Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 49

Archive 45

←

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

→

Archive 55

44

I suggest removing "44th" from his title in the infobox, which currently reads "44th President of the United States," to maintain consistency with WP:MOS and entries on other incumbent world leaders including Nicolas Sarkozy, Gordon Brown, Angela Merkel, and Dmitry Medvedev.The Sartorialist (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point, and done. Grsz¹¹ 22:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Other countries are typically not as interested (as the United States is) in the question of how many others have previously held this or that office. The French don't care how many presidents came before Sarkozy, nor the Germans how many chancellors came before Merkel. It's only Americans who give a hoot whether So-and-so was the first or forty-fourth president, secretary of state, or postmaster-general. It's a particularly American obsession. Tom129.93.65.41 (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This type of numbering isn't unique to the Presidency. We also do it for the Congress. We don't call ourselves something like the "American Second Republic." However in France, each constitution it's had is numbered; currently it's at five. Should that numbering be removed? I suggest leaving the numbering alone. Every country has its idiosyncrasies. SMP0328. (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The infobox is fine as it is. The prose in the lead is another story. Majorly talk 03:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this "obsession" is because the U.S. is not on its "Fifth Republic" or whatever the French are up to by now, having maintained more continuity of the form of government than most other republics. Same constitution, amended as needed. Edison (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

the race thing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

question answered / resolved by earlier consensus that AA is the appropriate designation

---

Obama should not be considered the first non-white President because he is white on his mother's side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maladeisia (talk • contribs) 18:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't anyone ever read anything? This has been discussed dozens and dozens of times, as can be seen from this talk page and its extensive (and searchable) archive. And frankly, the term "non-white" is offensive to many. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey, I've never seen anyone object to "non-white" as an offensive term. It's used in official reports and news items all the time. I didn't see any descriptions of the term as offensive when I Googled around. Barack Obama should be called African-American or black because those are the most descriptive and best-sourced terms, but to call him the first non-white president isn't offensive, it's just less specific. CouldOughta (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

To the original poster, please see Q2 in the FAQ as well as numerous threads from the talk page for why we label him the first African-American president. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this should be obvious. --96.224.9.216 (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Dancing Obama

Consensus is that this isn't kosher with BLP, so it's out. Also, the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors ABOUT BLP subjects or their alleged personal faults, including their skill or supposed lack thereof in dancing, is of no real value here. Our personal opinions aren't worth much for this kind of thing.

Original research deleted per WP:BLP policy.

Please use this page only for discussing improvements to this article which are based on reliable sources. Thanks. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Finding this line of arguing to be incostent with consensus on how the policies (OR and BLP) should be applied, I am reinstating my original post here:

__meco (talk) 10:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wunderbar! Well, the meta-discussion was fun but I don't think this information is very likely to be found neutral or significant enough to make its way into this main article. However, if those sources can be found there may be an appropriate "public image of...", "personal life of...", "social appearances of...", etc., article where this better fits.Wikidemon (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, obviously, with the plethora of Obama-related articles and my less than avid interest in him and heretofore in the present article, the initial impulse was to address my inquiry here. __meco (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

(BLP Violation removed yet again, Meco warned on his talk page yet again. Consensus was that this is not valid; do not re-add it again) —Preceding unsigned comment added by rootology (talk • contribs)

It is not a BLP violation - and I've left a statement on the talk page that the warning is inappropriate. However, I agree that any edit warring should cease and urge all parties to act accordingly. Wikidemon (talk) 10:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Separating this from the in again / out again commentary

Although I don't think the subject of Obama's dancing ability or lack thereof is relevant to this article, it's a substantially incorrect application of BLP to say we cannot talk about it here, or that OR and uncited material does not belong in the talk page. This is a talk page where we talk about things people consider relevant to the article - we do not need to cite our claims and observations to reliable sources. Generally, if you can observe things in public, you can find sources for them. And indeed there are many reliable sources that describe Obama dancing.[1][2][3][4] I cannot find them quickly but I'm pretty sure I have read commentary that Obama's dancing is somewhat stiff, and that he does not readily let himself go in public. In a different context, dance is very important to many cultures, as much so as debate, music, manner of dress, architecture. And it does reveal (a better word is embody) some very deep things about who we are as individuals and a people. It just happens to not be a qualification of a President, and is seen in the perhaps overly serious world of presidential politics as a frivolous matter. Not so apparently in his ancestral home, where they marked the occasion of the inauguration with dancing as well.[5] Wikidemon (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of Obama's dance moves are totally fine for the article, but the comments I removed twice and that an admin also warned Meco about on his talk page just weren't BLP compliant. See here. It's basically dropping insults AND original research on a BLP subject. We don't do that. rootology (C)(T) 17:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly object to what I consider to be misapplication of WP guidelines. I'm using a facility which closes now at the top of the hour, so I shall have to return to this issue tomorrow though. __meco (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly object to your ridiculous comments, but do I still have to listen to them? Grsz¹¹ 18:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

BLP-violating material may be removed from both the article and the talk page. Insulting the article's subject definitely qualifies. --GoodDamon 18:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No, not really. Describing Obama as a weak dancer is not the stuff of BLP. It is neither libelous, nor does it do any harm. The original poster comments that Obama dances like a "mechanical robot", suggests that it should be in the article, acknowledges that it is probably a minority position, but then says he / she is thinks certain commentators (i.e. sources) have mentioned the subject. It's simply a suggestion that's not terribly likely to make it into the article. It is not an outlandish suggestion, though. A number of major media personal profiles of Obama do mention relatively tangential stuff like his being left handed, playing basketball, dancing, or preference for J. Crew clothes.Wikidemon (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:BLP would not prohibit the original comment and it should not have been deleted with that justification. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, as the few talking heads who have lowered themselves to discuss this seemed to have made it into a subtle racial issue. In the same vein as White Men Can't Jump, blacks are stereotypically regarded as being good dancers, thus calling out Obama for essentially "not being black enough" may be beginning to cross a line. Tarc (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Compared to Al Gore, anybody can dance. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify my position on this: I have no problem with editors discussing the addition of sourced material regarding Obama's dancing. Contrast this with User:Meco's addition of unsourced material discussing Obama's dancing itself. In case it still isn't clear: Meco's opinion of Obama's dancing has no place in Wikipedia. WP:BLP says unequivocally that unsourced material does not belong on article, talk, or any other pages. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've no prob, with this dancing discussion being deleted. It's more a blog, then a discussion on what to add/subtract from the article. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

BLP cannot be reasonably interpreted as a blanket prohibition against unsourced material about living people on talk pages - if so we would have to blank 75% of this page and every BLP talk page... anyway, I think the problem with the comment is more of a WP:NOT#FORUM thing. There was a scintilla of a proposal in there. I know it takes a lot of patience to deal with the same thing again and again, and policies are important, but perhaps a gentle approach might be the most instructive for newbie editors contributing in good faith who want to chat about Obama. I think a simple "no" might go over better, like:

"Sorry, Wikipedia is only for sourced material. To go anywhere on the encyclopedia, a comment about his dancing would have to find a reliable published source and not just be our impressions of watching a video. Another requirement is that it has to be an effort sufficiently relevant and important to the subject of the article. With everything else we have to say about Obama, there just isn't room to get into this level of detail about his dancing style. Also, as a reminder, per Wikipedia policy please don't make unsourced disparaging statements about living people, especially matters of opinion. To keep this page on track I will close this discussion in a few hours. Thanks,"

You know, a spoon full of sugar. Wikidemon (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What you all are forgetting is that the original poster stated that Obama's inability to dance reflects on his character. You are NOT going to find ANY reliable source jumping to that ridiculous conclusion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

And you are misrepresenting the statements of the original poster (i.e. me). I made a crystal clear caveat stating that this was my opinion and mentioned simply to present the reason why I caught on to this issue. I never made any argument for that to be included in the article. I simply presented a brief context for my having taken interest in this matter.

