the new HA articles add to the verifiability, and if no one in the next time period (of what length I do not know, but I would recommend a couple of days at a minimum, to give adequate time for all concerned to add to the civil and productive discussion) comes up with more definitive articles, that a proposal be drafted incorporating the new information and submitted here for further consideration. The general favorable welcome given the two new HA articles here in combination with both of them noting outstanding "difficulties" and/or "questions" along with the new HIPA considerations mentioned in the first HA article should (?) be sufficient to dispel allegations of "recentism" (or not-- ??). Eclectix (talk) 07:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the original statemant and question was whether the two articles (Chester A. Arthur and Barak Obama) should be in sync? Or in other words, should the Obama article continue to ignore that a controversy excists over place of birth (true or not), while the Arthur article has the information included. The two controversies seem to be exactly the same.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Similar perhaps, but very much an overstatement to describe them as "exactly the same". Beyond differences in specifics, the Misplaced Pages precautions in WP:RECENT and WP:WEIGHT very much apply to this comparison. It is far easier (as well as much more objective) to discuss a controversy from a President 125 years ago than it is to discuss an incumbent President who took office three weeks ago and who has been the subject of a tremendous number of unfounded rumors because he has a foreign-sounding name, has a father who was Muslim, and is the first African-American President. Regardless of any other similarities between the two sets of issues, those considerations alone are enough to caution us to give the Obama matter some time before adding to the article. As a point of comparison, when John F. Kennedy ran for President, rumors were flying that the Pope would be instructing his every move if he became President. Now, less than 50 years later, anyone who espoused such an opinion would be considered a crackpot by anyone except the most extremist anti-Catholics. Ward3001 (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:RECENT seems to be the defining differance, not so much with WP:WEIGHT. Yet if one article can handle the weight issue, I believe that this article can as well. Given time, I believe that the controversy will ultimatly be included, since it seems everytime the topic is brought up, more editors seem to be in favor of adding it. In a few months, who knows?.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:RECENT and WP:WEIGHT often go hand in hand, and that's the case here. Ignoring WP:RECENT in this case will inevitably lead to WP:WEIGHT problems because of the tendency to overblow recent issue and make additions to an article way beyond what would be considered appropriate years from now. As for what happens "given time", maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. But none of us has a crystal ball. Ward3001 (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Bah, edit conflict. They are not remotely similar. The rumours surrounding Arthur's birthplace are recorded in a 500-page book covering his entire life. This ambiguity rests with two sources which anecdotally mentioned the wrong hospital and one source which specifically discusses the challenges of researching Obama's life, with no conclusion of doubt that the commonly-accepted hospital is his true birthplace. Bigbluefish (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I would have to say that your argument is sound. I think that as soon as a biography on Obama comes out at least recognizing the controversy, than we can add a sentence or two. Great idea Bigbluefish.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the whole question here is whether or not errors in a few otherwise reliable sources outweighs the sourcing of other sources and whether or not we compound the errors of these otherwise reliable sources by giving their incorrect information presence in this article. Eclectix has presented two sources, one from UPI and another from about.com (is about.com reliable?), both of which say he was born in Queens Hospital, while most other sources say he was born in Kapiolani Medical Center etc. There certainly is not any discussion in reliable sources about there being a controversy over which hospital he was born in. --Bobblehead 21:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

And the comparison between this article and other articles on wikipedia is a secondary discussion. I appreciate that Eclectix has provided a proposal, but it is hard to evaluate it without understanding exactly which source he refers to as . If the source supports his proposal, then we can look at these secondary discussions as a next step. If his source does not support his proposal, then there is no need to fight out these secondary discussions, right? Information in BLP articles start and end with reliable sourcing, so it'd really be great if we could focus the discussion to establishing whether this source is reliable or not. thanks, --guyzero | talk 21:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, is this Honolulu Advertiser article which says it's hard to find documentation of Obama's birth hospital, from the perspective of touristic interest. It is hard to find documentation of anyone's birth hospital; that doesn't affect what can be reported as fact. Bigbluefish (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm confuzzled then as while that source does talk about the confidentiality/HIPA issues and how folks will get no response if they call a hospital and ask whether "So-And-So was born there?". This is true of all U.S. hospital-born people, not just Barack Obama. That source does not support Eclectix's proposal in any way other than innuendo, though. Perhaps he means a different source? --guyzero | talk 21:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

