Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 62

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 55

←

Archive 60

Illinois campaign

There is no campaign information for his Illinois senate seat but there is a separtate campaign section for all his other campaigns.

Maybe it's because Obama got everyone disqualified so that he ran unopposed. This is either an honest ommission or censorship because people think it is negative. It is not negative but factual. Rest assured, Obama did not murder his opponents like is done in some countries, he just got them off the ballot. A 2 sentence summary is sufficient.—Preceding unsigned comment added by NoRightTurn (talk • contribs)

Please remember to sign your posts (four tildes - ~~~~. Also, please don't accuse the body of editors here of censorship, because that's a form of assuming bad faith and as such won't lead to productive discussion. This article already includes a single sentence about Obama's election to the Illinois state sentence. I see no problem either way with expanding it to two, or not. We only have so much room here in the article, and that was certainly less of a deal than his national elections. The business of his getting his opponents kicked off the ballot is telling, and encyclopedic, and already covered in the Illinois Senate elections of Barack Obama, one of the several hundred sub-articles about Obama. However, it is a complex issue that can't be treated well in a few words. A few people made political hay, as if using a legal challenge to someone's eligibility for office were a bad thing. Others saw the opposite, that Obama was cleaning up a status quo of corruption or at the very least cleaning up widespread petition irregularities - the reason all his opponents were disqualified was that all of them had a bunch of invalid signatures on their petitions, and the number of real signatures was insufficient to put them on the ballot. Like I said, that's too complicated to treat briefly, so the detail may work better in an article where there's enough room to expound on the subject. Wikidemon (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

To Wikidemon's point, if you can post below the two-sentence summary that captures the big picture of that apparently complex aspect in a balanced way, feel free to do so and we can assess its weight and tone, boil it down further or point out why other details might be needed for balance, etc. Abrazame (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Occupation box

Community organizer

Lawyer

Constitutional law professor

Author

That's what is says (above). This is the wrong order.

It should be:

Politician (President)

Politician (legislator)

Lawyer

Community Organizer

Educator (Law)

Author

Or: Politician, then the rest. You shouldn't put his minor occupations (in terms of time or importance) first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoRightTurn (talk • contribs) 00:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Be WP:BOLD--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The last four look okay. However, I think there's a consensus not to list "politician" as an occupation in the politician infobox because that goes without saying, that the intent of that field is to say what a politician did before (or in addition to) becoming a politician. I think there was a discussion about this a while back in the archives. Wikidemon (talk) 14:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that including 'Politician' is lousy. Instead, list the actual offices held and their titles - senator, president... those are far more specific about the responsibilities and duties of the job than 'politician' is, and specificity is our friend. ThuranX (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "Politician" is redundant. I think that attorney alone would cover it.--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

My take, although I did not participate in editing this section prior to this, is that the occupations are being listed in chronological order. This seems intuitive and reasonable. It also seems to make this discussion unnecessary, that is, which order should we place it in and which should we make primary and which should we make secondary, tertiary, etc. We should not make it anything, it seems to me that it should be in the order that Obama made these elements of his life. For example, should "occupation" be based on how much money one has made? He probably made a good deal more per year that he could be claim to be an author than in the years he could be termed a lawyer, because he was more famous by then and the books were bestsellers. Yet, as successful a writer as he has been and would presumably continue to be, he is not primarily an author, as if Hemingway had become our president. Similarly, it was not his work as a lawyer that inspired audiences and voters, it was his work as a community organizer. My point is that any argument could be made for why one or another thing should come first, but chronology is the simplest way of giving a neutral presentation of his major occupations. Abrazame (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

He was never a professor of constitutional law. He was a lecturer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.219.103.197 (talk) 12:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Religion and Reference List Length?

Could we please say that the President is a Non-Denominational Christian instead of just plain Christian or is that presumptive? Furthermore, we must do something with this laundry list of references to get them to split into two columns.98.240.44.215 (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion on Obama's religion/pastoral care/church attendance in the very first thread on this page. You're invited to read it, search for any articles mentioned therein, and provide substantive feedback in that section, preferably including additional material referenced to a reliable source. If you're interested enough to return and do so, I will respond to you there, as it's important to establish that we're aware of the facts at hand and maintain a through-line in these discussions. Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Ancestry

I would like to include a line that says that Barack Obama is 25 generations removed from Edward I, King of England. Here is the lineage if there are any questions.

Edward I of England
Elizabeth of Rhuddlan
William de Bohun, 1st Earl of Northampton
Elizabeth de Bohun
Elizabeth FitzAlan
Joan Gousell
Katherine Stanley
Dulcia Savage
Maud Bold
Jennet Gerard
William Eltonhead
Richard Eltonhead
Martha Eltonhead (immigrant to Virginia)
Eltonhead Conway
Martha Thacker
Edwin Hickman
James Hickman 1723-1816
Susannah Hickman
Annie Browning
George Washington Overall 1820-1871
Susan C Overall 1849
Gabriella Clark 1877
Ruth Lucille Armour 1900-1926
Stanley Armour Dunham 1918-1992
Ann Dunham 1942-1995
Barack Obama 1961-

Pacomartin (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Where is your source for that list? SMP0328. (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if you had all the paperwork for the last 25 generations, you could likely tie me to Eric the Red. (And surely to a few non-white ancestors as well.) But it doesn't matter to me, and it doesn't seem to matter to Obama. Perhaps somebody would be interested in a Geneaology of Barack Obama article; it might fit there. PhGustaf (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

A Suggestion

The Southern Poverty Law Center and the Department of Homeland Security has released reports that there has been a huge increase of violent, anti-immigration, anit-nonwhite right-wing white extremist groups across the U.S. (not just the south) due to Obama being the first black U.S. president, changing demographics (the U.S. Census Bureau released a report last year saying the white population will be at or below 50% by 2050), Democratic control of Congress, and mistrust in the government. Should this be added? B-Machine (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No. This has very little or nothing to do with Barack Obama. --Ashenai (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

But these groups are increasing in numbers due to Barack Obama being in the Oval Office. B-Machine (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty extreme misrepresentation of the report, as far as I can tell. Cite? --Ashenai (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

[[1]] and [[2]] B-Machine (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That is a gross misrepresentation of the DHS report; nowhere does the report claim an increase in membership, rather, it warns of a possible, theoretical increase in extremist group's recruiting efforts. As for the SPLC, the sensationalist propaganda they assemble to frighten a few more dollars out of their donor base is not a reliable source and has no place in the encyclopedia and certainly warrants no mention in article about the POTUS. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to start trouble, but you've got to be kidding. Do you know how many people want Obama dead? Do you know how many death threats the president has received? Racism has always existed, but now that a black guy is in the Oval Office, racism is at an all-time high. As for the SPLC being so-called "sensationalist propaganda," (I'm guessing you're a conservative) I could say the same thing about Fox News since they are owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, have an extremely right-wing bias, and has been anti-Obama since last year's campaign. The same thing can be said about MSNBC since General Electric owns that network. The bottom line is these right-wing groups have increased in numbers and they pose a huge threat. If you don't want to add it to the article, fine. But leave the name calling behind. B-Machine (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note this is an summary style article written directly about Barack Obama. Events that are related to him, but not directly about him do not belong in this article. Brothejr (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

comment: "a remarkable rash of domestic terror incidents since the presidential campaign, most of them related to anger over the election of Barack Obama." From the second of the two links given. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes but the source is an organization, that, for reasons both ideological & financial, presents a very partisan, narrowly focused viewpoint. If there has been such an increase in racially motivated domestic terrorism then we should be able to cite statistics from the FBI that show the increase. Even if this is the case, the information would only be germane to this particular article if the increase in incidents was demonstrated to be causally linked to the current POTUS. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Gates affair

Obama said the police were wrong in arresting Gates. As of now, that is big news and the biggest news about Obama in a week. Still, I think it is trivial in the 3-6 month period so I am not so hot about including it. On the other hand "Five days later, he signed the reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to cover an additional 4 million children currently uninsured.[135]" is even more trivial.

Bottom line, get rid of the SCHIP text because it is too trivial for the article and is discriminatory towards other more important things not included.—Preceding unsigned comment added by NoRightTurn (talk • contribs)

I'm neutral on the SCHIP text. The Gates affair has only been growing over time, so it's clearly a notable thing. But I agree, not big enough for this article at this time - probably best for one of the sub-articles. Wikidemon (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree about including Gates. At least wait a few weeks to determine if this is a bona fide controversy or just a temporary talking point that is as trivial as the Special Olympics thing or any number of other banal quasi-controversies that sprout up frequently with any President. It feels to me like this thing is already fizzling out. If it was going to be big it would have started out bigger than it did. It was batted around on talk radio and some people made a thing out of it but it honestly feels trivial to me. Had he said "the police were stupid" or certainly if he had said "the police are stupid" I could see it being big deal. But the fact of the matter is he said "they acted stupidly here" (big difference) and he heavily qualified his statements by saying that he didn't know all the facts and that he was biased given that Gates is a friend. My point is that there is very limited mileage the press or any of the talking heads can get out of that. I think this will blow over quickly. It might not, you never know, but hey what's the harm in waiting a couple weeks to see? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlund (talk • contribs) 17:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Jdlund. Tellingly, SCHIP is political legislation, politics and legislation being what Obama is actually notable for and currently engaged in as an occupation (a topic raised by the same editor just below). This legislation covered an additional 4 million children which the previous version left uncovered. Four million children who would otherwise have gone without health care is not trivial. We should be comparing and contrasting SCHIP to other important legislation to establish weight and notability, not comparing it to some daily drone newsiness that the president happened to comment on.

Bottom line, what's your point in heading a section asking for removal of a brief mention of Obama's protection of childrens' health with SCHIP reauthorization and expansion as "Gates affair"? Abrazame (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that an ephemeral incident should not be included. But apparently the incident did have a significant effect on approval ratings. If the rating have stayed low, then maybe a mention of the effect of the incident on the approval ratings might be appropriate? My source for the effect on the approval ratings is http://aapoliticalopinion.blogspot.com/2009/07/obamas-gates-trainwreck.html

Probably there are better sources and more recent ones?--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I really think that not to include the "Gates Affair" is the incorrect decision - I believe that this incident brought the first serious questions about Barack's impartiality over race to many people. It also was something of a shock to many that someone that had previously been considered so level headed, cool calm and collected could have shot from the hip like that. The incident in itself maybe trivial but Barack's response and it's contribution to and understanding of his personality and judgement is not. Additionally I came to wikipedia to get a 'warts and all' entry on Barack and i was interested in seeing what wiki had to say about the subsquent fall out. I actually couldn't bring myself to follow what happened directly after the incident where Barack called the officer "stupid" i had so much vested in him emotionally. So only now weeks later did i feel i could handle it and decided to check wiki out to see how he aquitted himself only to find ... nothing. Understanding a little of wiki i thought there would be something on the discussion page and sure enough here we are. I am sure there are some admins who have adopted this page PLEASE CONSIDER re-including it - i am sure i am amongst many who would like to see it take it's place in his official entry. Now i am off to hunt for another info source.