Obviously, several editors are unable to discern the essence of my post – which has been censored in a biased interpretation of WP guidelines ad absurdum – have shown themselves unable to separate this incidental private opinion of mine from the substantive part of my original post (now deleted), being that I reckoned that several commentators would have given the issue of the president's ungracefulness on the dance floor their attention. Not surprisingly user Wikidemon immediately was able to deliver a number of references that confirmed my assumption. Now these commentators presenting their comments in reliable third-party sources is being spun as "the few talking heads who have lowered themselves to discuss this" and an attempt made to dismiss these as bigotted racists, thus rendering their opinions blanketly ignorable. I am most curiously anticipating the continuation of the frantic antics by the solemn order for the preservation of the cool and hip image of Barack H. Obama. __meco (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that he might prove to be the Gerald Ford of dancing is of virtually no consequence at this point. The entire inauguration was under a media microscope, and much of it will be forgotten in a day or a week. There was a clip the other day of Gerald Ford slipping and falling down the steps at Air Force One. That was of consequence, especially as it seemed to be part of a pattern. Someone's ability to dance or not has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH CHARACTER, and once you ventured into that territory, you invited ridicule - and by going down the road of trying to paint lack of interest in this as some kind of political correctness, only invites further ridicule. Black people that I know were making fun of his lack of dancing skill as "the white side" coming out. This is just more late night comedian fodder for a day or two, and if anything it enhances him - "he's human after all", that kind of thing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You are asserting your opinion that dancing skills has nothing to do with character. There are several angles to that. The first being, obviously, that attempting to strongarm a subjective opinion into being consensus, objectively and uncontroversially factual, is unfortunate as it reflects on the person's intellectual integrity. Secondly, there's the angle of presenting the straw man by commingling dancing skills per se with body poise and deportment. To quote my own initial (now deleted) description of the issue at hand, I described "congruity between a person's physical performance and their character on other levels". There are some of us who perceive the realms of physicality, emotionality, intellectuality and even spirituality as contiguous and intrinsically interconnected, correlated and analogous, not necessarily in a completely linear and imminently obvious manner, but nevertheless fundamentally related. Your disagreeing with this fundamental position on ontology, by extension weltanschauung, entails no mandate to deride or dismiss such a position on behalf of Wikipedia or the public at large. There has for the last forty years existed a progressively emerging paradigm, globally but with respect to its momentum centered on US society, which gives total acceptance to such considerations. To these groups of peoples, it is no mere gaffe or fluke, but an epiphany of yet undiscovered ramifications that the "leader of the free world" is apparently profoundly challenged when it comes to coordination of his body when tested on the dance floor. Now, by venturing into that territory I invited ridicule, you state. Maybe so, but for one party to choose the position of ridicule towards another surrounding a contentious issue does not mean that the second party's position is ridiculous, merely that another party thinks so. Nor does the one party finding something ridiculous constitute a strengthened consensus vis-á-vis its position. Finally there is the issue of who is attempting to paint this situation into something which it is not. If you were correct in your assertion that the reaction to my bringing up this issue was "lack of interest", then some editors are certainly presenting this disinterest with some significant fervor. __meco (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

As Meco has pointed out, another editor has provided sources. Unfortunately, the only things that Meco has provided have been personal opinions, unsourced speculation and digression, and borderline personal attacks against other editors. Meco, please review WP:NPA and also Talk:Barack Obama/article probation, then decide whether you want to engage in a productive discussion based on reliable sources and aimed at improving the article. If so, you are quite welcome to contribute here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What I'm hearing so far is what could be called "New Age Nonsense". By that theory, FDR was the worst President ever, because he couldn't even walk. Sorry, but this so-called "theory" is deserving of nothing but ridicule, and more to the point, it has no place whatsoever in this article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Gone to ANI

As Meco keeps re-inserting this BLP vio; and consensus is it IS a BLP vio, I'm posting a notice to ANI. rootology (C)(T) 14:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, not a BLP vio, and no consensus to that effect. The statement posted on this talk page is sourceable, not libelous, not plausibly likely to harm the President, and was posed as a sincere (if somewhat unlikely) question about article content. There is plenty of sourceable discussion to stand for the proposition that people have voiced opinions about Obama's dancing ability, e.g. Ellen and Michelle think Michelle is a better dancer than Barack.[6] Barack agrees but says that he is a better dancer than John McCain[7][8] and Rudi Giulliani.[9] Shane Sparks says Michelle and Barack could use a few lessons, but they're pretty good.[10] The Los Angeles Times calls their dancing "tentative".[11] I'm not going to waste any more effort sifting through the sources but you get the idea. Some of these sources clearly do think that the Obamas' dance moves offer some insight into their personal lives, and major reliable nationwide publications see fit to comment on it. The stated goals of BLP policy are to avoid doing harm and to avoid defamation. The Obamas joke about the subject on national TV so I hardly think they will be fazed by a Wikipedia talk page. And nobody is going to sue anybody over this in a million years. Why so much drama? I think the matter is resolved. Interesting suggestion but not appropriate for this article. Let's allow the bot to archive the page or even close the discussion if you must, and in the future please don't be afraid to allow good faith non-fringey discussions to take their course. Wikidemon (talk) 10:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll add that Meco inserted it nearly 24 hours ago now, and previously, 2 1/2 days before that. Any concern over edit warring looks pretty stale as well. I would urge both sides not to edit war, and just let things take their course - if you leave this alone it goes away.Wikidemon (talk) 10:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I shall leave this matter to rest provided nobody again adds the {{discussion top}} / bottom template pair to these sections before it is all archived in timely fashion. Please refer to WP:ANI for my tentatively final response to the issues that pertain to Wikipedia culture. __meco (talk) 08:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama's opposition to gay marriage

Something has me concerned. Barack Obama opposes gay marriage. I know alot of people will retort that he supports pretty much every other equal right for gays, including gay adoptions and of course civil unions. But he, using religion as an excuse, still denies them the right to marriage. Alot of people {including alot of starstruck gays} seem to see this as not that big a deal and make excuses for him on it and let him off the hook. I ask, how in the world is this any different than if a white president{or any politician or person in general}, using their religious or political beliefs did this to blacks; just exchange 'gay" for "black" and exchange "marriage" for "seating on a bus or in a restaurant,etc". Barack saying that stuff regarding gays is the same as a white leader saying "Blacks are equal in every way and should be equal in every way, but...they should give up their front seats on the bus to whites or others and move to the back". I mean, come on people, you know my comparison is a logical one. Why does no one criticize him for it? It's so incredibly hypocritical of him after all his race has gone through to excuse an inequality of a group, and it is unconscionable that so many people are so idol-stricken with this man that they refuse to say anything critical about him and his views in this or anything else that is not good{like how rationalists excuse his focus on and privilege given to religion, which they'd never let anyone else get away with so easily}. Everyone is so star struck by his race {being the first black or biracial or non-white president} and his rhetoric and charisma that they give him this almost uncritical demi-god or superhero like status and refuse to be objective and critical about him or any of his views. Should he not be criticized for this view about gay marriage, should not his supporters be demanding he give up his ignorant,archaic religiously based support of this inequality of this group? I also think that this should be mentioned in the part of the article on Obama's "political views", because we all know that if it were a white politician whom held the view that blacks are equal in every way but that they should give up their seat on a bus that this would be in their political views section, and not only that...but people- especially my fellows of a left-leaning variety, rationalists, gays and all minority groups,etc, would be all over that leader like white on rice to change their opinion and their support of such a repressive/oppressive inequality {no matter how small or big of one it may be}, why then no national and international criticism of Obama on this gay marriage thing, on his support of an inequality that flies in the face of the rights of a fair, multicultural, liberal democracy and the constitution thereof. I hope everyone will stop their idol worshiping of Obama soon and long enough to get after him to give 100% equal rights to gays, including marriage, instead of placating the religious nuts that repress such equal rights. Anyways, I ask that someone make mention of this in his "political views" on the article.--Iconoclastithon (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

While the tone of the above comment is a bit of a rant, I think there is a modicum of an actual article editing suggestion contained in it. Not to say I agree particularly, but it is not unreasonable to argue that the article should contain more information on Obama's political positions around gay rights, same-sex marriage, and the like.