His initial comment cited a UPI article and an About.com article that say Obama was born in Queens Hospital. --Bobblehead 21:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know what Obama's autobiography states? It could help clear up some of the mystery on exactly which hospital he was born in.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think that from 1999 onwards, HIPA of 1999 affects what can be reported as fact regarding birth events in the U.S. Prior to 1999, it seems that any member of the general public (or specifically a news reporter or news organization) could simply request a verified copy of a birth certificate for any public person claiming to have been born in the U.S. from the records office of the county in which the public person was claiming to have been born. After 1999, note that it becomes significantly easier for a person to make unverifiable claims about his or her birth circumstances (such as birth hospital), while withholding permission for the release of the independently verifiable birth information itself. I suspect it is not under contention, even here, that Obama for whatever reasons has chosen not to direct Honolulu County or a hospital to release his independently verifiable birth record. That is the difficulty mentioned explicitly in the first HA article (). This is the new reality (after 1999, under HIPA, for those public individuals who decline to give permission to release such records), the law that protects privacy makes information that has in the past been in prior recent history incontrovertible, now controvertible. I think that should be reflected in the Obama main article since Obama has chosen not to address the difficulty either by making a direct statement or by releasing the record indicating which hospital he was born in. The difficulty has not gone away. I respectfully suggest that these account for the reasons it has not gone away. I can't comment on why Obama might have chosen not to make a public statement himself, but he did not, so there is nothing attributable to him directly, and to be straightforward, the article for the sake of accuracy should reflect the most accurate statement out there in consideration of HIPA and Obama's lack of consent to release the definitive record. No reporter and no article cited here to date claims to have viewed the actual record showing the actual hospital of birth, and even if they did, they would be open to charges of party to violations of the HIPA. I also have not seen an official biographer for Obama cited yet (though it may be too early in Obama's term of presidential office to have an official biographer). I would welcome a more definitive article than what has been found so far through this collaborative effort. Such an article might be out there still but just not yet located by anyone to date. Under the circumstances, I do not feel it should be very surprising that a law such as HIPA would not have side effects (anticipated or otherwise) in other areas such as reporting, elections, job qualifications, etc. Eclectix (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe this didn't occur to me before. There is talk above of "bad data injection". Well one of the first edits to this article in July 2004 introduced Queen's as the birthplace without a source. This lasted until September 2006. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the most "reliable" sources mentioning Queen's stems from misinformation stemming from Misplaced Pages. Journalists have set many precedents for lifting seemingly inconsequential and probably correct details from Misplaced Pages. But absolutely, a hint as to the original source of the notion that he was born in Kapi'olani would be great. If it's in Dreams From My Father I'd call that a better source than the Star Bulletin, and would recommend it for the article. Bigbluefish (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Dreams doesn't mention his birth hospital. Just that he was born in Honolulu. --Bobblehead 22:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(Responding to Bigbluefish comment of 22:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)) This is exactly one of the things that drew me here to begin with(!). I wanted to find out the definitive attribution, if any, attached to the Queen's info and compare with other contradictory sources. Now I want to find out the definitive attribution, if any, attached to the Kapo'aliani info. So far, it seems both are not irrefutably from either Barack Obama or anyone in his family. So the only thing that definitively prevents the cycle from recurring is to back off in the main article from the specificity (or mention that it is from third parties only, such as the Congressman or the half sister). Wiki is not going to help matters if it keeps flipflopping based on less than strong secondary sources. Given the controversy (OK, given the thing that shall not be mentioned here) concerning Obama's birthplace, people will continue to come here unless and until a definitive reference is found. And they will continue to be misled that something is established fact if Wiki flipflops and presents non-definitive references, shorn of any hint of controversy, as definitive. That should be self-evident. Whatever Wiki policy existed in 2004 until the present along with however well or poorly it was followed, has not helped avoid the conflicts within Wiki itself and has not helped the general public readership when people go to wiki for facts and only see less-than-facts presented as facts, constricted by policy to do so even as it does not avoid the core problem that Wiki can be used to accelerate bad data injection, including right here and now. Eclectix (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