Thanks! 74.202.51.11 (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You can read up the affair, or non-event, at Henry Louis Gates arrest incident: yes, it has its own article. Incidentally, although you say Barack called the officer "stupid" I had never heard this; apropos of charges of stupidity, the article does say that Obama said the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home. -- Hoary (talk) 09:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the stand-alone article Henry Louis Gates arrest incident is excellent and very very thorough. But I still think that there should be some reference to that from the Barak Obama main page, because the incident does appear to have affected public perception. In the "Cultural and political image" section the third paragraph is about Gallup poll ratings during the first 100 days. Wouldn't it be appropriate to (1) update that section with more current ratings and (2) refer to the Gates incident (and link to the stand-alone article) since that incident apparently did affect the ratings?--Gautier lebon (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really relevant enough for the main article, no. It gets a link from Public image of Barack Obama#Race and culture, which seems proper enough. Tarc (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Obama's age should be corrected from 48 to 52

Sources say he was born in 1961, no need to waste any more time on this.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

According to his official MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/barackobama

Male

52 years old

Washington, Washington DC

United States

His birth year should be corrected as well from 1961 to 1957. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.0.146 (talk) 07:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Myspace is not a reliable source and anyway giving changes due to one source gives undue weight. Lizzie Harrison 08:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you got hoaxed. As a rule of thumb, you should be a little more dubious about user-generated content on the internet. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do you assume it is a hoax? If you go to Obama's official website: www.barackobama.com and click on the MySpace link on the bottom right-hand side you will see that that is indeed Obama's official MySpace. 65.34.0.146 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC).

And unlike Wikipedia, only an owner can edit a MySpace account 65.34.0.146 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC).

It is just a mistake then, as every other source says Aug 4, 1961. Tarc (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It was probably created by some dumb campaign staffer who didn't bother to get the facts straight. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

65.34.0.146, has it not occurred to you that his birth certificate is online! Go look. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Your comment looks like an open invitation for birthers to start discussing their conspiracy theories here. :-) Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah DJ, don't you know that Obama was born in 1562 in Kenya?! :) Otumba (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

← Duh. Tvoz/talk 20:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The White House says he was born in 1961. QueenofBattle (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead section problems

Since this is a high-profile FA, I won't take my usual course and just rampage through the article. :) But I notice some small issues, even in the most polished portion of the page.

"The first African American to hold the office, he served as the junior United States Senator from Illinois" - Ambiguously phrased. Presumably "the office" is meant to refer to the presidency, but from context one could read "the junior United States Senator from Illinois" (which would be trivial and false).
Ambiguous piped link: "his election to the presidency" (which links to Presidency of Barack Obama) suggests that "the presidency" refers to the office, not to his own presidential career (one wouldn't say "elected to his administration"; one would say "hired for [job as janitor]", but not "hired for [his career/accomplishments as janitor]").
The second paragraph is in inside-out chronological order, which is strange and will confuse those unfamiliar with his career.
"Obama ran for United States Senate in 2004. His victory, from a crowded field, in the March 2004 Democratic primary raised his visibility." - It might just be me, but all of this seems slightly awkwardly worded.
I'm a little surprised we don't even spend a sentence discussing anything after the 2008 election in Obama's lead section. Obviously it's too early to be drawing any broad conclusions on his impact, but would it be inappropriate to briefly mention the major issues focused on in his first 7 months? For example, even in a super-summarized capsule of Obama like the lead section, it might be wise not to leave a reader uninformed about the economic circumstances that have played such a central role (and, yes, perhaps even a mention of the health care focus, despite its recent-newsiness). -Silence (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You are right that it might be seen like that, it could use a small fix.
With the second point you are right again.
I'm not sure to which lines you are referring, but you are probably right.
(while) being/with (at) a crowded field (of supporters) at the 2004 DNC raised his visibility.
You are right we should at least put some of the issues that until now are what Obama is taking on.We could add that one of Obama's issues has been health care reform, which in he has meet some resistance,also a small part which says that Obama has added a lot of money for economic boost and how it has worked /not worked until now. Help- I dont know why my text has been put in a box can someone remove it for me? Durga Dido (talk) 11:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the major points. The only portion I would caution on is the last point. While he has done enough major things as president that could be include in the intro, we need to be very careful what we put up there and how we say it. I say this because it can very easily turn into a vary contentious portion by other editors who will say "if we have that in the intro then we should include this criticism of that...." (You can replace the word criticisms with some other contentious political thing and still get the same problems) So before adding anything, it should be discussed here and we should be prepared (hopefully it won't happen) for a fight/a couple editors who will complain. Brothejr (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think we should go into any detail whatsoever in the lead, I was just thinking that it was a little surprising we don't mention something like "During his first six months in office, Obama's presidency has been dominated by issues such as the economic recession and health care reform." I'm honestly not sure whether such recent information warrants lead-section inclusion, but it seems worth discussing. -Silence (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I think some mention of at least dealing with the recession and healthcare should warrant a mention in the lede, as they were two of his major platforms (the other two being increased discussion/diplomacy with the Middle East and energy reform, and possibly equal (womens'/gay) rights). Sceptre ^(talk) 13:44, 15 August 2009

The war with regard to the afgan surge is at least as notable. --172.130.212.59 (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

And that is why we probably don't have and might not be able to add items that would probably be good to add in the intro, us four might be able to agree that the only things that REALLY should/could be added would be economy and health care, but there's always gonna be someone, that will suggest another point be added.I'd would also like to add that even thought the health care reform issue is "newish" that doesn't disqualify it as being important/big. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durga Dido (talk • contribs) 23:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The first two sentences of the Introduction currently say:

Barack Hussein Obama II (bəˈrɑːk huːˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə^ⓘ; born August 4, 1961) is the 44th and current President of the United States. The first African American to hold the office, he served as the junior United States Senator from Illinois from January 2005 until he resigned after his election to the presidency in November 2008.

I believe the words "first African American to hold the office" should be moved to the first sentence, so it would read:

''Barack Hussein Obama II (bəˈrɑːk huːˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə^ⓘ; born August 4, 1961) is the 44th and current President of the United States, and first African American to hold the office. He served as the junior United States Senator from Illinois from January 2005 until he resigned after his election to the presidency in November 2008.

The reference to race being in the second sentence makes no sense grammatically. It gives the impression that his being the "first African American to hold the office [of President]" is somehow connected to his being "the junior United States Senator from Illinois." In reality the reference to his race is related only to his becoming President. That's why I believe my proposed edit should be made to the Introduction. I was bold and so made the edit myself, but I was reverted and told I was going against "consensus." SMP0328. (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think it would be that difficult, Durga Dido. We simply need to discuss the specific changes we're going to make beforehand, to develop a consensus on the exact right course.
In the case of Obama's race, mentioning it in the second sentence introduces ambiguities, but mentioning it in the first sentence might come across as undue weight—some might interpret it as suggesting that his race is just as important as his presidency. Two possible solutions come to mind: First, the solution past versions of this article used was to simply make the race thing its own sentence, between the first sentence and the Senator sentence. (The only problem with this is that the sentence is a bit short and repetitive, so it's not quite as 'smooth'.) The other possibility is to clarify the structure of the second sentence so that the ambiguity is removed; we might replace "the office" with "the presidency" or alter the grammar.
In the case of the proposed 'summary of his presidency' sentence, I'm sure plenty of sources can be found agreeing on what the 'major issues' of Obama's presidency thus far have been. That will cut edit wars short. -Silence (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we can place in the first sentence in a way that makes it simply a description, just as mentioning that he is the "44th and current" President is descriptive. SMP0328. (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I copied the lede section to Talk:Barack_Obama/Sandbox. Try making your edits there, and once you have consensus, copy it to the article. It worked well when we updated the Presidency section. Note that a bot will come along and take away the photograph once a day. CouldOughta (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I made a change at the Sandbox which makes the reference to Obama being the first African American President its own sentence. I believe that sentence is of sufficient length to be acceptable. Please go over to the Sandbox and post your opinion of it here. SMP0328. (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd put the current 2nd sentence 3rd, i.e. say he's the first AA president in the final sentence of the first paragraph. But I'll wait for comments. CouldOughta (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism reverted from article

In an August 20 article, former Reagan administration official Paul Craig Roberts voiced what was becoming a commonplace criticism: "Obama is the presidential candidate who promised to end the war in Iraq. He hasn’t. But he has escalated the war in Afghanistan, started a new war in Pakistan, intends to repeat the Yugoslav scenario in the Caucasus, and appears determined to start a war in South America."

I was advised by admin to place this quote here for discussion, rather than try to insert it in the article any more. Just following the admin's advice. Nigel Barristoat (talk) 02:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the first problem is the phrase "what was becoming a commonplace criticism." That definately has to go. If the quote needs inclusion in the article (and I don't say it does, I am just saying IF it does) then it would read better if it just said "former Reagan administration official Paul Craig Roberts stated..." It is generally wrong to give more weight to a quote than it represents. If Mr. Roberts stated that, then it is his opinion, and should only be attributed to him. If his opinion is notable enough to merit inclusion is an entirely different issue... --Jayron32 03:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

My question would be why hasn't this been proposed for the Presidency of Barack Obama? Brothejr (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It was clear to me at the time that Obama's claim he would pull troops out faster than other Democratic candidates was uninformed. However, Obama indicated during the campaign that he would shift troop and tactical focus to Afghanistan, and that Pakistan needed to do more about the extremists in their country to earn the billions in financial support Bush was giving them. As to the Caucasus and South American references, I have no idea where the guy is coming from on that. Reagan made more than one military incursion into South America. Anybody remember Iran Contra? Grenada? Reagan "appeared" determined to start a war in Lebanon for a few weeks there. Uh, and Libya too. Then there was that Cold War of appearances. I could go on. In other words, the statement, taken as a whole, fails as a credible and coherent critique. If somebody wants to make the point at Presidency (on the talk page first) that the Iraq troop drawdown is X number of troops behind schedule or something, with references of both Obama's claims and current stats as well as a notable criticism of such, I'd say it's still a few months off before it's fair to add to the article (wasn't there a 12 or 14-month timeframe, or was that another candidate?) but something we might seriously entertain there at the one-year mark depending upon the circumstances then. The rest of this "appears" to be bogus partisan prattle.

Bear in mind, with reference to Iraq, that Obama has always said that "we need to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in" or words to that effect; situations on the ground in a war are always going to necessitate or excuse unforeseen actions/delays/troop movements. People who believed he'd get troops out faster than another Democrat were hearing the sound bite they wanted to hear, not the elaboration on the subject by him and others in the know, dismissed by the media at the time as "wonkish".

I would point out that Roberts has called for the impeachment of George W. Bush, yet that doesn't make it into the Bush bio or presidency articles. (The impeachment issue is brought up at the bio but, perplexingly, not at the presidency or term articles.) Quite a bit more significant a criticism, wouldn't you say? Particularly as Roberts was a Reagan man, a Republican, calling for the impeachment of someone else who identifies himself as a Republican.

And finally, "In an...article" isn't enough to warrant all this response to begin with. Generally we like to know precisely what article(s) we're talking about. Abrazame (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism about his leadership

Following Krugman's latest op-ed article on NYTimes, though I'm a supporter of M. Obama, I have to admit he is a facilitor and a host but not a leader. Always voting "present" in the legislature instead of taking a stand. Not having introduced any major legislation as a senator.

As mentionned in Krugman's article, his style of doing politics gives too much place for negociation instead of fighting for a cause he believes in, specially current for Healtcare reform.