Iconoclastithon's suggestion is certainly not more absurd than the constant barrage of "re-discoveries" that we describe Obama's race/ethnicity wrongly, or especially the equally recurring tin-foil hat suggestions about his eligibility for the presidency. Those comments rarely get outright deleted as someone did of this one, even though they are far less likely to result in article improvements. LotLE×talk 21:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If Iconoclastithon's rant is permissible, then ranting on talk pages is allowed as long as the rant is about the topic covered by the article and contains at least one sentence requesting all or part of the rant be added to the article. I think that would be a terrible precedent. SMP0328. (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree that Iconoclastithon's comments are mostly a rant, I don't think we can safely "edit" another user's comments that contain some suggestions for the article; we can't take out part of the edit and leave what we think is acceptable. And LGBT issues are a legitimate point of discussion. Some details about the issue can be found at Political positions of Barack Obama#LGBT issues. A brief overview might be appropriate in Barack Obama. Ward3001 (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. 207.237.232.82 (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Why did you bring your rant onto a site which is meant to stay neutral? I don't mean to sound harsh, but honestly, get your point across for what you want edited and move on.

74.181.122.248 (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Zach

I know it's rude to answer a question with a question, but surely the answer to "why no criticism?" has to be "why no reliable sources documenting criticism?" Wikipedia's purpose is not to offer praise or criticism, but to document them when they are published. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing in here about improving this article - does anyone have any RS they want to suggest etc? --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If there's a page on Obama's various policy positions, this fact could be included. The ranter forgets that there is not now, nor has there ever been, anything preventing a liberal-thinking minister from conducting a same-sex marriage. The ranter is complaining about the legal aspect of marriage, i.e. the right of the people to determine what constitutes the legal definition of marriage, in regard to contracts and tax privileges and such connected with the legal side of marriage. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That's actually not true on the liberal minister, or perhaps a liberal Catholic priest. If they were a totally independent religious sect or branch, with no higher-body leadership (before anyone says it, I don't mean God, but like the Vatican) they could theoretically just "marry" gays. However, if a Catholic priest in the Vatican hierarchy did that they would find themselves very quickly in a world of diocese or higher crap. That's the thing that everyone overlooks all the time. You can make a law, even a full Constitutional amendment if you could pull it off at the state level saying gays can marry. You cannot legally require that a religious organization extend what they consider a "spiritual" wedding to anyone they don't want to. Legal benefits, the word "marriage" and all it carries and implies? Absolutely. "Marriage" in the Catholic context? Not possible. I'm sure there are some legal aspects you can bring into the scene from a discrimination aspect that could affect churches in a scenario where they refused to do such a wedding, but you simply can't make a law that says any church IS required to honor or conduct a certain marriage. A law enabling "marriage" for same-sex though? Absolutely and utterly legal. rootology (C)(T) 14:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we please limit this discussion to Obama's positions on LGBT issues? Ward3001 (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh hai! Back from ded. Its always fun to watch these debates. Iconoclast wants us to "insert" info on his supposed anti-gay in the political section but reading the underlying passive-aggression of the rant, I believe Icono would prefer we portray the article as a clusterfrak juxtaposition of ushering a black man into office on the heels of gay hate. Class/gender/race warfare is not exactly something I'd like to visit nor seems relevant by WP WEIGHT. So I defer Icono to Political positions of Barack Obama where it can appropriately be expounded. davumaya 11:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

UCC, Again

Die4Dixie is interested in the "Religion" entry in the infobox again, and has altered it to assert the Obama resigned from the United Church of Christ. Last time consensus was that we could show he left Trinity, but not necessarily the UCC itself, and that the infobox should show that. D4D has found a single reference, which seems to me a casual throwaway line, that he resigned the denomination itself. I suggest a reversion to the consensus version. (I see someone has already changed it back to "Christian" already. That's better, but I see no reason to ignore consensus. PhGustaf (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The way I see it, UCC is a denomination of Christianity.. there are several sources that say he's still a member of the UCC denomination, but there is at least one that says he is no longer affiliated with UCC. If he is no longer affiliated with UCC, we don't know to which denomination (or even if there's a denomination) he belongs. Since there is some ambiguity, I think we should just leave it as "Christian." We know he's not a Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, etc.. so Christian is accurate no matter which denomination - if any - he belongs to. If, later, there arises a source proclaiming he is definitely still a member of UCC or that he is a member of another denomination, we can add it.. but until then, "Christian" suffices. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, the sources that say he is UCC all predate the break with TUCC.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's probably safer if we stick with the status quo on what the vast majority of the sources say, barring something ironclad from Obama himself recorded on video, or in something from a major news source attributed to him. rootology (C)(T) 02:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There are sources that identify Obama as UCC after he resigned Trinity. It took me less than a minute to find this one with Google. And this one says he resigned Trinity but says nothing about resigning UCC. On Wikipedia, when sources conflict (especially when only one source even hints that he resigned UCC) it is customary to go with consensus. And the previous consensus was to identify his denomination as UCC. I'm OK with the generic designation of "Christian" until this can be settled more clearly, but I don't think there is much credible evidence that he resigned UCC at this point. Ward3001 (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This is like deja vu all over again. As I recall, it had been established that resigning from Trinity was equivalent to resigning from the denomination. The question at this point is what church (if any) the Obama family has signed up for in DC. That would put this ongoing issue to an end. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is handily archived at [12].Not only did we not agree that resignation from the congregation equated to resignation from the denomination, but D4D signed on to the compromise version. Nothing has changed since then.PhGustaf (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly has changed. We have a reliable 3rd party source that says he left the denomination. It is cited. He is Christian . He professes this. We have no reliable source that says he is in the denomination after his resignation from TUCC, WP:IDONTLIKE notwithstanding. Since it is sourced, you can attempt to gain a consensus that Christian is not accurate and United Church of Christ is.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

PS> you might want to check your source. The NYT piece refers to a time before the rupture.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes we do have a source that identifies him as UCC: the first one I linked to above. And I'm not sure why you mean by the NY Times piece, but both of the sources I linked above are dated after he left Trinity. We may have a source that he left UCC, but we have at least one source that indentifies him as a member of UCC. Ward3001 (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

About.com? Haha. How about a reliable source. At least one.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Your second source doesn't say that he IS a member of UCC.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Tell me (without the sarcasm) why about.com is an unreliable source. Specifics please. The information was provided directly from the Obama campaign to the author. Ward3001 (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

D4D, the source you cite in your change is the same 11/17 article we discussed last CHristas. Nothing has changed, PhGustaf (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's another source that identifies Obama as UCC after he left Trinity. Tell me that one isn't a reliable source, D4D, but that excuse will start to wear thin very quickly. Ward3001 (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally think simply putting Christian is the best thing to do, based on the sources. We know for certain he is a Christian, and we know for certain he left Trinity. When Obama announces his choice for a new church it can be added, but for now Christian is the best thing to do IMO. Landon1980 (talk) 04:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Sorry that you interpreted my genuine amusement as sarcasm. I have posed the question directly to Mary Fairchild as well as on their forum. You say she received the information directly from his campaign? Perhaps you might also tell us when she received it. I surmise ( not encyclopedic, of course) that it's continued inclusion was an oversight on her part. So far we have about.com and msnbc ( who meets the criterion of a reliable source at WP:RS). Does about.com ?Die4Dixie (talk) 04:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DemocraplypseNow (talk • contribs)

An oversight? If that's the case, then the journalist for msnbc.com made "an oversight" by referring to Obama's resignation from Trinity erroneously as resignation from UCC. What about the source I cite above from thehill.com? Tell us how that one is an unreliable source, or an oversight. Ward3001 (talk) 04:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hope you dont mind D4D, I moved your comment to the right section, I think its in the right place. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

sorry to have taken so long; I wanted to read the article and research the source. It is indeed a reliable source. We have two reliable sources that say different things. All sources say Christian, before and after. Without a clear crushing consensus of relaible sources in agreement on UCC, Wikipedia should reflect what the majority of WP:RS 's do say: Christian.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a little early to declare consensus. It can remain "Christian" unless a consensus emerges. Ward3001 (talk) 05:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. We could always have a request for comment.Die4Dixie (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool,thanks for moving it.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles such as (in Spanish) indicate that the Obamas are "Christians" and are considering various churches of various Christian Protestant denominations, i.e "church shopping" including UCC and non-UCC congregations. It is hard to find reliable sources stating that UCC is still his denomination, but it appears to be still in the running. I did not find sources saying he had explicitly renounced the denomination. Edison (talk) 05:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

As the source you offered, they have several congregations to chose from. If you care to look at OR that can't be used in the article, but might be enlightening look at article 5 of the constitution and bylaws of the UCC. here [[13]].Die4Dixie (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

"The Hill serves to connect the players, define the issues and influence the way Washington's decision makers view the debate." That's from the new source's website on their about page. Not to be too dismissive, I'd trust the Associated Press release over a k-street lobbying firm. And I agree that the denomination can be left out until the dust settles. Modocc (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Guess they're Episcopalian-Baptists?