At this point, you're just beating a dead horse. We have word straight from the man himself as to which hospital he was born in. At this point, you're just beating a dead horse. We have word straight from the man himself as to which hospital he was born in. One of your sources is rife with inaccuracies, while the other is an unattributed election night bio, likely drawing from the same inaccurate sources. So your original attempt here, which I believe was to insert the word allegedly into the article to convey the (in your opinion) ambiguity about Obama's place of birth, has fallen with a decided *THUD*. Time to put this section out of its misery and call it a day, eh? Tarc (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not straight from the man himself, which illustrates the continuing confusion. It's the word straight from Neil Abercrombie. Did you read the article? But if you dismiss it based on your premise, you've dismissed it on a false premise. Everyone should be more careful to see what these articles explicitly say and what these articles do not explicitly say. Obama did not appear at the Honolulu dinner. Abercrombie did. For that matter, Obama has an entire press room and he never had to write Abercrombie a letter to begin with-- the White House press room is a short walk from the Oval Office and an announcement can be done directly without bothering anyone else. So your reasoning is rife with assumptions, while the article contains no words directly from Obama at all. To allege is to assert to be true. Abercrombie asserted that Obama wrote him a letter stating where he was born. Equivalently, Abercrombie alleged, so the choice of "allege" remains to be challenged successfully. No THUD, decided or otherwise. Eclectix (talk) 06:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a decided *THUD*, it did, after all, bring out the source of Abercrombie reading Obama's letter saying he was born in Kapi'olani... Perhaps more of a *clunk*. --Bobblehead 03:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thought y'all might find this interesting : 'More than 700 attended the recent centennial dinner at the Hawai'i Convention Center, marking 100 years of pediatric excellence at Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children and its predecessor, Kauikeolani Children's Hospital. When event co-chair Michael O'Malley asked for a hand count on who "was born at, had a child born at, or knows someone who was born at" Kapi'olani, nearly every hand in the house was proudly aloft. Congressman Neil Abercrombie read a letter from President Obama, who set the record straight about his origins: "Kapi'olani is the place of my birth."' thanks, --guyzero | talk 00:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You're brilliant. That settles it for me. I also propose that this source replaces the Star Bulletin. Then we have a reliable quote of an unchallenged self-identification and also the reliable biographical interest piece from the WaPo. And we can end this debate about verification. This is a path directly back to a statement by the man himself. Any "ambiguity" from the tourism article in the Advertiser would be completely synthesised weight. Bigbluefish (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of accuracy, neither article quotes Obama himself. They both quote Congressman Neil Abercrombie, who attributes the statement to a letter he received from Obama. Note that the controversy is explicitly acknowledged in the first article which reads "Settling the question once and for all, he states that..." (and which incidentally is an interpretation of the writer). It is interesting to speculate if the HA received some heat from the article and sent an inquiry to Obama, and whether instead of responding directly, Obama (interestingly, given the "question" surrounding his birth) chose to use an intermediary to respond instead of responding directly. I think this and the HA article should be added to the reference list in the main article. I think this information represents an improvement over the main page as it currently exists, because the main page has no source attributions for the information at all. Eclectix (talk) 01:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, let me help gather up the empty tea cups. Let's do this again sometime. ↜Just me, here, now … 01:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

For bonus kicks, here's an article dedicated to the event in question, with a slightly longer quote from Obama. Bigbluefish (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, maybe scratch that; it's in a user submitted section. Probably better with the shorter one authored by a paid columnist. Bigbluefish (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Is about.com a reliable source for Barack Obama's biography?