This is not a critic but starts to be a fact recognized by most political observers. I think therefore it has its place in the article. --Effco (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTAFORUM. This is not the place to discuss your personal beliefs about Obama. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about missing part of the article that would describe the politic style of the President, other than Barack_Obama#Political_positions. But maybe this would be better placed in Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama ? --Effco (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a very interesting article, and good reading. However, the claim that by voting "present" while in the state legislature (something not mentioned in the article) Obama was evidencing a personal or political flaw was a very minor criticism that gained a little currency among detractors and operatives during the election cycle and has not been heard from since. It had very little mainstream coverage in proportion to the overall coverage of his political career. If it were relevant, it would be relevant to the article about his tenure in the legislature. If lack of leadership becomes a significant defining characteristic of his presidency it may eventually go into the "presidency of..." article or even this one, but it's too early to be summing up his political legacy. Time will tell how he is judged as a politician and leader. The op-ed's direct subject is health care reform, and how Obama is losing the "progressive" support there, something that might go well in an article about the bill or the subject. Being an op-ed it is not really a reliable source for anything other than plain facts, and even there one would do best to use that only as a starting point, then find more solid sourcing. Wikidemon (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It gets a nod in Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008#South Carolina. As I was a rabid Hillaryite, I recall tossing this nugget around quite frequently back in the day. :) But it has zero relevance or importance to the present-day administration. It is a primary-era relic. Tarc (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

And has sufficient attention been paid to the discovery that the Bible identifies Barak as the Antichrist? Or that he seems to have become President of a nation of kooks?PiCo (talk) 10:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Reformat In-Line Cites?

While attempting to correct a minor formatting typo in a photo caption, I had a dickens of a time *finding* it while wading through the extensive in-line citations. I'd like to reorganize the cites with a footnote/reference style, which would leave the body of the wikicode much more readable, and reduce redundancy. For examples, see Antonio Villaraigosa or Seoul City Sue. Obviously, there's nothing to stop follow-on edits from adding more in-lines, but a one-time reorg would at least create a readable baseline to work from. For example...

Now : ...until his graduation from high school in 1979.<ref>{{cite news|first=Peter|last=Serafin|title=Punahou Grad Stirs Up Illinois Politics|date=March 21, 2004|url=http://archives.starbulletin.com/2004/03/21/news/story4.html|work=Honolulu Star-Bulletin|accessdate=April 13, 2008}} See also: Obama (1995, 2004), Chapters 3 and 4.</ref>

S/b: ...until his graduation from high school in 1979.<ref>[[#refSerafin|Star Bulletin, 2004-03-21]]</ref><ref name="refObama"/>

S/b, in references:

* {{cite news|first=Peter|last=Serafin|title=Punahou Grad Stirs Up Illinois Politics|date=March 21, 2004|url=http://archives.starbulletin.com/2004/03/21/news/story4.html|work=Honolulu Star-Bulletin|accessdate=April 13, 2008|ref=refSerafin}} See also: <ref name="refObama"/>, Chapters 3 and 4.

* {{cite book |last=Obama |first=Barack |year=1995, 2004 |title=[[Dreams from My Father|Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance]] |location=New York |publisher=[[Three Rivers Press]] |isbn=1-4000-8277-3|ref=refObama}}, pp. 9–10. For book excerpts, see <ref>[[#refObamaTales|nationmedia.com, 2004-11-01]]</ref>

* {{cite news|title=Barack Obama: Creation of Tales|date=November 1, 2004|url=http://www.nationmedia.com/EastAfrican/01112004/Features/PA2-2212.html|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20070927225314/http://www.nationmedia.com/EastAfrican/01112004/Features/PA2-2212.html|archivedate=September 27, 2007|work=East African|accessdate=April 13, 2008|ref=refObamaTales}}

Cmholm (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Name of Birth Hospital

Can we please get the name of the hospital where Barack Obama was born fixed, and not revert my changes again? The name in the current article, Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children, is a modern name for a successor organization. The correct 1961 name of the hospital where Obama was born is the Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital. This article, from the National Library of Medicine shows the name of the hospital in 1961: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5781901 and this article from the New York Times article associates the name with President Obama http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/05/us/politics/05zeleny.html. Could we have a quick consensus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwdavids (talk • contribs) 23:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion, but just as a note, if you do change the name, be sure to make the wikilink work with a "pipe" or by creating a redirect. Wikidemon (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Given the very situation that the Times article discusses, it seems that it would be irresponsible not to have both names in the article, the 1961 name first and the current name in parentheses immediately following. Abrazame (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps a "then called the", with links set to whatever currently exists. PhGustaf (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do what PhGustaf says. It's ugly and unnecessary to waste a parenthetical on the name of the hospital then versus now. "Then called..." is fine, and the link can bring readers to the history of the hospital if readers are interested. LotLE×talk 01:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

PhGustaf's suggestion would clearly be the ideal way to go if this were a regular article about a regular person drawing regular reader interest in such minutiae, but I would belabor the point that in the current climate—again referring editors to the Times article—there are a few issues where it may be worthwhile sacrificing an ounce of flow for an ounce of exactitude in the hopes of gaining a pound of informativeness, that our decision on presentation here might prevent precisely the sort of "gotcha"-style misunderstandings that have fueled these conspiracy theories. There's a certain sort of reader that needs things spelled out for them, and won't click on two refs, much less one.

A quick scan of the Wiki bios of the three previous presidents who were born in hospitals (most presidents, including Reagan and Bush I, were not) doesn't seem to bring up the names of those hospitals. Jimmy Carter was the first president to have been born in a hospital, and this is mentioned with a ref, but the name of the hospital does not appear in the article. Indeed, ordinarily such a detail would be inappropriately specific for such a brief bio.

The very reason we are mentioning any hospital name here, however, is because of the unique relevancy to this article with regard to providing factual contradictions to birther conspiracies, and it strikes me that that purpose would be better served by informing the reader of both names. In any event, historical accuracy dictates we should use the name as it was at the time of that event. Abrazame (talk) 07:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Why need we dignify a fringe conspiracy theory by trying to disprove it here? If we need to clarify that the hospital changed its name, that can be dealt with among the other minutia in the linked article, no? Wikidemon (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Putting any of this information on the hospital in anything other than the linked article is an absurd degree of irrelevant detail for this article. The hospital may well have changed owners as well, or built and torn down buildings that are part of it, it might change its name again next week. All perfectly good matters to address in an article about the hospital, but completely, stunningly irrelevant to a person who happen to be born there decades ago. By comparison, another article I edit is about a person who was born in the "Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia"... well, some of you may know that that country has undergone some changes in the last decades. But that information is completely off topic for the bio, other than a link. Perhaps of further relevant analogy, we occasionally get editors over there who want to futz with the name of the place this person was born to reflect the current "politically correct" naming of places. Which again brings in non-relevant details: a place where someone is born is always simply "then called" relative to the time they were born. Unless they have some other connection that is ongoing, the history of the place is irrelevant to the biography except at that moment of birth. LotLE×talk 07:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that tracing the history of the names for the Kapiolani hospital is irrelevant to this article. However, I personally would not be competent to update the existing Kapiolani article (which now is little more than a stub) to put the name change in a historical context. One might say "formerly named..." but who knows the equivalence of the organization today with what it was way back when. That said, I would not want correcting the name of the hospital here (which is a clear and well-documented error) to be held hostage to updating the Kapiolani article.Kevin (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Update this Article

It seems that this article hasn't been significantly updated in a couple months. I propose that a new section under "Presidency" be created about the president's health care plan. Spaceplumber (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

That would probably fit well in the "domestic policy" section and it might well be reasonable to discuss that at this point, though it will be a lot easier to know what to say once we know what, if anything, ends up passing. Also we would need to make sure that other editors agree with you about adding in information on the health care plan. Why don't you propose one or two sentences here, with sources obviously, and see what others think of it? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Mis-formatting

Barack Hussein Obama II (

Barack-Hussein-Obama-en-US-pronunciation.ogg bəˈrɑːk huːˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə (help·info); born August 4, 1961) is the 44th and

The line-break after the left parenthesis above is how the opening of this article appears in my browser. But when I click on "edit" I find no blank space between the left parenthesis and the succeeding material. Is there some way to fix that? Michael Hardy (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I find no line break in the browser I'm using (Mozilla Firefox 3.5.2). What browser are you using? SMP0328. (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the extra newline is near or where {{Audio-IPA}} is transcluded; not sure why that would be, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Change Article Lead

The article lead right now focuses far too much on Obama's early life and campaign, and no mention of his achievements while in office so far. His ambitious goals of health-care reform, withdrawing from Iraq, the betterment of foreign relations, etc. should at least get a mention in the lead, shouldn't they? The section on his presidency is a significant part of the article but forms no part of the lead, and I propose that it be changed. The Userboxer^Complain/_ubx 13:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, it devotes an entire paragraph to early life, another to his tenure as a Senator and another to his presidential nomination and campaign, bit no mention of his presidency. The Userboxer^Complain/_ubx 13:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

White House

The web-site http://whitehouse.gov/administration/president_obama speaks of Obama's "strong family" and an unspecified "heartland". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.170.8 (talk) 11:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Um...neat? --Smashville^talk 13:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

COOL BRO.--Frank Fontaine (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Dead links

Why haven't they been replaced? Spiderone 16:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You're invited to participate in improving the quality of the article by discovering the current URL for dead links. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral, frequently reported commentary is good for article (Iraq/Afghanistan), diary style of writing is not very good

reasonable proposal adopted, Iraq and Afganistan are separate wars under separate military commands

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

While his opposition to combat involvement in Iraq was an important part of his presidential campaign^[1], a less publicized ^[2]policy to increase U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan^[3] upsetting some of his left of centre supporters.^[4]^[5] Early in his presidency, Obama implemented his previous proposals to increasing troop strength in Afghanistan and reducing troop levels in Iraq.^[6] On February 18, 2009, he announced that the U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan would be boosted by 17,000, asserting that the increase was necessary to "stabilize a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan", an area he said had not received the "strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires".^[7]

This is the revised version. The old version had a lot of dates. On this date, so and so was the new general, etc. This is not the most professional way of writing. There are some things that most reasonable people agree. For example, man landed on the moon (only a very few believe it is a hoax). Another is that Roosevelt was so sick at Yalta that he couldn't negotiate well. (This doesn't mean that FDR was stupid or a bad man). It would be a dis-service to the world if Wikipedia refused to mention Roosevelt's health (maybe to protect his good image). Similarly, mainstream and accepted information (if summarized by Wikipedians and not theorized by Wikipedians) is good for Wikipedia. Having a diary style of writing....on January 2, Obama did this. On March 22, Obama did that. is not the best thing for Wikopedia. Dellcomputermouse (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

All fair points about writing style, but interrupting this summary sentence to emphasize the reaction of one portion of his supporters adds undue weight to what is a very minor editorial issue. It's safe to say that absolutely every policy Obama has enacted upsets some group of people, but we don't qualify each of his positions by mentioning that. Also as a side note, remember to use American English in this article (avoiding phrases and spellings such as "left of centre"). --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

In addition, this talk page is not the place to attempt to define or change core Wikipedia policies ("...is not the best thing..."). Current policies must be followed; this in particular means that information must be cited. To edit an article and say that something was "an important part of his presidential campaign" by adding a reference from early 2007 - more than 18 months before the election - is not sufficient, especially for such a high-profile article. Frank | talk 16:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia writers could be responsible for this problem. The sub-section title is the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we are to stick to a purely factual account, these two must be separated. If we link them, then the irony of decrease in one, increase in another, one a major campaign issue, the other much less publicized, becames a valid issue and important to support the sub-section heading. The other criticisms are fixable. Don't like the 2007 reference? There are plenty, plenty more. No major news organization disputes that the Iraq war was a minor campaign issue. No major news organization who commented on it will disagree that Afghanistan was far less an issue. No major news organization will dispute that the Prez wants more troops to fight in Afghanistan and wants to take a big chunk of them out of Iraq.