1. January 18: Obamas attend Nineteenth Street Baptist.[14][15]
2. January 20: They attend St. John's Episcopal.[16]
3. January 24: Mount Calvary Missionary Baptist[17]

↜Just me, here, now … 17:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course they aren't: attendance and membership are completely unrelated. I'm Orthodox Presbyterian, but I sometimes attend other churches. My father is Southern Baptist Convention;howerever, when I go to church with him it doesn't make me a Baptist.17:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's time to close this section unless someone can add anything more substantive. It has dwindled down to trivia. Ward3001 (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW I believe that this question will probably continue to pop back up on this page -- like a mass of fresh mushrooms in a woodland meadow -- whether we decide to ceremoniously close this section or not; and, unless the Obamas come to formally join a congregation, where they come to most often participate in their expression of Christian faith may well provide the only definitive answer possible to this perennially recurring question. ↜Just me, here, now … 17:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Won't be anything "definitive" unless the join a church. Even regular attendance would not meat the definition for denomination. Christian would still be the most accurate (unless he repudiates that too;))Die4Dixie (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

For those reading/ following, about.com, by it's own admission, is not a reliable source at this time. I asked Mary Faichild, the author of the about.com piece here about Obama and UCC: [[18]]. I invite you all to follow this as it unfolds.Die4Dixie (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing on the page to indicate about.com declares itself unreliable. If it's a forum comment, there is no logic (or policy on Wikipedia) to use a forum comment from a website you consider unreliable to determine if the website is reliable. Ward3001 (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course I'm not saying that the Forum that is attached to About.com in which the author of the page on Obama thanks me for drawing the problem to her attention and says she needs to update the page would cast doubt on how reliable the very author thought her work was. Nah, that would require to great a leap of faith :)! I would direct you to WP:DENSEDie4Dixie (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the author needs to update the article, but that does not make about.com unreliable. I think the article I cited can be considered reliable because a forum comment cannot be used to rule out reliability. What does WP:DENSE have to do with any this? A good faith bit of humor I hope. Ward3001 (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. I also thought that you might want to consider the logic of arguing for UCC when you can read the forum post by the author about the question of Obama and UCC. She says the page is out of date. Why would you argue that an out of date page that needs to be updated by the author's own admission would be reliable? Seems a little rigid to me, and I'm a Fundamentalist.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Not rigid at all. It conforms to Wikipedia policy. Forums are unacceptable as sources of information on Wikipedia. So if we exclude any forum comments, the reliability of the article is intact. There may be thousands of sources cited as reliable in Wikipedia that the authors wish to update. That does not mean we need to go through and challenge those sources unless there are other conflicting reliable sources. That's great you're a fundamentalist. I'm a Wkipedian. Ward3001 (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Er... Are you really arguing that a source that the author says is inaccurate because she needs to update it is reliable. If so, we really can't have a rational discussion, and I concede the field, sir.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Er... I'm really arguing that we abide by Wikipedia policies. If you feel that the policies of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR are irrational, then you may be right that we can't have a rational discussion. This one is quite clear-cut. Forums are not acceptable. If you want to dispute that you need to take it up on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, not here. And if you want to challenge a reliable source, you do it with another reliable source, not a forum. Ward3001 (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, preparing you one serving of crow, how do you like it?Die4Dixie (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

People can be pretty fluid about the various Protestant denominations. If you want to be more specific than simply Christian, you can use Protestant. Flatterworld (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be OR. Obama does self identify as a "liberal Christian".Die4Dixie (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope by my use of "Epicopalian-Baptists," my tongue-in-cheek-ness was self-evident. IAC it may be informative to compare Obama's infobox entry with that of John McCain's? (Which is as follows):

Religion: Southern Baptist congregant
(Brought up Episcopalian)
[footnote: McCain was christened and raised Episcopalian. See Nichols, Hans. "McCain Keeps His Faith to Himself, at Church and in Campaign", Bloomberg (2008-04-25). He now identifies as a Baptist, although he has not been baptized as an adult, and is not an official member of the church he attends. See Warner, Greg. "McCain’s faith: Pastor describes senator as devout, but low-key", Associated Baptist Press (2008-04-08). Retrieved 2008-09-06. Also see Hornick, Ed. "McCain and Obama cite moral failures", CNN, (2008-08-16): "McCain, who was raised an Episcopalian and now identifies himself as Baptist, rarely discusses his faith." Retrieved 2008-08-16. Also see Reston, Maeve and Mehta, Seema. "Barack Obama and John McCain to Meet at Saddleback Church", Los Angeles Times, (2008-08-16): "McCain [is] an Episcopalian who attends a Baptist church in Phoenix..." Retrieved 2008-08-16.]

↜Just me, here, now … 17:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be a disaster! Can you imagine those who would want to put : Born Muslim, raised Atheist , adopted by Soetero, Muslim again. The parading out of Indonesian school records, the pronouncements by imams that his father was Muslim thus he was born Muslim. Hell, no. Christian will work nicely unless he formally joins a church, thanks ;)Die4Dixie (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC) D4D, I'm confused. Which post are you responding to? Ward3001 (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• The one right above it, Ward .Die4Dixie (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Lol. ;^) ↜Just me, here, now … 18:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC) (Actually, I believe whatever is uncontroversially documented from among what you've just alleged about O's religious history really ought be included in a footnote to what's said about it in the infobox, yes.... ) ↜Just me, here, now … 19:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

At this point about the only non-controversial word to use is "Christian" (some extremists would even call that controversial). We can't even come to an easy agreement about what branch of Christianity should be included in the infobox. Adding footnotes about Muslim birth or atheism would spark another huge debate on this page. And frankly, I would be among the debaters. Even a footnoted comment like that puts too too much weight on those issue for this article. There's another article on Obama controversies. Ward3001 (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Good, we are in agreement about this at least.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Before this brouhaha, the box said, close enough, "Christian (Last associated with United Church of Christ"). This is what we, including D4D, agreed to last Dec. 24 or 25. It's inarguably true, and certainly more informative than simply "Christian". I see no reason reason to rescind the consensus. PhGustaf (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with "Christian (Last associated with United Church of Christ)", although I can live with simply "Christian" for now. And, as always, any consensus is subject to change if new information emerges, including additional reliable sources that identify Obama as UCC currently, or Obama officially affiliates himself with a particular congregation. Ward3001 (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, either seems fine to me too. Consider that the Obamas have just moved cities; they are likely to settle at a new church in the coming weeks that will make things a little less ambiguous. Bigbluefish (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I had thought the issue was settled a month ago, with the parenthetic comment about UCC. I don't see the need to change it from that. And as you say, once they align with a church in DC, this will become moot. The parenthetic comment is merely a placeholder. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"Last associated with" is weaselly. Resigned from TUCC and the date would be more accurate and encyclopedic. "Christian", or "Liberal Christian" ( as he self identifies) is the best option. We can avoid the whole resignation and his long association with Rev. Wright by just leaving a simple " Christian". Accurate, amply well sourced, and not contentious in the least and avoids weaselly obfuscations.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

But "resigned from TUCC" is the very essence of all this disagreement. The word "resigned" does not belong there at all unless we have a clear consensus or overwhelming sourced evidence that he resigned from the denomination (not just the congregation). No one disagrees that he was "last associated with" UCC as far as I can see. My opinion is either "last associated with", or if we can't reach agreement on that, then "Christian". Ward3001 (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