Bobblehead asks (rhetorically I would guess) if about.com is a reliable source. Well, I would have to say no as far as a source for Barack Obama. The article in question has the following blatant errors and/or outdated information - and quite possibly others:

1. "Barack Hussein OBAMA Sr. and Stanley Ann DUNHAM were married in 1960 in Hawaii". INCORRECT: they were married in 1961.
2. "...and had the following children: 1 i. Barack Hussein OBAMA, Jr." INCORRECT: his name is not "Jr."
3. "When Barack Obama was two years old, his parents divorced and his father moved to Connecticut to continue his education before returning to Kenya." INCORRECT: Ask anyone who went to Harvard or Yale, which one is in Connecticut. Hint: not Harvard.
4. "Four years later she sent him back to the United States to live with his maternal grandmother." INCORRECT: It was to both of his maternal grandparents.
5. "Barack Obama graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he met his future wife, Michelle Robinson." INCORRECT: They met at Sidley Austin, not at Harvard. They were not at Harvard Law at the same time.
6. "Hussein Onyango OBAMA had several wives. His first wife was Helima, with whom he had no children." INCORRECT: (?) I have no idea who Helima is - we do not have RS supporting this name.
7. "Second, he married Akuma and they had the following children: i. Sarah OBAMA" INCORRECT: Sarah was Onyango's third wife, not his daughter.
8. "... iii. Auma OBAMA " INCORRECT: Auma was Onyango's granddaughter, Barack Sr.'s daughter, not Barack Sr.'s sister.
9. "Madelyn Lee PAYNE was born in 1922 in Wichita, Kansas. She currently lives in Oahu, Hawaii." INCORRECT: She died in November.
10. "Stanley Ann DUNHAM was born on 27 November 1942" INCORRECT: She was born on November 29
11. "...in Wichita, Kansas" INCORRECT: it was Fort Leavenworth, not Wichita.

So, please give me a break - to claim that this about.com article is any way a reliable source for a detail such as his birthplace being "Queen's Hospital" is laughable - this is an unsourced piece that is rife with error, and it is utterly unreasonable to rely on it. The UPI piece is an election-night bio sketch, unsigned, and with no evidence of in-depth research, so I would guess that it gleaned its details from other published sources, but without any investigation. David Maraniss, while certainly not infallible, is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist whose piece is in-depth and appears to be well-researched, and is published in a newspaper with some regard for accuracy and multiple sourcing. I think there is nothing more to say on this matter, and to continue to pursue it is disruptive. Tvoz/talk 01:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant analysis. All seems somewhat in vain though now there is a source attributing a statement about his birth hospital to Obama though. Bigbluefish (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. You're right, but in my experience here, absurd claims never really go away, they just hide under a rock, so I wanted this to be in the archive to be pointed to the next time it comes up, which I don't doubt it will. Tvoz/talk 02:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Tvoz rocks. About.com is a horrible source for just about anything. User submitted content that does not have any real oversight or fact checking = unreliable source, even though About likes to label some of their contributers as "experts." I have no feel for how often about.com goes to WP:RSN, but I bet they'd appreciate the above as an example of why about.com isn't reliable. --guyzero | talk 04:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not interested in defending about.com ... BUT just to mention (since we're being so discriminating about facts here):

1. While reliable sources certainly say BHO Sr. and Ann were married in '61, pinpointed dating and official documentation of this event remain problematic.

2. Many reliable sources (e/g the NYT, Britannica) render Barack Obama "junior"...

4. Since Obama was sent to live with his grandmother along with his grandfather, the (slightly sexist) rendering being criticized remains true nonethless...

7. Unless the about.com article claims to be up to date, its failure to mention Madelyn Payne Dunham's death shouldn't really be held against it, no?

↜Just me, here, now … 02:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone needs to tell Eclectix that it is now resolved: --Bobblehead 02:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean you think something is actually resolved? That would be refreshing. Tvoz/talk 02:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Should any further concerns WRT Obama's birth be moved to the "Citizenship conspiracy theories" article's talkpage? ↜Just me, here, now … 02:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No need to move them. Just close 'em and note WP:FRINGE or ignore them. --Bobblehead 02:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

On this issue, I would agree that About.com is not as reliable as others. Also I might add that the issue of which hospital he was born in seems also to be resolved. I was surprised that the discussion was allowed to progress, but in the end I hope that we all got what we wanted to say out.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Question, please answer