So do you want to de-link Iraq and Afghanistan? If not, then the link between the two must be supported by the text underneath unless you want to have poorly written stuff. Dellcomputermouse (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd support a split in the two - I'd suggest an opening para speaking about he general issues surrounding both wars, then a level four sub-sectioning into Iraq and Afghanistan. I also agree that a better quality of writing will help this article (most articles, in fact). I like the way the above suggestion is written, and I agree that too many dates creates a sense of a list, not an essay. I'd suggest major dates - projected withdrawals, major policy introductions, and such - be included, the dates of every thing he says or does, no. ThuranX (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

A major, highly-visible article about a living person is not the place to apply WP:BRD. I don't see any suggestion that edits to the article can't be made; it's just that they must be within policy. Your use of the phrases "if we link them" and "the irony" sound too much like WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to be put into this article without careful citation from reliable sources and thought as to how the information is to be presented. Likewise, the assertions that "no major news organization disputes..." and "no major news organization...will disagree", etc. are not appropriate reasons to put information in an article. We do not write articles based on what "major news articles won't disagree with" - we write them based on what they actually published. Just because the major news organizations have "never reported" that the president has three arms does not mean we should include in the article something like "reliable sources say the president doesn't have three arms." These are not the same thing. Frank | talk 16:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No, his use of 'if we link them' and 'the irony' is about not implying SYNTH or OR in the article; and how he perceives that to currently be the case. I think you completely inverted his comment in your mind. And while I agree absence of denial is not proof of much at all, I believe he was referring to the ease with which such citation can be found if we agree to rework the section. ThuranX (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with my parsing of the sentence in question, which reads in full: "If we link them, then the irony of decrease in one, increase in another, one a major campaign issue, the other much less publicized, becames a valid issue and important to support the sub-section heading." What I read is that we are starting with a conclusion ("irony") and working back from there ("becomes a valid issue").

I have no problem whatsoever with edits to the section, and in fact I have no opinion as to what it should say, beyond the very firm opinion that whatever is said must comply with existing policy. Anyone who wishes to rework the section is encouraged to do so, as always, within policy. Frank | talk 17:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't be so cavalierly disingenuous. Your 'full quote' isn't full at all - "The sub-section title is the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we are to stick to a purely factual account, these two must be separated. If we link them, then the irony of decrease in one, increase in another, one a major campaign issue, the other much less publicized, becames a valid issue and important to support the sub-section heading." He presents us two situations, and his writing suggests he prefers the former, a factual, two section approach, but presents us with the reality of how to proceed if we maintain a single section. ThuranX (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Look, I reverted an edit that contained text that wasn't supported by the references. If the original editor, or you, or anyone wants to put similar material back in, I have no problem with that until and unless it runs counter to established policies. If I've misinterpreted someone's intentions, I apologize. That doesn't change the underlying principle: edits must conform to policy. Frank | talk 17:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

And we are discussing what to do now. If you don't want to be a part of that discussion, then don't be. ThuranX (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That may be what is under discussion now; it wasn't when this thread started. At that point, we were discussing what is good for Wikipedia and what isn't. Since I removed the edit in question, I felt I was automatically part of that discussion. If the thought that we can or should discuss Wikipedia-wide policy here is now closed, I suggest a new thread regarding the actual topic to be discussed. Frank | talk 18:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

We're not resectioning for a do-over, or to break up this conversation. The conversation is still based on what he said, and what you reverted; it's become 'now that he's proposed it but you've rejected it how do we move on and get something solved'. really, this isn't a hard conversation to follow. ThuranX (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) On the content question, there are probably a few sources that say there is some irony or contradiction between Obama's campaign promises and his actions, or between one war policy and the other. However, in an article as broad as this about a subject so important, a few sources is not enough - if Wikipedia is going to endorse something as being the case, or even as a significant minority belief, in the face of editors who disagree, we need to know that there is significant solid sourcing on it. My hunch here is that we will find a lot more sourcing for the proposition that there are some critics who claim that the policies conflict, and that many other people would say otherwise because the two are different wars. Further, the existence of criticism of any given presidential act of Obama's is nothing remarkable, and belongs if anywhere in the child article about that specific topic, not here. I don't see much point weighing in on the meta-discussion about sourcing. This isn't really the place to talk about that except as it applies to active content questions. Wikidemon (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me that there is some support to split the sub-section into Iraq as one sub-section and Afghanistan into the other. Clearly two unrelated topics shouldn't be together. We wouldn't have a section called "Daugher Malia and Iraq" or "Health Care and Ethanol policy". So if we have a "Iraq and Afghanistan" section then it is fully logical to link the similarities and difference of the two. Yet some people get really upset if there is any reference to reliable sources about the two, particularly if there is a comparison of the two. Dellcomputermouse (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

IPA for middle name - huːˈseɪn?

Does it really make sense for the first vowel in "Hussein" to be transcribed as long? I was under the impression that vowels generally lengthened allophonically only before voiced consonants. Also, it seems likely that voicing would be less common in unstressed syllables. Is there some justification for this? Mo-Al (talk) 03:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Can't say how much "sense" it makes but it seems to be WP style to always transcribe /u/ as long: Wikipedia:IPA_for_English only has /u:/ and does not include a short /u/ for contrast. Lfh (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Lots of IPA conventions are approximations. The "u" sound in Hussein is a dipthong that can't be represented perfectly with IPA so long "u" is the convention used as an approximation. Without the "ː" ir would be pronounced similar to the clear "ʊ" in "book", which it isn't (by Americans).Gregcaletta (talk) 05:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

In some American dialects, the /u/ sound seems comes off a bit like /yu/, with the /y/ being very weak and brief. 12.71.155.26 (talk) 05:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed update of Cultural and Political Image section

The current info on approval ratings is from Obama's first one hundred days in office, and has not been significantly updated since may. His current approval is %50 (c.f. today:LA Times, Chicago Tribune yesterday: Gallup), which I think is different enough from the quoted percentages in the article (59%-69%) to merit an update. Would be bold and change it myself, but this article is pretty volatile so I'm trying to get some consensus. Cerebellum (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It's been three days with no comment, so I'm going to go ahead and update. Cerebellum (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No link to birther movement ?

Hello wiki. I have noticed that the 'birther' movement is not described in the main article but only in a separate 'controversy article'. Why not put it in the main saction or at least a link? If there's any significant controversy (just google obama birth certificate you will see how significant) then it must be described in the core article. I rpopose the following phrase in Obama's bio: a significant number of people have been questioning Obama's birth location hence his eligeibility, but no answer has been provided [ref], so the controversy is ongoing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.188.226 (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The Birther conspiracy fantasies are entirely insignificant outside a weird and small group. See the FAQ. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not accurate to say they are "entirely" insignificant, but rather that they don't merit mention in the BLP. Demonizing a group one doesn't agree with is just plain rude behavior, which should be avoided here in Wiki-land. QueenofBattle (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Wo is demonizing whom here? "Small and weird" is accurate, and in no way demonizing. From a European perspective, I would even say "bizarre" describes them better. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Cute, but "weird" is not an accurate term, but rather your opinion. QueenofBattle (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's both. Anyways, I think we a agree that a small if vocal group that had no significant impact on Obama's career is not particularly relevant for this article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Civilian corps

there should be something about his civilian corps, i man, if he is going to make a civilian corps greater in strength than the army, nave and AF, that is a kinda big undertaking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.91.194 (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Youngest President

Isn't Obama also one of they youngest presidents in history? I may have missed that in the article. But beside where it's mentioned "first african american" it should read "and the youngest president in history". After all 48 is very young.--71.184.11.46 (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Third youngest, I believe, behind TR and Kennedy. Please post new topics at the bottom, not the top. But as third place isn't worth, it is not worthy of inclusion in the article. Thanks for the thought.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

He's the fifth youngest, per List of United States Presidents by age. Definitely not worth mentioning. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

No health care section

We always have to be careful what to put in his presidency section because it's hard to be a historian covering yesterday's events. However, there is no dispute that the health care issue is a major area of his first year in office.

We have to be careful not to include campaign promises here. That's not covering his presidency.

It seems that he has given Congress wide latitude on what to include. Some say that he is not defining the details enough, in contrast to Hillary, who defined the details too much (and in secret) then shoved the finished product to Congress in in the early 1990's. This is not pro or anti Obama but the well accepted chain of events. Reliable sources could easily be found.

Some of the facts to include could be

1. He left Congress (Reid, Pelosi, etc.) to decide on the details. 2. He had a summer recess deadline, which was later extended to the end of the year. 3. Congress is not in session at the present time.

To add debates is not appropriate, such as if abortion will be free, why doesn't Obama direct AIG open a subsidiary to be the public option since he can fire the CEO of AIG or GM at will, why the drug companies are fat cats, why tort reform is not included, why free medical care is good, why free medical care is bad, why it should be free for me, etc.

Dellcomputermouse (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that covers a whole lot of ground. Let's review:

What could be found is not the same as what has been found.
Please see WP:COATRACK.
Let's keep in mind that in the United States, Congress passes legislation and the president decides whether or not to sign it into law. The president may call for whatever legislation (or parts thereof) he wishes, but ultimately he has two choices: sign the bill when (and if) it gets to his desk, or refuse to sign it. He does not "give Congress wide latitude."
What Hillary may or may not have done 16 years ago is not relevant to this article.
You correctly state that we cannot write history while it's happening, but then you write "there is no dispute that the health care issue is a major area of his first year in office." Who says there is no dispute? How can we write what is a "major area of his first year in office" when he's only been in office 7 months? I'm not saying it won't turn out to be correct, and I'm not saying it isn't currently a major area, but why are we trying to characterize it as such now, right in the middle of the current events? And as has been pointed out to you before, the "there is no dispute" construct is provocative and not helpful in moving an article forward. If there is something to say, let's find out what reliable sources are writing and use them as a basis. It's not the place of Wikipedia editors to determine what hasn't happened ("no dispute") but rather to write about what has been previously written about what has happened. Frank | talk 18:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be more appropriate in Presidency of Barack Obama rather than here, his biography? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a seperate article on american health care ? oh no wait!! there already is! -.- Stakingsin (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

"National Socialism"

no actionable proposal here; discussion is now before Arbcom and does not appear to be productive here

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

../Obama and accusations of National Socialism. Edit away. -Ste vertigo 07:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I have doubts about notability. Do you have any secondary sources describing the phenomenon? So far, you're not listing primary sources, either. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - this is not an article to list everything said by every whackjob - do reliable sources make those claims or discuss those matters? --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You have got to be fucking kidding me. There is no way in hell that such an article can ever hope to be neutral. This is just trying to shoehorn a "Criticism of" article another way and reeks of anti-Obama bias. There isn't any George W. Bush and accusations of National Socialism article, even though those were way more wide-spread. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you make of Israel and the apartheid analogy then? Is that a thinly veiled 'Criticism of...' article? You would have to be blind not to know the Obama is a Nazi card is being played all over the shop in American politics right now. And that deleted article, had you read it, was actually a Criticism of dumb American conservatives rather than Obama. MickMacNee (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and said card is so logically fallacious that even the anti-fascist George Orwell once spoke about against its use in 1944. Even entertaining the thought of the article is a disservice to NPOV and BLP. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, do you think this article is an example of a source writing about these accusations in an NPOV way? MickMacNee (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's not. It's an opinion piece. That said, it's still a logical fallacy that we don't need to even entertain the thought of discussing. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Lol, its an opinion piece yes, but it is still not doing what you think its doing and giving an opinion that Obama is a Nazi, and hence must be given your la la la can't hear you treatment, soon to be launched as a policy proposal as WP:NAZI hopefully. MickMacNee (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Graduated without honors