We agreed on "Last associated with" a month ago; this discussion is not about building a new consensus rather than about repudiating an existing one. There is no reason to do that. I have no idea why D4D changed his mind about it. PhGustaf (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"Christian" is accurate since we do not have anything further. If you include the last associated be prepared to have to deal withe the Rev. Wright issue and Trinity resignation which are indeed notable events in his life. I would prefer "Christian" and us not open the door. Resignation from a church that he attended for 20 years, in which he was baptized and married and his personal relationship with the pastor are extremely relevant to his biography. Do you want to also deal with this?Die4Dixie (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact , "last associated with" implies that he is no longer associated with the denomination and a tacit acknowledgment of the separation from the denomination. Same objections you have to "resigned from" would seem to apply here too. " christian doesn't seem to be contentious.Die4Dixie (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It may imply that to you, D4D, but that doesn't mean it implies that to everyone. "Last associated with" says nothing about whether he is currently associated with the denomination. It simply means that the last time we had any solid evidence, he was associated with UCC. "Last associated with" does not mean "resigned from". If you don't have a dictionary handy, I have provided links to Wiktionary for your convenience. Ward3001 (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have that handy dandy dictionary , tell me what the difference between "last associated with " and " currently associated with" is or provide me the links so that I can see myself :). ( If it is the same dictionary that you used to look up "reliable" above, then I'll pass, thanks! :-)Die4Dixie (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's see, last "3a: next before the present. " Clearly indicates that it is not the present one. How much did you pay for that Wictionary? If not the present one, then it is the former one. Hmmm.. Must mean he is s-e-p-a-r-a-t-e-d, (can you say separated?) from the denomination. Reading is so fun.; )Die4Dixie (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"Last": "Most recent". Obama was most recently associated with UCC. Do you know of another denomination he has been most recently associated with?

"Resign": "To quit a job or position". This entire debate is about whether he quit UCC, and we have not reached that conclusion by consensus. Ward3001 (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Associated :"Having partial status or privileges. ". Perhaps you should buy a dictionary. This from your source.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Gotta source for resign here [[19]Die4Dixie (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Section break

If I understand correctly, we have reliable sources saying he was baptised into the UCC, and that he resigned from that congregation, though no source says he left that church. It seems to me that the infobox should contain the most up-to-date reliable information that we have, which is "Christian, baptised into UCC". To say anything else would involve speculation to some extent. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. He is Christian, and he was baptized into UCC. I don't think anyone disputes that. Ward3001 (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Per you comment below, perhaps we could say " Baptized by Jeremiah Wright and wikilink to him?Die4Dixie (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we couldn't. Wright has been dealt with in previous discussions, and isn't relevant here. One more time: we are not talking about change here. We are talking about reverting to a consensus version that you yourself agreed to, and it's disingenuous at best for you stir up the issue again to push your rather obvious agenda. PhGustaf (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

my obvious agenda is accuracy. I was quite happy not to mention Wright. Mention UCC or Trinity and we have weight problems, thats all. Perhaps you might want to email me what you think my agenda is, and I would be delighted to discuss it. Email would keep your speculations about me as an editor instead of my edits away from an improper forum (ie here)Die4Dixie (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

[[20]] source says he is not in denomination. Except for the LDS church, you are baptized into Christ, not into the church. That would be extremely contentious. Christian is not. Mention UCC/ TUCC and we need to deal with that resignation in the body of the article.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

D4D, that's the third time you've cited the very same AP story from 11/17. It doesn't get much different for being said over and over. And, as a source, it's far to feeble to stand as a reference in a BLP -- it doesn't declare the denomination resignation, it assumes it en passant. PhGustaf (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sheffield Steel had missed it. Can't hurt being shown to those who miss it.Die4Dixie (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You presented it as if it were something new and shiny. That's at best disingenuous. PhGustaf (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Either you have read a post that I made months ago when I described something as " at best disingenuous" or this is the new word for the day, as you have used it twice. I know it pays to enrich your word power [[21]], but it's getting a little trite.Die4Dixie (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Until he chooses a Church could it not say he was baptized by the UCC rather than into the UCC? Titch Tucker (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

He was baptized by a person. He was baptized in a church. Ward3001 (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Physical locations of where one was baptized don't seem notable, unless he went to the Holy Land and was baptized in the Jordan. I think we can all agree on that.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Not notable unless the Rev. Wright debacle and the resignation are too. We can certainly add it. There should be no mention of it because without the discussion of Wright in the article, it gives WP:UNDUE problems.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Birth Certificate Conspiracy (again)