Before we even spend any more time on this, can we PLEASE see a list of reliable sources that say his Hawaii birth certificate is NOT valid, or reliable mainstream sources that say he's not a natural born citizen? This talk page is not the place to discuss the controversy itself, but simply it's inclusion or lack of here. Nothing else. rootology (C)(T) 15:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Dude, this is about whether his birth hospital is named in this article and whether it is possible that he was actually born in the Queen's Medical Centre, Honolulu. At least read the opening post in a discussion. I suggest you delete this off-topic section and my reply, but it's not quite clear cut for me to do so uninvited. Bigbluefish (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to find a couple very reliable sources that say that there is some conspiracy involved. That there is some big issue over the different hospitals. For all we know, those few sources that name a different hospital, could have gotten it wrong. So, before we can say there is any problem, we need very reliable sources that say there is a conspiracy here, and even more very reliable sources that mention that the other hospital, not named in this article, is the real one and not a simple mistake on the reporter's part. That is the bigger issue here. Brothejr (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

columbia graduation, new york to chicago dates

from wiki:

Obama graduated with a B.A. from Columbia in 1983. He worked for a year at the Business International Corporation and then at the New York Public Interest Research Group.

After four years in New York City, Obama moved to Chicago, where he was hired as director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP), a church-based community organization originally comprising eight Catholic parishes in Greater Roseland (Roseland, West Pullman and Riverdale) on Chicago's far South Side. He worked there for three years from June 1985 to May 1988.

dates don't add up 1983 graduation 4 years in NYC but worked in Chicago South Side from 1995 to 1998?? four years in NYC is 1987... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.66.10 (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps he wasn´t there 1461 days exactly ( added for leap year), but it is close enough for government work. Do you really want articles to reflect the number of days a persons has done x y or z?Die4Dixie (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be a gap in his life history. Where was he?--Jojhutton (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he hitched a ride with Jim Morrison and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who were on their way to Elvis' private retreat. They needed a 4th for bridge. Tarc (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Elvis was a poker player.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Since this talkpage's religion section IMO seems to reflect a new consensus of Obama's being formerly UCC

and since few contributors have argued that once this became known it would still not deserve mention, the infobox is presently edited to reflect this interpretation of consensus. ↜Just me, here, now … 19:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont object to the edit that you made. The main part of the article in his early life section should have a passing mention of his resignation and a simple link to the Wright controversy with in the confines of the appropriate weight. A simple see link would do it and interested readers would be directed for more info. A consesnsu of wording should be sought.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There already is long-standing consensus regarding Rev. Wright. Tvoz/talk 04:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, which is why I suggested a search for a new consensus rather than unilaterally edit.Die4Dixie (talk) 05:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that you said that, but nothing has changed since that consensus was reached - this former membership in the UCC is hardly news. I think that it needs to be explicit that this is not really about the precision of the infobox at all, but rather about Wright, again. Tvoz/talk 05:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. My post was explicily different than his.Die4Dixie (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree with D4D that some reference to Wright would seem reasonable in any complete biography of Obama, even a very concise one, the fact of the matter is that I personally could not care less if Wright gets mentioned or not. In fact, if I've ever left the impression that I've any kind of axe to grind concerning Wright whatsoever, let me say this: The controversy concerning him was used as a coded issue in order to stoke White counter-resentment. The need for Obama to distance himself from the Rev. Wright, IMO resulted in Wright's getting a bum deal. So he preaches in a particular African American style -- so what. And, in addition, I believe that to forcefully remember and speak out against historical American inequality remains more than justified! ↜Just me, here, now … 07:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Plethora of redirects