Discussion closed, violates WP:NOTFORUM and WP:POINT. Community opposition is clear, and the discussion serves no further useful purpose.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why is no mention of the fact that he graduated from Columbia without honors?[3] John Asfukzenski (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It already does "He graduated with a B.A." - why would we need to add an explicit qualification of fact to that statement? --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The article does not claim he graduated with any honors, which seems fine by me. Indeed, most college graduates do so without any honors. Such a mundane fact does not need to be reported here. It would be like stating "He has appeared on Television numerous times, and yet, strangely, has never won an Emmy award". We don't document every thing that DOESN'T happen in a person's life. --Jayron32 20:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Uh yes it does need to mention he graduated without honors. If were going to mentino good things about him during college then we should mention this per NPOV. John Asfukzenski (talk) 03:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Your implying graduating from a school like Colombia without honors is a bad thing. He graduated college, It'd be notable if he did graduate with honors, not notable that he didnt. Its not like every president graduated from college with honors, if that were the case your idea would be considered relevant, seeing as how that is not the case, It's clear your either trying to push your POV with something you believe to be a negativity, or you dont understand wikipolicy. Seeing as how you ref'd NPOV, you know wikipolicy, so im assuming the latter. End Discussion. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That is not even remotely what WP:NPOV is about. It is a common misconception among editors new and old that "balance" is simply achieved by having an article contain 1 part good info and 1 part bad info. Most at least try with something of middling substance such as Birthers or "OMG Marxism!", but this attempt to affirm a negative about graduating without honors is just plain bizarre, IMO. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

To Tarc and Democraply I would strongly advise you to read WP:AGF. Just because some presidents do not mention it, does not give a good excuse as to why it is not mention here. Please take your strawman arguments somewhere else. And Tarc the fact is he did not graduate with honors and per NPOV it should be noted, since this is not some promotional vehicle in which someone should be portrayed in a favorable light. John Asfukzenski (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

No one here has violated AGF, please don't be so quick to cry "foul!" when someone disagrees with you. Also, don't toss out terms when you plainly do not know what they mean, i.e. strawman. Everyone here has responded to the arguments that you are making. Anyways, it has nothing to do with favorability or unfavorability; the position you are taking here is, honestly, just kind of odd. What percentage of college graduates graduate "with honors" (i.e. cum laude and higher) ? 10%? Why do you think we need to make a special note or highlight the fact that Obama's Columbia grades were on par with 90% of graduates? Tarc (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Methinks someone has been reading entirely more National Review than is good for a healthy adult. It's a pointless factoid, and not a standard thing to mention in any bio. This discussion seems very POINT-y. It's not our job to dig up negative stuff to make Obama look bad. Off-wiki, this new bombshell is the missing element in the Grand unified fringe theory that ties all the Obama conspiracies together. [4] Apparently Obama was too busy palling around with Bill Ayers to pay attention to his course load, I kid you not. Wikidemon (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

He also has not been to the moon. Other people have - I think we should mention that too. Probably in the lead. And what about all the hit songs he has not written? Tvoz/talk 22:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Even more ordinary, what if it turns out that Barack failed to buy flowers for Michelle on their second date? We should expose him as the cad he is!

Only very slightly more serious, I was idly curious just how many student graduate cum laude (or higher). I don't actually have good data, but it seems like it probably was around 10% when Obama graduated, but over the last 20 years there has been huge grade inflation. So nowadays it's closer to 50%. Perhaps a half dozen presidents later than this one, once the "honors" are given to 90% of graduates, it will become notable if a politician failed to get the "distinction". We have a few decades left though. LotLE×talk 00:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it is estimated that 90% percent of Harvard students graduate with honors.[ http://steiner.math.nthu.edu.tw/usr3/note/harvard-grade.html]The number is undoubtedly similar with Columbia so you have to assume he graduated in the bottom-tier in his class. John Asfukzenski (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't assume. If you have a reliable source that states this, let's see it - as far as I can see you want the article to infer that he's not very bright or failed in some way as a student. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Talking about selective reading. "Last June, a record 91 percent of Harvard students graduated summa, magna, or cum laude, far more than at Yale (51 percent), Princeton (44 percent), and other elite universities, a Globe study has found." So why is Harvard a better model for Columbia than Princeton? Also, that article is from 2001, and claims that honors inflation at Harvard was "greatest during the 1960s and early '70s, and then again during the last 15 years" - i.e. at least that last push was after Obama's graduation in 1983. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well the fact is this. He won't release his college transcripts but why? There is a good truth that he got into these wonderful institutes of higher learning because of affirmative action rather than having high academic skill. John Asfukzenski (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

And if he did? So...what, exactly? This talk page is for discussion on additions to the article, not for casting a wide net out to see what rumor and gossip one can snag. I think we're done here. Tarc (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Columbia's policy is not to award Latin Honors for students who are junior year transfer graduates like Barack Obama, who transferred in from Occidental. Nothing to see here. John your understanding of affirmative action appears to be lacking. Please note that WP:BLP policy and the article probation applies to talkpages as well as articles. --guyzero | talk 02:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Seconding Tarc's suggestion that we close this. Nothing productive can come of it, certainly no article edit. Plus the discussion is becoming questionable BLP and racism-wise. If there are no further objections I suggest we archive this. Wikidemon (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Birth certificate

Closing this per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

why it dosen't mark the hospital it was given in?

it really bothers me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.102.228 (talk) 07:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It really bothers me that are people like you still worrying about something so insignificant. It was some women and children's hospital in Honolulu, HI. Tdinatale (talk) 11:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Shoo! --Frank Fontaine (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

i don't see a reason that it won't bother me, He's the American president for pitty's sake, and WHILE ALL OTHER BIRTH-CERTIFICATES SHOWS THE HOSPITAL AND THE DR. SIGN, so shall the BC of the american president should show it.

if if won't, something is very stinkey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.112.251 (talk) 07:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Alleged COLB from Kanya just found

Birther absurdity, move along. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

An affidavit filed on Sept. 3rd, 2009 states that a man named Lucas Daniel Smith went to Kenya and to the hospital in which Barack Obama was allegedly born. He was able to obtain what he says is an original copy of Obama's COLB. If this is true it would mean Barack Obama was not a natural born US citizen under the US laws in the 1960's (American mother + foreign father + born in father's country = born citizen of father's country [law citation needed]). This could be significant because current US laws state that if one is not a natural born citizen, they are not eligible for presidency (law citation needed).

We should obviously see how this develops but it is worth posting in the discussion non-the-less.

http://americangrandjury.org/lucas-smith-affidavit-now-filed-with-the-us-district-court-obama-kenyan-bc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ig33k (talk • contribs) 01:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama's mother is an American Citizen. Thus, Obama would himself be natural born regardless of the location of his birth. Even if this certificate were true, he would be a citizen from birth because his mother was a citizen. That is all that is required to be considered natural born. Consider the qualification of John McCain. He was actually NOT born in the U.S., and everyone acknowledges that. And no one questioned his qualifications.--Jayron32 03:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which was controlled by the United States. Hence, he is considered to have been born within the United States. SMP0328. (talk) 03:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Voting Statistics in the Senate

I was hoping to create a section noting Senator Obama's statistical voting record in terms of the number of missed votes, the percentage that he voted with his party, and a few other statistics. This data would come from the links below.

[5]

[6]

Thanks Thepoliticalguide (talk) 06:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, notability, RS and the rest, this material could be relevant to United States Senate career of Barack Obama (where it is already alluded to twice from what I can see by a quick scan there) or to campaign articles. Not merely because of that parenthetical fact, it doesn't seem to meet the WP:Weight threshold for the Obama biography or presidency articles. To be clear, I'm unfamiliar with and did not check your source for notability/reliability, I'm just responding on a general editorial level.

Again, unfamiliar as I am with your source, I'll note my casual observation that your user name is the same as the website you're referencing; are you a proprietor of that site, or merely a fan/proponent imagining yourself as a single-issue editor? Abrazame (talk) 07:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that the creator of this thread has been indef'd due to his/her's user name. Either way I agree with Abrazame that this does not raise to the level of this article. I also raise the point that the main reasoning behind the attempt to include this info into the article is not of a general interest to broaden the article but of a more political interest to make some point. Brothejr (talk) 10:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Stop vandalism and intellectual dishonesty

perennial proposal proceeding in unproductive fashion, does not appear to have any likelihood to lead to improving the article

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The President was a part time faculty member. He was not a professor. The University of Chicago calls its people "faculty member" despite overembellishment by unreliable people. Wikipedia must be correct and not degenerate to putting inaccurate or false information.

The others have won by ganging up and accusing me of an edit war. Vandal fighting is not an edit war. Henry Kissinger was a part time faculty member, which is no shame.

So, the President was

1. a part timer (reliable source)

2. a faculty member (not a professor) (the most reliable source, the University of Chicago, not some mistaken and imprecise reporter).

Gaydenver (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

professor n. A teacher or faculty member at a college or university. Seems like an accurate statement to me. N.B. This issue was also raised at ANI and Jimmy's talk page. –xeno^talk 18:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This issue is also one of several that has been discussed to death here, most recently at Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 59#Academics. Tarc (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

See http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media The University of Chicago Law School calls their people "faculty members", not "professors". Reporters are typically idiots and report inaccurate things. Wikipedia shouldn't be an idiot and do the same when we know the real truth. This has not been talked to death because nobody knew about the University of Chicago practice.Gaydenver (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said at ANI, they could call their people "Grand Tutnums" but if they are doing the job of a professor, and a reliable source calls it as such, then we go from there. –xeno^talk 18:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

factcheck.org has a copy of a press release from the University on the matter here, which pretty much settles the issue. Tarc (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't settle it because factcheck is not the most reliable source on the planet. The fact of the matter is that professor is embellishment and "faculty member" is more honest and accurate. Gaydenver (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

How about FOX News? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2008/03/29/obamas-law-school-comes-to-his-defense-states-he-was-a-bona-fide-professor/ ""Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track," the university statement said."—Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs)

I think it's too ambiguous. A faculty member could be a researcher. Obama taught constitutional law at the post-secondary level. He was a professor (note small-p). –xeno^talk 18:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Per sentiments presented at Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use common names of persons and things and Wikipedia:How many legs does a horse have?, I would venture that the university could call their staff "kumquats" and it wouldn't make much difference in the face of reliable secondary sources. I'm aware that some people disagree with this (there may be cultural factors at play?), but in general the American use I'm familiar with treats the two as equivalent terms -- certainly the secondary sources are doing so. Calling this "vandalism" or "dishonesty" is past ridiculous, at any rate. If there's discussion to be had, sure, but a little less arm waving, please. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(after endless edit conflicts here on ANI) Aside from all the evidence presented above, as someone who actually teaches at a university, I can tell you it is routine to describe non-full time faculty as "professors." While in a sense it is a formal title (and a varied one, "associate," "assistant," etc.), it is also commonly employed as an informal term to describe any college or university teacher. This is a simple fact. Regardless, this (unbelievably trivial) issue has been discussed ad infinitum on this page. If Gaydenver wants to change whatever we have now, that editor will have to continue to discuss the issue here on the talk page and convince others of their view (they might want to review the talk archives under the previous "ad infinitum" link first though to get a sense of the arguments in past discussions). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we please close this discussion? It's a perennial proposal advocated by a new editor with some serious issues - we should treat this as a behavioral issue on the editor's talk page rather than waste a lot of cycles here in pointless discussion. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a perennial proposal. Looking at the link, the discussion is completely different. What we can't have in Wikipedia is embellishment. This was not discussed before. Neither was the University of Chicago link referrring to people as "faculty members" not "professors". Gaydenver (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

That is one, very general link which does not preclude the fact that the U of C also refers to their faculty members as "professors", which they in fact do. Other links have been provided which demonstrate that fact, including Obama specifically (did you read those?). Please drop this—you have convinced literally no one.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Embellishment or accuracy?