Best line in this iteration: "If Chief Justice Roberts even had a hint that Barack might not have been born in the U.S. do you really think he would have sworn him in-- twice?!?" Enough already. Tvoz/talk 21:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. Covered in question 5 of the FAQ. I'm going to make this as simple as I can in the first paragraph, for those people who either don't have the time to read the rest, those who can't, or those who don't want to read more. The reason people keep bringing up this topic is because it is a hotly contested and debated, controversy. There are several court cases still pending, including cases submitted to the Supreme Court. Until these cases are settled, where Obama was born shouldn't be taken as fact or consensus. If these cases continue indefinitely, which is highly unlikely, then I would ask that a reasonable timeframe be set, before conjecture and plausibility are taken as fact, say 2 years. I'm sure in that amount of time, the controversy will be over, one way or another, whether Obama was born in Hawaii or not. I'm not asking that Wikipedia say that Obama was born in another country. I'm not asking that the Barack page say that he is unfit for president. I do not know where Obama was born, and it's not my job to know the facts, or create consensus. From my vantage, the fact is, that there are many people of this country who do not know where Obama was born. Some of them would like to know, and some don't care. If there is a majority of people who think that Obama was born in the US, when in fact he may not have been, then I would like those people who don't know, to be able to come to Wikipedia, and know the truth, consensus, and fact, that it is contested subject, instead of finding a statement that Obama was born in Hawaii. I'd also like to make a comment to the insulters of the shiny-metal-head-covering crowd, about a true shiny-metal-head-covering topics, like ghosts, and Aliens. Both of these topics have wikis that reflect the consensus that "no one really knows." The topic of Barack Obama shares little in common with those topics, since "someone does know," unfortunately the two people who would probably know best, Barack's parents, are both dead. However, with existing evidence, we should be able to find out where Barack was actually born, and if not, at least come to a consensus. Unfortunately, for those people who have shiny-head-covering phobias, the current consensus is, apparently in the favor of the people without such phobias.Erik Stone (talk) 04:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC) "No one really knows"? That is a funny one. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC) You must be referring to my statement about aliens and ghosts, since what I said about Obama is "someone does know." It's ok, I'm not surprised about the lack of specificity in your quote, or perhaps the lack of observance in your reading.Erik Stone (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC) This is an old issue that has been settled thoroughly. Take a look at his birth certificate, and move on to something else. Ward3001 (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC) As for you, the URL you gave specifically says, "Certification Of Live Birth" for which you added "birth certificate" to, in my opinion, to try to fool people in to thinking it's the same thing, which it is not. Evidence for this can easily be found at a the wiki site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_certificate which describes the difference between a birth certificate, certification of live birth, and a certificate of live birth.Erik Stone (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC) By your reasoning, most of us were never born. Give it up Erik. Move on. You are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point that no one is buying. Ward3001 (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Day to day I'm reminded of the reason im pro-choice. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 04:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Yeah, me too.Erik Stone (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC) "hotly contested and debated" by what reliable sources? AnyPerson (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Bingo. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC) By peopleErik Stone (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC) It is "hotly contested and debated" by a lunatic fringe group of truthers. Seriously, the overwhelming majority of sentient beings dismiss this gibberish as being comically absurd. Tarc (talk) 04:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC) I have seen many people get very angry about verifying Barack's "Birth Certificate," if one exists, but I haven't seen to many people online, or anywhere else act in a funny way about the topic. Perhaps because I don't watch enough TV.Erik Stone (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC) I changed the name of the section title, to reflect accuracy. DemocraplypseNow (talk) 05:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC) There is no reliable mainstream source that has any question about the legality of his birth. Until there is, the article does not even need to mention any controversy. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC) It would give undue weight to an unsupported fringe theory to give it prominence in the article. It is only "hotly contested and debated" among those who wear tinfoil hats, with chinstraps. Edison (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC) According to the cabal-approved policy Wikipedia:Incontrovertible evidence of birthplace, the Wikimedia foundation must be provided with: (1) a hard copy of the long form of a birth certificate of *every* WP:BLP and (2) archival samples of the placental fluid of the mother, signed in triplicate by the hospital of birth. Otherwise, Wikipedia is not permitted to indicate any kind of spatiotemporal coordinates of birthplace whatsoever, even if every reliable source in existence agrees. In fact, according to the policy so indicated, the article is not even permitted to suggest that Obama was born on the planet Earth. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC) This has already been settled in Wiki-Land. What do the reliable sources say? That he was born in Hawaii. What does his BLP say? Just that. What else do the reliable sources say? That there are court cases pending related to controversies over his place of birth. What does the existing article on Obama's citizenship controversies say? Just that. Done. Move on. Newguy34 (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Unless something new emerges, this is a dead horse. He was born in Hawaii, according to all reliable sources.Die4Dixie (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC) You're being naive D4D. Horse resurrections are common on Wikipedia.  ;) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Especially the south end. One thing the complaining user may be unaware of is the Hawaiian newspaper article announcing Obama's birth in Hawaii. Unless that was planted there by Peabody and Sherman. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Is that online anywhere, where we can use it as RS? Just curious. rootology (C)(T) 05:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC) I think it's in one of the many archives on the subject. It might also be covered in a spinoff article on the subject. We've been through this nonsense so many times it's hard to keep track of where everything is. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC) It's mentioned in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC) I believe the question is whether the Hawaiian newspaper article is online. As far as I know it isn't, but factcheck.org has made a scanned snippet available, that they evidently feel is authentic. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC) I believe the question is whether the Hawaiian newspaper article is online. As far as I know it isn't, but factcheck.org has made a scanned snippet available, that they evidently feel is authentic. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Any jane and john can file a suit against and bob and claire,point being, just because there is a case in front of a court does not mean anything, especially because most of these cases will not be seen or dismissed because they are complete junk.BTW having a time frame of 2 years before we finally decided that we were right and he was born in Hawaii after all.There are still people that believe in that the Moon landing was a hoax, and how long ago was that?He was born in Hawaii and all reliable sources will say that, and this is only hot and contested because the same people that believe in the moonhoax keep bringing it up and some people like the OP keep believing them, as long as they have a audience they will keep brining it up. Durga Dido (talk) 07:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC) First, since you're not replying to the comment you interjected this after, let's move it to the bottom: ThuranX (talk) 07:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Probably most of you don't care about the official website of the state of Hawaii, since it seems to me, the emotions you've expressed already decided your facts so clearly, but here is is anyway. http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl I try to make this as easy as possible. Here's an excerpt: "In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL." Also, here is a court case describing some of the technicalities that are unknown about Obama's "Certification," not that some of you guys care, since the Washington Post and the NY Times journalists believe Obama was born in Hawaii. http://www.state.hi.us/jud/opinions/ica/2008/ica28028.htm There is also no mention of a "Certification" on the fed page: http://www.census.gov.ph/data/civilreg/cv2.html Finally, I'd like to see this "consensus" that moderators keep telling me exists in favor of stating definitively that Obama was born in Hawaii. Certainly, what opinions exist on Wikipedia, aren't shared by the whole country, world, or even of majority of either. However, if Wikipedia "consensus" is what rules on Wikipedia, then let me see it. Show me this reliable source link to the wikipedia consensus, since all I've seen is disagreement. Reply to this post with a "may have been born" if you think the consensus is that there is disagreement. Reply with a "was born" if you think the consensus is that he was definitively born in Hawaii. I'll watch for 7 days. If the "was born" number is higher, I'll disappear. If the number is higher for the "may have been born" then I hope the moderators will allow me to edit that phrase. Erik Stone (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC) The court case referenced is a custody hearing from 2006, so... that's out. Any conclusions you draw from that case about Barack Obama's birth in Hawaii 46 years before, are WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:CRAZY. Further, your census link is the Philipines. Another completely insane, irrelevant link. Since you have successfully demonstrated that Philipine census law cannot prove that Barack Obama was born in 1997 and custody of Barack wasn't decided in 2006, we can close this thread as solved. Can 't satisfy 100% of the people 100% of the time. Try being a more patriotic, less racist, American wherever you go next. Because the only peopel screaming that Obama's not american born are scared bigots, terrified that blacks will come get them in the night. ThuranX (talk) 07:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC) He's the fucking President of the United States already, can we move on? If Chief Justice Roberts even had a hint that Barack might not have been born in the U.S. do you really think he would have sworn him in-- twice?!? Get for real. Tiefoon (talk) 08:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Close this one? Wikidemon (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Every single discussion about this topic has concluded with the consensus that as far as any reliable source is concerned, there is no question as to the birthplace of Obama. A birth certificate or court case are not reliable sources pertaining to how strongly Obama's claimed birthplace is accepted. The entirety of the published media and every politician and justice official with any appreciable regional, national or international influence is. This talk page is not for convincing one individual to agree with over a dozen participants defending an already-established consensus. Any continuation of this discussion in the absence of a new source suitable for Wikipedia use should be considered disruptive debate-mongering. Bigbluefish (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Inaugural ceremony"?

"He was sworn into office on January 20, 2009 in an inaugural ceremony at the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C." - Really? An inaugural ceremony? How were the other Presidents sworn in? My query here is whether the phrase "in an inaugural ceremony at the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C." is actually necessary. 92.10.123.73 (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

A very valid point. I changed it to something more concise, also avoiding the term "sworn into office" since there is the slight ambiguity as to whether the oath on the 20th was valid. Bigbluefish (talk) 13:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Tributes

I saw this story today: [22]. Is it possible to rename Canada in El Presidente's honor? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the canadiennes will go for it. Questions like that could probably be bettered answered by their embassy in DC. A little beyond the scope of Wikipedia editors, no matter how sympathetic to Obama they be.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

On a late night talk show once, I heard Dave Foley of NewsRadio fame say of his native Canada, "We're so liberal we make Castro look like a Republican." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparantly none of you has seen List of places named after Barack Obama. Grsz¹¹ 23:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw some of them in the News, but the issue here is Canada, and I don't see them buying into it. Obama makes the Canadiennes look like Republicans!Die4Dixie (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

inauguration section

It will be of vital importance to the furture to understand that the inauguration of this president because whatever reason was not held in general assembly but in a smaller setting, even though those who attend would be disappointed that they never really did attend on 20 Jan 2009 but those who attend on 22 Jan 2009 is the real date of inauguration. Greenrepublic (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with any of the language in the section, but I have some questions: do we need this section at all? What does it really add to the article?LedRush (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, its still fairly fresh in everyone's mind, and since we have an sub-article on it, it generally helps in the main article to at least give a short paragraph on the subject. I don't think we can't afford the 3-4 sentances given to it here. In 4 years, when we have more material on his presidency, it may be decided that this section is too much, but as of today, it doesn't seem to be doing much harm, and given the recentness of it, it is likely that many readers will be interested in details on the actual inauguration. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree. While fresh just a couple of hours into his presidency, this is appropriate now, but might not be later on.  Marlith (Talk)  05:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

But what does it add? The first sentence doesn't give us any new information. The second is interesting trivia, but not suitable for a biography.LedRush (talk) 05:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Everything in an encyclopedic article should be of longer-term relevancy. We are not a news outlet. 78.34.146.122 (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