There are a ton of redirects on every possible spelling directing to this article. Any particular reason not to go through and RFD any misspellings that aren't currently being used? RFD says that deleting redirects could break older versions of the articles, but I can't imagine that people for the foreseeable future wouldn't be able to figure out where to look.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Theres no harm in doing an RFD, but for visibility, please list the disussions here if you do put them up. rootology (C)(T) 15:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

first president born outside continental US

The article was just edited to say that Obama is the first president born outside the continental U.S. This may not be entirely true however, since several of the first Presidents were born in the American colonies, not in the United States. Tad Lincoln (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh Geez. Here come's another hair-splitting semantic debate. Was the colony of Virginia the same place as the state of Virginia? Geographically, yes. Politically, who knows?1?! Are there more important things to discuss? Yes. Ward3001 (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Ward, it doesn't belong in the lede in any case. Dayewalker (talk) 01:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say, interesting twist on the words "United States", but sadly Tad Lincoln, your suggestion is not going to "cut the mustard".--Jojhutton (talk) 02:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really a "twist". It's a fact, several other presidents were not born in the United States. The editor who reverted that edit clearly agreed with me. Tad Lincoln (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ward, this is just another hairsplitting event. Brothejr (talk) 10:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Threats against Obama

The newest threat: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/10/obama.threat/index.html There should be a section for this and other threats mentioned in the cnn article. Pikacsu (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No there shouldn't. All presidents have faced threats, whether explicit or implicit. This is a biography of Obama's entire life, of which this sort of thing is insignificant. If the guy actually shot at Obama you'd have a case, but otherwise this is a non-starter. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Pikacsu, please stop creating sections on this talk page about recent trivial events. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper that should scoop every minor event, innuendo, rumor, or fringe theory and write about it the same day it happens. You have a single purpose account and have created such sections repeatedly, most of which have been deleted or ignored. You have been warned about this several times on your talk page, and it's getting very tiresome. So I raise the issue here for everyone to see because apparently you ignored the messages on your talk page. Please don't continue to create new sections on this page that are not legitimate issues worthy of an encyclopedia. Ward3001 (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I understand, so you're waiting for an assassination attempt. Pikacsu (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Threats would be more appropriate for the Presidency of Barack Obama article. Random threats against Obama are going to happen periodically, but they don't belong in this specific article unless they become more than just a plot. It doesn't mean they don't belong somewhere. After all, the assassination plots in Denver and Tennessee have articles about them. Granted, I wouldn't go nearly as far as to say this guy was making an assassination attempt on Obama. At this point all that is known is he drove up to one of the White House's barricades and admitted to having a rifle in his truck. For all we know he could have been out hunting over the weekend and just forgot to take the rifle out of his truck. --Bobblehead 16:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, we must keep in mind that there are hundreds of "attempts" on the president's life even if they never get reported or never get that close to him. The secrete service is continually investigating each attempt. Yet, unless the person actually makes a valid and very public attempt on his life, then we would not report it. Also, please keep in mind that Misplaced Pages is not here to continually report every new thing that pops up on the news. Brothejr (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

What is Obama's IQ?

Is it public? Or they hide it, because it's too low, or for another reason? I think that we should know it... And this is an inportant data for the bio Pikacsu (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it's trivial and doesn't deserve any mention. Grsz 19:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

So by this you say that intelligence doesn't important for the presidency. Not bad. Pikacsu (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

1. ], Al-Arabiya Transcript, January 27, 2009.
2. http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/03/26/was-obama-a-law-professor.aspx
3. http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• FA-Class biography articles
• FA-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Low-importance
• Unassessed United States presidential elections articles
• Unknown-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• FA-Class U.S. Congress articles
• High-importance U.S. Congress articles
• WikiProject U.S. Congress persons
• FA-Class WikiProject Illinois articles
• Top-importance WikiProject Illinois articles
• FA-Class Hawaii articles
• Mid-importance Hawaii articles
• WikiProject Hawaii articles
• FA-Class Chicago articles
• Top-importance Chicago articles
• WikiProject Chicago articles
• FA-Class Indonesia articles
• Mid-importance Indonesia articles
• WikiProject Indonesia articles
• FA-Class Africa articles
• Low-importance Africa articles
• FA-Class Kenya articles
• Low-importance Kenya articles
• WikiProject Kenya articles
• WikiProject Africa articles
• FA-Class African diaspora articles
• Mid-importance African diaspora articles
• WikiProject African diaspora articles
• FA-Class politics articles
• Top-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press