That's the question. In Wikipedia, we should be as accurate as possible. I voted for Obama and I don't hate him. Yet, I don't try everything to embellish his resume. His Wikipedia article should be as accurate as possible within the space constraints. It takes the same amount of space to do it accurately. I am not saying he is a rapist or a foreigner.Gaydenver (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Quit being disruptive. --Smashville^talk 19:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Continued discussion

The closing of a discussion (immediately) so soon after it started inhibits discussion and allows some people to have it their own way. This is extremely disruptive. Gaydenver (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Solution?

Part of the solution may be to recognize that there is a difference between the collequial and embellished term "professor" and the higher title of "Professor". But the little "p" can be easily overlooked. One possible way is to not use the term but there is so much support for the embellished term. Another way is to reverse the order of the sentences so that the more important sentence is first.

Please do not be disruptive and say "NO, NO, NO" and "close the thread". Instead, let's try to make this article better.Gaydenver (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The solution seems to be to let the discussion proceed, unless it turns into a soapbox or has been covered before. The Bots will archive all other aged discussions. Everyone else just needs to consider pushing the chair back and taking a break. QueenofBattle (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Gaydenver can come back to discuss this tomorrow or some other day, albeit with a different approach. I've blocked that editor for 31 hours. Their activity here has been extremely disruptive, consisting of edit warring, attacks against others, and asking the other parent in multiple forums. This has wasted a lot of editor's time but now it's over, at least for the moment. If Gaydenver can come back and discuss this calmly while actually listening to others that's great, but if not then they will probably end up blocked again for an even longer duration. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The problem is, your edits were making the article worse, not better. The University uses the term "professor" in a more colloquial and less exacting manner than other institutions. Reliable sources have noted this usage and used it as well, and that is really what an encyclopedia does in the end; reflect what other sources have to say on a particular topic. My personal opinion, after many years as a student and employee at a liberal arts college, is that I would never address someone as "professor" who did not hold a doctorate, but that's just me. Other places use the term differently. Tarc (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Who actually gets the say in the summary put in the pink header? This one seems quite opinionated to me! Str1977 ^(talk) 22:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This issue was already presented. Bottom line was that fighting over this issue would only damage the quality of the article. Let it rest. 68.202.142.213 (talk) 00:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

'Ogabe' redirects here?

Closing - resolved

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why is that? The Squicks (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. "Ogabe" is a rush Limbaugh-ism, slurring "Obama" with "Mugabe". Redirects do not have to adhere to the same standards of neutrality that articles do, but this is going way to far into the idiot pejorative territory. I will put a speedy tag on it in a moment. Tarc (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus on race

Closing this per FAQ Q2/A2

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Some people have mentioned that he refers to himself as a African American. If that counts as a reliable source, then can someone put it up as a citation in the article (citation number: 127), please? Thanks. Also, there are 4 citations given to justify the term "African American" but only one of them actually uses the term. The other three say "black", so we could just delete those three, or refer to him as "black" instead; I don't really care either way. For the introduction, what do you guys think about something like "the election of Obama was highly significant to many people, as it was considered "the last racial barrier in American politics"" as the second sentence of the article (that's how the New York times puts it). Obviously we could word it better, but that way we would get consensus on it, because it doesn't actually make a claim about his race, so no one can object that it is not a verifiable fact.Gregcaletta (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

We could of course find citations for the proposition that Obama self-identifies as African-American, but we don't need to do that in the article because the article does not discuss his self-identification. We're just using that as an extra side-check here on the talk page. Perhaps another article could talk about this in more detail. You have a good point that we should probably mention why race was important to some people, although the Times quote is more evocative than exlanatory - there are plenty of other racial barriers in America. Wikidemon (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't necessarily suggesting we put the citations in the article, I was just wondering if someone could point me to what he has actually said, because I doubt he would often make a statements like "I am black" and I doubt even more he would say "I am an African American". I expect he has referred to the fact that other people identify him as black, but that doesn't really count. I guess even if he has called himself African American explicitly, and if we don't consider it relevant enough for the article, then it shouldn't really be relevant in the determination of his race either. Gregcaletta (talk) 04:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm getting off topic. I don't really think it is important what we state as his race. I think that in order to get consensus on this and avoid the discussion altogether, it would be good to replace the first sentence of the article --

Barack Hussein Obama II is the 44th and current President of the United States, the first African American to hold the office

-- with two separate sentences, such as these:

Barack Hussein Obama II is the 44th and current President of the United States. His election overcame a major racial barrier in American politics, and was highly significant to many people, because previously the office had been held only by white men.

This includes some significant extra information, and his race is no longer a matter for dispute. Gregcaletta (talk) 04:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's more precise and a good try, but it sidesteps the issue of great importance to many people, that Obama is the first black (per the prevailing norms and definitions of the time in the United States) president. It is being black, not just being non-white. We have obviously never had an Asian-American president, a Hispanic president, or a Native American president (though some probably had some ancestry there). What is important to people is not that Obama is the first black to hold the office in some scientific or technical sense, but that this particular racial barrier has been overcome. There are still plenty of other barriers to cross. Wikidemon (talk) 05:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

To me those all seem like good reasons for choosing the second rather than the first. If there had already been a Hispanic president and an Asian president then his election would not have been significant to a smaller group of people. It states that he specifically as overcome one specific barrier. The second case also states explicitly that this is important to many people, rather than just mentioning his race as if it were an arbitrary fact, though some people even dispute the fact. I think the second option is more precise, more comprehensive. I thought it would also be more likely to reach a consensus, because it doesn't actually state anything disputable, but it seems like this is such a touchy subject that we not going to get consensus anyway, so I'll just leave it. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Who is first president of Muslim Heritage?

Is there any other president who has has parents or stepparents or ancestors who were muslim? Wouldn't it be worth noting?? 16:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point... I don't know the answer. Probably if you look back many generations there are other presidents who have very distant ancestors, but Obama would be the first one who has Muslims in the closer family. He has so many firsts, and with only 45 (?) presidents, every one of them is first at something, so we probably stick with the ones that are most noteworthy. That one might be worth mentioning in an article more closely focused Obama's heritage. There is a "family of" article, where it might go. There is a "public image" article that mentions the untrue rumors of Obama himself being Muslim. Wikidemon (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Are we counting Sons-in-law? That would be Ali. Or did you mean US presidents? ;) Ronabop (talk) 07:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

There have only ben 43 presidents... Tad Lincoln (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Out-of-date OGG Sound Article

Just wanted to point out that the OGG recorded for this article is out of date, stating that President Obama is still the Senator. I believe it to be recorded before he was elected president. Any chance of updating? Dbrown1986 (talk) 06:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit: Yep, it's dated Sep. 3, 2008. Dbrown1986 (talk) 06:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"Protestant?"

Real quick question here. Why was his religious affiliation on the infobar changed from Christian to protestant? It has said "Christian" for months now and to change it to Protestant is a bit odd. He resigned from the UCC a while back and really doesn't have any current affiliations with Protestantism. I think "Christian" sufficed well enough because he is indeed Christian but is no longer Protestant. Why the sudden change? Even the sources say "Christian." Thanks. Assume Good Faith. No offense intended! OtherAJ (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know and don't much care, but I thought a simple division within Christianity was: orthodox, catholic, protestant, and fringe. My vague impression is that he was somewhere in the third of these. Maybe some editor thought that Protestantism was accurate (even if there's no formal affiliation) and a bit more informative than the blanket term Christianity. -- Hoary (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that I don't believe Mormons consider themselves Protestant, since they come from a different tradition, and I'm sure they would object to being called "fringe". Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank goodness Obama's not a Mormon, then, huh? Can you imagine the public outcry there would be? That's the last thing we need at this page. Abrazame (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't care much either way as this all seems awfully pedantic, but does one stop being Protestant the moment one leaves a Protestant church? Tarc (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Certified Copy of Kenyan Birth Certificate

Nothing to see here, check Q5 of the FAQ at the top of the page. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

If you consult the following link: http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/obama-certified-copy-of-registration-of-birth-in-kenya.htm

you will find an image of a Certified Copy of a Kenyan birth certificate, complete with a Kenyan government seal, names, ages and birthplaces of both parents, the correct birth name of the child Barack Hussein Obama II, the hospital of birth in Kenya, and the public records "Book and "Page" that the original was filed. This story was covered in the Press, including the Orange County Register, http://www.ocregister.com/articles/taitz-document-president-2517230-copy-obama. Moreover, a photocopy of this document was filed in evidence in Federal court under a motion seeking the court to validate it's authenticity.

The wikipedia editors have claimed this story as "insignificant". However, considering Obama solicited -- via interstate commerce -- and spent 745.7 million dollars in donations for just the 2008 Federal election cycle, should the Kenyan birth be verified, it would amount to one of the largest R.I.C.O cases in history. (c.f. http://www.fec.gov/press/press2009/20090608PresStat.shtml)

The claim that Obama's mother is sufficient for natural citizenship is not true either. There are two points here: one RE: the mother's residency history and Obama's residency when application was made -- if it ever were made -- to receive national citizenship. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law#Through_birth_abroad_to_one_United_States_citizen

At the time of birth, his mother was only 18, and US law required that she must have been a continuous resident of the US for at least the last 5 of the 10 years subsequent to her 14th birthday. (That law is now 5 years.) Delivering a baby in Kenya or living in Kenya during the prenatal period or post natal recovery period or even visiting the future in laws in Kenya could be events to disqualify grandfathering her child's natural citizenship. The same point definitely applies with his mother's marriage and emigration to Indonesia.

So far there's a claim that Obama has himself or vis a vis the Federal Government caused over 2 million in preventing any court from making a finding as to any birth certificate. Again, if a fraud is here, it would fall under R.I.C.O, but more directly as a crime against the USA.