We're also not a crystal ball. If for any reason Obama's presidency ended right now, his inauguration would remain as important a part of the article as it is now. I guarantee that the biography of Obama's successor will currently have a much longer section about their pre-presidential career than will finally exist when they too have served out a term of presidential office. Documenting details which will lose relative weight over the course of history is part of the nature of biographies of living people. Bigbluefish (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This entire section is shocking recentism and should really be removed. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That's as lazy an argument as one justifying content because it's recent. This inauguration had the biggest turnout in history. How much detail is necessary and whether it requires its own section is open to debate, but this is at least as important to his life story as his "presidential transition". It's patently false to presume that the most recent event is not an important one. Bigbluefish (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You're missing my point. From a biographical context, this is an example of recentism. The article should say Obama became President on January 20, 2009 and that's about it. The time of the oath is a trivial detail, as are details concerning the "oath redo" that occurred later. These are relevant details for the inauguration article, but not the BLP. Likewise the transition section is recentism and should receive a similar, abrupt treatment. Neither the transition, nor the inauguration, need their own sections. There are probably too many images as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's an extremely current piece of majorly discussed information on Obama that people will be looking for. We service our readers, not our policies, which in turn support our content to service the readers. Taking the section out in a couple weeks or months is going to be trivial, but less than 2 days AFTER the most historic Presidential inauguration ever? Too soon. rootology (C)(T) 14:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that seems ass-backwards to me. Current events (excepting things like deaths) are meant to be the purview of Wikinews. These are minor, trivial details about the inauguration, which itself is fairly biographically trivial. The fact that he took the oath of office twice is only of relevance to the fringe theorists. Biographies of living persons are supposed to be written from a historical perspective, and if you think something is important now but less important later, that's a classic example of why it should be left out. Indeed, there is a separate article dedicated to the inauguration - that's where these sorts of details belong. Please remember this is a BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to be all POINTy, but the inauguration of the first black President in the US is not even vaguely trivial. rootology (C)(T) 15:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The details of the inauguration belong on an inauguration page, not as minutia in the Obama article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

And like I said, I don't disagree. I just was saying that we don't need to rush to purge it faster-than-fast less than 48 hours after the inauguration. rootology (C)(T) 16:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, that's ass-backwards. There shouldn't have been a rush to include it. That's what recentism is all about. And to be brutally frank, the specific details of the inauguration are trivial in the context of Obama's entire life. The election of a black president is the "wow" bit, not the inauguration. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh please, if former president George Walker Bush would have screwed up like Obama did at the inauguration, then all of the Bush haters here would have been demanding that it be mentioned in the opening paragraph! I think the screw up definately deserves a mention in the article somewhere, probably in the inauguration section. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Presidency and Inauguration

I've cut out the inauguration section and instead pointed readers to the main article on it as part of the Presidency section. This was an overdetailed account for the BLP article. The introduction already includes the salient information, and folks need to remember this is a summary style article. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Consider yourself endorsed. Grsz¹¹ 18:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.LedRush (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The "see also" formatting makes a lot more sense. Good stuff. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

← I'm not sure how you envisioned this going forward, Scjessey, and I do agree that we should avoid the nitpicky details here like the exact time of various events, etc from the inauguration, but as an article written in summary style we certainly need to have some summary here about the Presidency in the main article with the pointer to the main article and the see also. Most people do not read the forks, as the stats show, so this article shouldn't look as though there's nothing to say about the presidency to the majority of readers. I don't want to see a minute-by-minute reporting of what happens in the administration, but I think having a summary of important events as they occur is in order, and I'd include a sentence about the inauguration and inaugural address as a starter. This is tricky, because obviously there;s no perspective yet on what is important and there will be a regrettable tendency of recentism, but a blank section isn't the answer either. Tvoz/talk 21:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the inauguration is a significant enough event to warrant its own section (from a BLP perspective), but I certainly do think it is worthy of a sentence or two in a section that covers the Presidency as a whole. The problem we face is that there isn't enough presidency material to construct a sensible summary. My view is that there is no hurry - I would rather see the Presidency section develop over the next few weeks (in which there will no doubt be a number of noteworthy events) and then incorporate inauguration-related material. I can understand that editors are excited about what is happening and want to see everything documented, but BLPs are meant to be written from a historical perspective. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I essentially agree with that - especially the no-hurry part, but I'd go for a sentence or two now that says he took office on Jan 20 and how his first acts represented a change in direction from the previous 8 years, in terms of his executive orders etc - something like that wwith source, so that the section isn't standing empty. I'll see if I can come up with something and/or maybe someone else will. But I do agree with your overall point - we can't and shouldn't have a play by play here in the bio. Tvoz/talk 23:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a sensible approach. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Inauguration Video

I would have added this, but wonder about allowing YouTube? Barack Obama's Inauguration Address -- Mjquin_id (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The video you link to is in the public domain. Although I think that in a verifiable case like this, YouTube is perfectly acceptable to link to, if we want to do that we could link to a copy on the commons but I think we'd need to justify the significance of the address first. So far it doesn't seem to have constituted a defining moment of his life or presidency. Bigbluefish (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

FAQ A2

FAQ Answer 2 has a sentence that is a bit muddled: Keep in mind, many individuals who identify as black, have a variety of genes from multiple countries of origin who may identify as another racial group. I recommend instead: Keep in mind, many individuals who identify as African American have ancestors from multiple racial groups or countries of origin. This avoids an unnecessary comma, uses "African American" instead of "black" since the article uses the former more often, avoids the ambiguity of "may identify as another racial group" which seems to indicate that genes identify themselves as races, and says "ancestors" instead of "genes" since we're talking about a person, not a genotype. (It looks as if it was changed at some point from referring to ancestors to referring to genes) All sensitive points so I hope for comments.) CouldOughta (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be changed as CO suggests. We have lots of research about his ancestry, but, pace a DNA test, none about his genetics. And "genes" hints at issues about biology and "race" that we don't want to get involved with. PhGustaf (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, and it's certainly true that there are many mixed-race Americans out there who are predominantly identified as African American. Alex Haley, of Roots fame, would be a good example. As would baseball hall-of-famer Roy Campanella. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You think of Roy Campanella; I'll think of Halle Berry. PhGustaf (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Another hall of fame "catch". :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Change sounds good.Die4Dixie (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. PhGustaf (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Executive Order Ensuring Lawful Interrogations

No mention of the EO on Ensuring Lawful Interrogations in the article at all as far as I can see. I believe it should be mentioned because it implicitly stains the previous administration (implying they either allowed unlawful interrogations or did nothing to prevent them). This is a big issue as relating to the lost of prestige of the USA internationally. By issuing it Obama basically sends the signal of "no under my administration" as well as acknowledging that some forms of unlawful interrogations were permissible by the last administration. --LexCorp (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

We have that information over at Presidency_of_Barack_Obama where it should be, this page is about Obama the person,Obama the President is/should be on the page I linked, If you would like to help us over there, we are more then glad to get more help. Durga Dido (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive

Resolved

(hopefully)

For some reason, Archives 48 through 50 are empty. Not sure what happened. Grsz¹¹ 03:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Did I screw up the bot? It looked ok. rootology (C)(T) 07:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

So I think I know what happened. When I tweaked the archive bot, I went and made the next few archives by hand, which made it seem to jump to the last existing one in sequence, I think. Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 48 is the current last archive that I moved everything back to, I CSD'd the other ones, and set the counter on the config here back to 48 just now. Hopefully that fixes it. rootology (C)(T) 16:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Bombings Edit