Tjdadis (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

he is not "first" "african american"

Closing this per FAQ Q2/A2

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

His father from Kenya (Africa) and his mother is from Kansas (United States of America); how much more African-American can one get? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.251.38.167 (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

his mother is 100% white, he has 50% white blood. so he is not! if he is black, then he is also white. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.34.212 (talk) 12:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read FAQ question number 2. Simply put we say what the sources say and the vast majority of main stream reliable sources call him African American and thus we refer to him in the lead as that. However, if you go down a little bit, the article does discuss his heritage. Brothejr (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Any source which ignores half a person's heritage (not to mention almost his entire upbringing and every positive influence on his life) is not 'reliable', at least not on the subject of race. Commercial biases have too much effect on their work. Lest we forget that some other presidents (especially Warren Harding have also had distant African ancestry. Lewis Hamilton's intro mentions both his heritage and perception of it (also being mixed-race in an almost-entirely-white domain), and I really don't understand why Obama's intro is not worded similarly.--MartinUK (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read this before making any edits removing "black" or "African-American" from the article. Unitanode 13:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've seen this popping up around the internets (I know, right?), and I was curious if it's been addressed on the talk page before: [links redacted because apparently all websites addressing this issue have been blocked... weird]

Basically the claim is that 5 other United States Presidents have had African ancestry (this author only names four of them); any thoughts? Ikilled007 (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's quite possible that that's so, but there are no reliable sources asserting it. If my late Mom's really sloppy geneology is right, my family in America dates to the 1660s. Hard to imagine no African-American or Native American in the woodpile all those centuries. PhGustaf (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well wait a sec, there are some sources which may or may not be reliable, but I can't even link to them here because they're all banned. Google it, thought, and you'll see some of the sources are not "biased". To me the question is not one of reliability of sources, but one of verifiability of claims. Ikilled007 (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Newspapers, TV, magazines, etc. etc. heralded our "first African American President" again and again on and after the election. Per one-drop rules or whatever, other Presidents may be technically considered AA as well, who knows? But our the overwhelmingly vast majority of RS's haven't commented about that (and have commented the opposite); so for us to do so would be UNDUE. cheers, --guyzero | talk 00:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the most important point that the FAQ answer makes is that anyone can work out the details by reading the article. However, it is an interesting point for discussion and I think improvements can be made, at least to the FAQ answer. For example, is the fact that "Obama himself and the media identify him, the vast majority of the time, as African American or black" really relevant? I mean, we know, as a scientific fact, that Obama has as much caucasian as Kenyan heritage, and we have plenty of reliable sources for this; it's even stated in the rest of the article. If Obama or the media simply use the "black", it is either for rhetoric or for brevity, so does it really count as a "reliable source"? I personally would suggest saying the he is the first "non-white" President, as this is the broadest term that is still scientifically accurate. However, I have another question: Why not omit mentioning his skin colour at all? We will only know that we have moved beyond racism when skin colour is no longer mentioned any more than eye colour or hair colour.Gregcaletta (talk) 02:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"Scientific accuracy" actually has little bearing on questions of race. It's widely agreed that racial categories are socially constructed, so while Obama (and other persons with one black and one white parent) is routinely identified as "black" in the United States, that would not necessarily be the case in any number of other societies. Thus to say that he is "non-white" is actually not "scientifically" accurate—he is partially of European ancestry—rather it is accurate only inasmuch as the U.S. has a "one drop" rule with respect to "blackness" dating back to slavery. So by saying he is "non-white" we would already be going by cultural norms, not hard science. The fact is, however, that most source (academic, newspapers, polls, TV programs, Obama himself) refer to him as "black" or "African American"—not as "non-white." In deciding whether or how to label a person in terms of their race, the only guide we really have are the norms of the given society, which are actually well reflected in newspapers and the like. It's for this very reason that we would not omit his "skin color", simply because reliable sources have incessantly (as in thousands or hundreds of thousands of times) mentioned his race and the fact that he is the "first black president." Obviously the goal of this or any other wiki article is not to move beyond racism (which we're pretty far away from anyway, unfortunately) but to accurately reflect what reliable sources say about a given topic. In this case it's pretty clear that we need to mention Obama's race and also pretty clear what "race" he is generally considered to be, at least in the United States. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources that call Barack Obama an African America, for the simple fact that he isn't one. It's amazing how few people actually understand wikipedia policies, even though they are manifestly not complicated. "Wikipedia articles[1] should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources (although reliable self-published sources are allowable in some situations - see below). Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. I argue that most newspapers do not qualify as being regarded as generally trustworthy when it comes to identification of race. Ergo this issue is 100% open, and the unverified "fact" that Mr Obama is African American should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.153.114 (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Bigtimepeace makes a good point: "race" is a cultural definition in this sense rather than a scientific one. I don't think there are any cultures that would refer to Barack Obama as "white", so therefore "non-white" is a good unbaiased way to describe him. On the other hand "African American" is a term which is used to describe him only by the sources that you mentioned, and is therefore biased. However, I agree that "non-white" sounds a bit silly, so why not just drop mentioning his skin colour as much as possible? Somewhere in the article it needs to be mentioned that "the election of Obama was highly significant to many people as symbolic of the historical journey of the African American people" or something better worded to that effect, but it really only needs to be mentioned in this way; there is no need to actually state whether he is African American or not, especially not in the first sentence of the article. As the FAQ states, people can discover his ethnic origins by reading the first section of the article about his parents.Gregcaletta (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "only", as in "only by the sources that you mentioned," but Obama is described as African American by virtually every reliable source we can think of including, not incidentally, himself. There are very few reliable sources which don't describe him as black or African American, so I don't understand the basis for your "bias" claim. Describing him as "non-white" would be the acme of bias, precisely because he is very rarely described that way—you personally don't think it's biased but that's not really relevant.

There has to this point been a pretty strong consensus that it is appropriate to identify him as an African American in the lead of the article, just as John F. Kennedy is identified as the first Catholic president of the U.S. (not in the first sentence but in the intro), as Benazir Bhutto is identified as the first female Prime Minister of Pakistan, and as Evo Morales is identified as Bolivia's "first fully indigenous head of state in the 470 years since the Spanish Conquest." The simple fact is that all of these heads of state broke down extremely significant barriers in their respective countries when they came to power, and as such it makes a great deal of sense for us to mention that fact prominently in the leads of those articles. For what it's worth, Britannica apparently refers to Obama as the "first African American president" in the intro to their article as well, so I think we're on pretty solid ground here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I've got an idea: why not use computer graphics programs to correctly identify the range of skin color the President traverses and we can identify him as "#000000 to #010101" (or whatever it would be) etc. We can do this for everyone with a bio article and then we don't have to identify anyone by subjective opinions of which racial construct people want to put them in. We could say Michael Jackson was #000000 as a child but by the time of death was #FDEEF4. Let's make Wikipedia objective. Ikilled007 (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it, 007.

So if the people choose to say that Lincoln is "black" then are we supposed to assume he is (even though all evidence says otherwise)? People aren't to be trusted. Should we make this article about cats because of popular vote or vandalise a page? I think not. But since he is 50% "african american" and 50% "caucasian" one can base it on popular vote. If he was 75% white it would be much different. Since he is 50% each, but his appearance is more of an "African american" we can say that he is. Appearance is everything after all when it comes to the peoples "view". and based on popular vote I can say he is the "first" "African american".--71.184.11.46 (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought the articles on Wikipedia were only supposed to contain facts, not feelings. Just because someone considers themself closer to one race than the other doesn't make it a fact. My Labradoodle may consider himself more Labrador Retriever than Poodle, but you can't get the AKC to register him as one. Besides, according to the Wikipedia's article on human races, Carleton S. Coon has included Kenya in the extents of the Caucasian race. This means that Obama is technically 100% Caucasian no matter what his skin color is. On the other hand, since all humans originally came from Africa, then we could also say that every human in the U.S. is African American. Since I am a native of America, decended from Europeans that originally came from Arica, I consider myself Native-European-African American. The only way to stop the arguments is to get rid of any mention of race when we talk about someone's accomplishments. I'm tired of hearing first African American this or first Hispanic that.

Actually, we cover what a clear fact that reliable sources say and the vast majority call him Africian Americain. It is not our job to contrdict reiable source because we don't like what they say. Removing mention of his race is far more based on feelings that accuratly reporting reliable soucres using the term Africian Americian. --70.24.177.22 (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Changed "regime" to "administration"

Closing - resolved

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It's bad to call it "regime" so I have changed it to "administration". Otherwise, we could start seeing it referred to as the "Obama junta" or "Obama regime". Then it could degenerate to the "wicked, imperialist Obama junta" or the "glorious and wise Obama leadership". We would then start sounding like Radio Havana Wikipedia branch. They call enemies by silly names and friends by grandiose names. NoRightTurn (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Blame silly conservatrolls, not us. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the right wing is not the bad apple in this case. Someone called the Bush Administration the regime so it is a leftist who is at fault. Let's write well, not attack the side we don't like. NoRightTurn (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, anything differing from what appears to be the "acceptable viewpoint" here is quickly hidden and tucked away in a neat little pink box and archived. However, unhelpful, irrelevant attacks such as this one, are allowed to stand for the better part of a week. Worst part is I imagine if it went in the other direction, there would be immediate action taken against the attacking party. Disgusting. 174.101.27.158 (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"Administration" is the commonly accepted term for a government led by a U.S. president. "Regime" implies illegitimacy. We can't be responsible for what birthers and others put in the article for the bare minutes until they are reverted.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It was there for a long time, not minutes. There are also other biased areas in the article but less clear cut. NoRightTurn (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I was referring to Sceptre (talk · contribs) using the term "conservatrolls" to describe editors that differ from his viewpoint, not the term "regime". Sorry if I was not clear. 174.101.27.158 (talk) 07:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Obama, Honduras and Israel

Closing - the subject discussion belongs at Talk:Foreign_policy_of_the_Barack_Obama_administration, not here (although he source quoted fails WP:RS)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This site: [Obama and Democracy] has an article from Israel. In this article we can read:"President Obama's foreign policy has little regard for democracy". Agre22 (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)agre22

Obama has also clearly favored Palestine to Israel a number of times. He also backed the former president of Honduras, who was trying to seek reelection even though the constitution prohibits him to do so. He then came out against the leader of the "coup", who just wanted to keep his countries constitution intact. Again though, apparently its not right to point out things that Obama has done that may have been wrong. Baltimore sensi528 (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't that "its not right to point out things..." but that you find some reliable sources that say this. Talk is cheap and political talk is some of the cheapest talk there is so for politics, and especially for such a high-profile figure, we really do need something more than blogs and op-ed's. Ttiotsw (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Seriously

Closing this per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Seriously, if John McCain, Rush Limbaugh, and George Bush have controversy/criticism sections, i dont see how Obama shouldnt. I mean the excuse up there that it shows a "poorly written article" actually made me laugh. I fail to see how pointing out that a man actually has flaws, and people disagree, is distasteful. If you guys are either too lazy, or just cant come to grips with people talking down about our president, i would be happy to write a section, all with citations, to be submitted. If not, be sure i will create one every single day if thats what it takes. The people, who elected the man in the first place, have a right to hear the other side. You cant pin it on racism when half the whites who voted for him are now against him. SO please, my email is listed, email me back and let me know why seriously he is the only person on wiki that cant be criticized. Baltimore sensi528 (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, none of them do. It's a sign of a bad article. In all three articles, there is no controversy/criticism section, which you would know if you'd checked. The closest to one is a list of notably controversial events on Rush Limbaugh's show. --Good Damon 18:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? You couldn't even bother to look at any of the articles you mention to first discover that they don't have criticism/controversy sections? I'm sorry, but I just find that baffling that you wouldn't even check to see if Bush Sr., Bush Jr. or McCain have such a section. And no they don't. Rush Limbaugh does have the notable controversy section for his show, but frankly that is what the man does for a living. He's a political shock jock and creating controversy is his career, so having a section for notable instances makes more sense. I still think that should be integrated in with the rest of the material on him, but it isn't as off putting as it would be on a former or the current president. It has nothing to do with any accusations of racism, admiration for the man, or anything like that. Even though you have revealed your ignorance and made yourself look silly, I'll explain wikipedia's position to the best of my understanding.

Good writing synthesizes information from a wide range of sources. A well written biography or encyclopedia entry about someone, which is what this article is, should not only synthesize all the complex information out there on a subject but it should also create a coherent, flowing narrative. The kind of section you are talking about destroys synthesis by keeping related information arbitrarily separated and fragmented. It ruins the flow and coherent narrative of an article by breaking the logical, natural linear progression of the narrative and jumps to this other thing that has its own structure and is being looked out completely out of context of the rest of the rest of the information. It's jarring, it's confusing and it's just sloppy writing. The criticisms and controversies will undoubteledly have contextual interplay with other events and other notable decisions so talking about all of it separately is just terrible structure. Imagine if I gave you flour, raw eggs, cocoa beans, butter, vanila extract, and sugar packets and said 'what this is the same as chocolate chip cookies right.'

Of course critiques of Obama can be included in Wikipedia. Cry about it's all so liberal but there is nothing stopping notable information that could be seen as negative perpectives from entering in. However this particular article is about his overall life not just his presidency. So most of the criticisms and controversies are not notable in terms of his overall life. Most of the controversies so far have been really small and short lived so far so no they don't belong here. They may belong in the article about his presidency but it depends on what it is, how notable it is, how well sourced it is, etc. Articles about Obama will have the same problem that all current subjects have, the likelihood of recentism. With our 24 hour news sources taking every last flare up story into something that looks far more significant that is or will be, it's hard to tell what items will truly be notable in a week, month, or year.

Take the police officer thing, so many people wanted to add that, they thought this will be huge, it will dog him forever, and the story just absolutely died a week later. They had a beer, apologies were said, everyone moved on. So keep in mind what seems like a big deal may not be so it may not be notable and since you hate the man, chances are you are going to try make significance out of many insignificant dismissible faux controversies. The same was true of George W. Bush, and even though I didn't personally like him I still defended keeping many things out that those who hated him wanted in because most of the time things have a very short shelf life and are not as important as they first seem. Anyway I've rambled on long enough for someone who clearly has no respect for others and isn't interested in letting the truth get in the way of his rants.

Utter garbage. Seriously, what criticism exist apart from speculation (Birther crap) and the idiotic accusations by ultra-conservatives about some sort of National socialism…stuff. What critical analysis of Bush exists? The illegal war in Iraq? The fact he is partly responsible due to his dire fiscal policies that got America into the current mess? What criticism of Obama are you talking about apart from policies that haven’t even been put through yet (Healthcare) or myth and speculation? Oh and sign your posts and stop trolling.--Frank Fontaine (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I Agree With The Above....

Closing this per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

LOOK AT THIS ARTICLE!!! Not a single word of criticism in one of the longest articles on Wikipedia about one of the most well-known people in the world! Wikipedia this is OUTRAGEOUS, DISGUSTING and UTTERLY ABSURD!!!! Pull your liberal heads out of your asses and put in a criticism section for Obama just like you have for every conservative person you've ever created one for. You make me want to vomit. 71.76.164.245 (talk) 16:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Martin

There's an FAQ section about this near the top of this page. There is no specific section labeled "criticism" or "controversy" in any of the previous four presidents' articles, although Clinton does have two sub-sections which summarize sub-articles. Frank | talk 16:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ditto for the previous three; we have to go back 8 presidents to Lyndon B. Johnson to find a sub-section labeled Scandals and controversies, and it's only three paragraphs long. All of the articles in question mention some form of the word "critic" and/or "controversy", but the concepts are integrated into the article.

In addition, of the nine presidential articles from LBJ to Obama, three of them are featured articles, two are good articles, and two were previously good articles. That covers five Republicans and four Democrats.

Please note that this talk page is not a forum regarding the subject of the article, and if there is some question as to how this article is written, it has nothing to do with how similar persons have been written about on Wikipedia. If there is a specific criticism or controversy you feel should be addressed, please refer to it directly and then a discussion can be had regarding its inclusion in the article, if it isn't already.

If, after this analysis, you still feel Wikipedia makes you want to vomit, I recommend you step away from the keyboard first. Frank | talk 17:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Just as a quick addition to what you are saying Frank, the reason why generic criticisms or controversies section are disfavored on Wikipeia is because it's bad writing. It's sloppy and lazy to not integrate that information into the rest of the article. It's the same reason why if you type in George W. Bush and go to his wikipedia page you will also not see a controversy and criticism section. If you have a situation like with Nixon where there's a particularly big scandal then sure a sub-article and entry for Watergate makes sense. But just a section where you say so and so said this about Obama or such and such said this about Bush, that's really poor writing.

You don't see that in any reputable encyclopedia and you shouldn't see that here. If an article is about a particular debate, doing pro and con sections might make sense, but with a notable person there should be enough wealth of information about him or her that you could insert notable criticisms and controversies in with the rest of the information. Furthermore what you are really wanting to add to is the article about his presidency. That's where most of the criticisms and controversies should be integrated. Again not put into their own section, but integrated. It makes sense to put them there though because most of the controversies so far simply haven't been noteworthy enough to include in his biography.

Never Took Calculus

Closing this per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I was watching his speech to community college where he admitted to never taking calculus... I think in that should be mentioned in his educational pedigree. How do you go through high school, let alone college, avoiding upper-level mathematics? 68.187.219.254 (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

How about by planning in advance for a career in law? We don't need to list everything he hasn't done. If he, or some reliable source, starts making a big deal out of it, then it might be worth putting in the article, but it's not at all uncommon for people his age in the United States to have not taken a class in calculus, especially if the undergraduate degree is not math- or science-related. (Whether that is advisable or not is a separate question, and most definitely beyond the scope of this article.) Frank | talk 18:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Changes to a few footnotes

One of the problems with articles such as this is that the need to cite everything makes the main page a mess. There's a new citation option (see WP:LDR) which allows the bulk of the referencing to be done in the referencing section. In addition, I've found that one can include multiple citations in a single footnote, thereby reducing the need for consecutive footnotes int he main text.

I've tried this in two instance, first the three citations in the first cited paragraph referencing Kansas. Formerly footnotes 8,9,and 10, it is now one footnote with three citations.

Second, in the state legislator section, I looked at the footnotes relating to the primary vote, formerly two separate footnotes with a total of seven citations, and made it into a single footnote.

Before, the main text included this mess:

original citations for one point

<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/ilh.htm |title=Federal Elections 2000: U.S. House Results - Illinois |publisher=[[Federal Election Commission]] |accessdate=April 24, 2008}}. See also: {{cite web|url=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14502364|title=Obama's Loss May Have Aided White House Bid}} and {{cite news |first=Janny |last=Scott |title=A Streetwise Veteran Schooled Young Obama |date=September 9, 2007 |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/us/politics/09obama.html |work=The New York Times |accessdate=April 20, 2008}}</ref><ref name=McClelland20070212>{{cite news |first=Edward |last=McClelland |title=How Obama Learned to Be a Natural |date=February 12, 2007 |url=http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/02/12/obama_natural/ |work=Salon |accessdate=April 20, 2008}} See also: {{cite news |first=Richard |last=Wolffe |coauthors=Daren Briscoe |title=Across the Divide |date=July 16, 2007 |work=MSNBC |url=http://www.newsweek.com/id/33156 |work=Newsweek |accessdate=April 20, 2008}} {{cite news |first=Scott |last=Helman |title=Early Defeat Launched a Rapid Political Climb |date=October 12, 2007 |url=http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/12/early_defeat_launched_a_rapid_political_climb/ |work=Boston Globe |accessdate=April 20, 2008}} and {{cite news|url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-10-24-3157940059_x.htm 24, 2007-3157940059_x.htm|title=Obama learned from failed Congress run |work=USA Today |author=Wills, Christopher|date=October 24, 2007 |accessdate=September 20, 2008}}</ref>

While it now contains: <ref name="Democratic primary">

Much easier to read.

Let me know if you have objections to the approach.

One downside is that I don't see an obvious way to combine unnamed refs with named refs in a single footnote, so I won't attempt to do that.--SPhilbrick T 19:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

What the hell are you doing constructively contributing to the article and then collegially explaining your edits on the talk page here?! Can't you see that's not the way people do things around here?!

Just kidding. It's refreshing to find a new editor arriving with something well thought-out that makes everybody's work easier. It seems like your changes will make it infinitely easier to view a section of readable text in the edit window and to scan for the text you mean to be editing. As for me, I welcome you to continue these edits and I thank you. Abrazame (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, and sorry about not fitting in with the usual climate :) I'll try to tackle a few other examples over the next few days—it makes a modest improvement to the viewing experience for readers, but a meaningful improvement for editors. It's a challenge finding the text in the sea of reference material. (Not a bad thing, the usual articles I patrol are sorely needing of more references).--SPhilbrick T 12:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

<- So far, I've moved 18K of reference material out of the main text and in to the reference section, making it a little easier to wade through the material. Will continue, think I've done it all OK, but let me know if you see any mistakes.

So far everything looks good. As these changes are not controversial and are not really removing important refs you won't see a problem here. The main issue that the edit wars happen here are over controversial and/or POV editing. Your stuff is actually improving the article while keeping the content the same. Good stuff and keep it up. Brothejr (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

OK done first pass.

250 footnotes reduced to 211 (no citations removed)
26K of footnote material moved out of the main text into the reference area, making the main text easier to navigate.

There still are some assertions with multiple footnotes, but these are footnotes used more than once, so I don't see how to easily reduce the number of footnotes showing in the text.

It is also possible to take the single footnotes and convert to the new style, which will also move more material out of the main text and into the reference section, but there is less "bang for the buck" compared to the multiple cited footnotes, although I note some "single footnotes" have multiple citations, so they may be worth tackling. Perhaps later, now I'll take a bit of a break.--SPhilbrick T 01:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Abject humiliation

Closing this per WP:NOT#OR and WP:SOAP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why deny his communist thinking? We should embrace it. Communism means that everyone is equal and that everyone is wealthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.131.112 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Spoken Word on this article.

The spoken word audio on this article is out-dated and phrased back to when Obama was still running for Presidency, last year. I suggest we take the audio off until someone makes a new one. Thanks. --A3RO (mailbox) 14:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

We should create an "audio tzar" to take care of that pronto.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Add "first green president"?

Add "first green president"? http://knowledge.allianz.com/en/media/galleries/obama_green_policies.html unsigned comment by 99.155.155.17 (talk) 06:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No objective way of measuring same, so no.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The above is not exactly a neutral, reliable source, and I could probably find more (and better quality) sources referring to Teddy Roosevelt as the first "green" POTUS. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 11:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Friends in college

Closing this per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why is there no mention of how he befriended blacks, chicanos, marxist professors, feminist and punk rockers.[7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Asfukzenski (talk • contribs) 18:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Racial makeup of friends is not notable, as for his Marxist proffesors, all college students kiss teacher ass. Everyone does it so again, not notable. Noting that he had women (feminist) friends isnt notable, it wasnt an all male college. As for Punk Rockers, I had no clue he befriended punk rockers, my guess though, It wouldve been The Dead Kennedys. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but that whole argument is based on your own personal analysis. John Asfukzenski (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all John, everything you've said appears to be original research. Second of all, someone's friends in college, unless their was a particularly close relationship with a high-profile person, are non-notable. Also, please see WP:SOAP. Tad Lincoln (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can deduce that my arguement was personal analysis, you know that yours was aswell, both have no place in a Wikipedia article. Glad you realize that. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

[1] ttp://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B02E1DF1E3EF935A15751C0A9619C8B63

[2] ttp://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/02/21/2009-02-21_president_obama_not_waiting_for_evil_hit.html

[3] ttp://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/02/21/2009-02-21_president_obama_not_waiting_for_evil_hit.html

[4] ttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/26/MNNA1660J9.DTL

[5] ttp://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/02/21/2009-02-21_president_obama_not_waiting_for_evil_hit.html

[6] Obama Calls for U.S. Military to Renew Focus on Afghanistan

[7] Hodge, Amanda (February 19, 2009). "Obama launches Afghanistan Surge". The Australian.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]