Loonymonkey recently reverted edits about bombing campaigns ordered under the Obama administration. The edit in question can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=266641458&oldid=266640300 . This edit appears to be factual and sourced, so unless somebody can find a valid reason NOT to include this information, I'm going to put it back shortly. Also, are there any suggestions about how to re-phrase it to avoid the soapboxing allegation Loonymonkey made? Zelmerszoetrop (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Prolly not good here. Try his Presidency page.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Double checked the edit. No good for his biography. Again , look at the presidency page. you ought to find a home for it there.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I'll put it there. Before I do, I want to wait for a response from Loonymonkey regarding the soapboxing explanation for the reversion; he may have suggestions for re-phrasing that information. Zelmerszoetrop (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If you cut and paste it, you'll want to change attach to attack, i think. Also the comments from Ward seem to merit a good examination, as it might not pass those standards there either.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for or against inclusion at this point, but for any page you need to carefully consider WP:RECENT and WP:WEIGHT. How significant will this be in one year? Four years? Has every bombing campaign for every President been discussed in the other Presidents' article? Ward3001 (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I would think this is just another part of the same war that we've been in since 2001. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Ward3001 makes an excellent point, and I'm going to hold off including this material in any article for the time being. Just for the record though, I think this material should be excluded on the basis of WP:RECENT, not WP:SOAP as Loonymonkey said in his revert. Zelmerszoetrop (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the length and detail as you wrote it might edge into WP:SOAP. That could be easily fixed, but you still have the other policies to consider. Ward3001 (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The reference to BO's first bombing campaign in Pakistan has an excellent source and is entirely relevant - please do not delete it. Pexise (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Per the discussion above it against consensus and does not seem relevant to a biography of the president. Per WP:BRD please establish WP:CONSENSUS first for disputed additions to the article. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 09:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry - didn't see the discussion above (made my comment in a hurry this morning...). My point is that if we include details of other policies made in the first few days of BO's presidency (closing Guantanamo etc), we should also include the very notable fact that he ordered a military strike in a foreign country.
• In response to Ward's comment - how do we know what will be important in four years time? If the US were to go to war with Pakistan in the future, this would be one of the most important policies to mention. Pexise (talk) 14:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't policy to include everything that might be important in future. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. If consensus changes and this material is included (at whatever article) we can re-visit the question of how to word it for neutrality. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

In response to Pexise, we don't know what will be important in the future, which is all the more reason to be careful in what we include now. Remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or magazine. We don't have to rush into including anything. We can wait to see how things occur and which issues develop in importance. That's why we have WP:RECENT and WP:WEIGHT. We are allowed to be patient, observe what happens, and then decide whether to include the information and how much detail to provide. There are some aspects of importance that we can only determine in hindsight. Ward3001 (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, you don't seem to have understood my argument. I am saying that it is notable regardless of what happens in the future - bombing a foreign nation is an important and notable policy and should be included. What are the arguments against inclusion? Pexise (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The arguments seem to be that inclusion would constitue recentism (see WP:RECENT), that it would give undue weight to this order(see WP:WEIGHT), and that this text is not neutrally worded (see WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV). It seems that consensus is against this adddition (see WP:CONSENSUS). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I would add that even if it is included the amount of detail is too great per WP:WEIGHT, not necessarily as a POV matter but simply as a matter of proportionality given that we only have so much room here on this page. We are a week into the administration. If every equally important decision gets equal treatment this will become a long article indeed. It really is too early to tell how important this will be, practically or in the eyes of most readers. Obama could patch things up with Pakistan tomorrow and then his decision not to bomb further will be seen as a great rapprochement. Conversely, this could sour relations and cause great difficulty within Pakistan. WP:Crystal speaks to why we shouldn't speculate. Ultimately, when deciding how important things are, about 10% of the argument goes to logical and political justifications. The other 90% goes to assessing the weight of reliable sources. I have no quick way to do that, but if you look at the world press, the amount of coverage given to Obama's decision to close Guantanamo is orders of magnitude greater than the coverage given to this missile strike. Wikipedia writes what people ought to know (notability), as evidenced by what the best available sources think intelligent, aware people want to know. Ten years from now as books and scholarly articles come out, (or even next week) the situation could reverse and we could say that Pakistan deserves more weight than Cuba.Wikidemon (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I agree that detail could be reduced, however, I still think it warrants mention.

• If recentism is an argument against inclusion, Guantanamo being closed happened two or three days prior to the bombing so is also a recentism.
• Weight could be resolved by a shorter mention with less detail.
• I would argue that not including the passage violates NPOV.

I will therefore look at a shorter version to be included. Pexise (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss it here for consensus first. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this material will stand a better chance of inclusion, and will deserve more space, at Presidency of Barack Obama than at this article, since it's not directly related to his biography as much as it is his presidency. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

My point is: there is no reason to include some policies and not others. Guantanamo may be more significant to people in the US or in Cuba, but the attacks on Pakistan are a lot more significant to people in Pakistan. I would argue that, at the moment, content violates WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. Pexise (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this will overcome the WP:WEIGHT problem:

Four days after his inauguration, Obama ordered the first bombing campaign of his presidency, killing at least 18 people in villages in a tribal area of Pakistan, close to the border with Afganistan.The Guardian, Saturday 24 January 2009

RE: the source, the Guardian is one of the leading national newspapers in the UK. There are numerous other sources that could be used. Pexise (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

More sources: Times of London and Associated Press. Pexise (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I can see some value in including a modified version of the first sentence of the edit and adding it to the end of the second paragraph. The bombing was Obama's first action as commander-in-chief and is just as notable as the executive orders that he issued in the days following his inauguration. Maybe something along the lines of: Obama approved his first airstrike against suspected militants in the Waziristan region of Pakistan.The Guardian, Saturday 24 January 2009 --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

How about:

Four days after his inauguration, Obama ordered the first airstrike of his presidency, killing at least 18 people in villages in the Waziristan area of Pakistan, close to the border with Afganistan.The Guardian, Saturday 24 January 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pexise (talk • contribs) 19:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the body count is particularly of note for the summary section of the presidency article. It's also unnecessary to say that Waziristan is near the border of Afghanistan. Clicking on the link to the area's article will give that information. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I see know reason not to include the body count.

So:

How about:

Four days after his inauguration, Obama ordered the first airstrike of his presidency, killing at least 18 people in villages in the Waziristan area of Pakistan.The Guardian, Saturday 24 January 2009 Pexise (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Or much simpler and less detailed: Four days after his inauguration, Obama ordered the first airstrike of his presidency in the Waziristan area of Pakistan.The Guardian, Saturday 24 January 2009 However, I am also in favor of not including it here in this BLP, but putting it in the presidency article. Brothejr (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe this discussion has gone on as long as it has. There is no way that this tidbit of information is biographically relevant. This is the Obama BLP, supposedly written from a historical perspective. Nobody is going to care about this particular military action a few months from now. Clear case of undue weight and recentism. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's detail about his first days in office, and this was the first military strike he ordered and the first people to die as a result of his orders. That makes it relevant. Why do you object to this and not to the closing of Guantanamo, also recent? Pexise (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey, how is the various executive orders that he's signed relevant to his BLP? From a historical perspective no one is going to care that Obama changed procedures to promote disclosures under Freedom of Information Act, that he reduced the secrecy given to presidential records, or that he reversed the Global Gag Rule. Out of the executive orders that he's passed so far, only the closing of Guantanamo is truly historic and his direction to the US military to develop plans to withdraw from Iraq is only marginally so as the direction itself isn't overly historic, but rather if he adopts the plan the military develops that will be historic. I don't think there is anything particularly historic about the body count in the airstrike, so that part could be left out of the inclusion here with a further expansion in the Presidency article, but the airstrike is the first action that Obama has taken that indicates how he plans on carrying out the "War on Terror". --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the EOs are biographically-relevant either, at least not yet. Perhaps they may become more biographically-relevant with the benefit of a historical perspective, but certainly I think it is way too early to make that determination. I strongly disapprove of this rush to document Obama's presidency on this BLP, and I have said so in earlier comments. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to cut the info about guantanamo etc. and leave a link to the presidency page. I think just having the Guantanamo info and not other policies violates WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Pexise (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

← This article is intended to be a summary of his Presidency article and since that article is so short and has basically a week's worth of information in it, then this article is invariably going to have a lower standard of what should and shouldn't be included than the other, more developed sections of the article. At this point in time, pretty much all of Obama's presidency falls under WP:RECENT, so that argument doesn't carry much weight IMHO. Now, you can argue that inclusion of the is undue weight, but considering that the air strike is Obama's first action as CIC and the most visible representation of how Obama is going to conduct the "War on Terror" then I think it does warrant a brief mention in the article. I don't think every air strike merits inclusion, just this one. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree to an extent with this - it is particularly relevant because it illustrates that Obama buys into the "War On Terror" - also, it was clearly deliberately done in the first few days to show that he is not a foreign policy dove.

Perhaps not every air strike should be included, but significant ones should - i.e. new countries bombed, significant numbers of deaths and casualties etc. Pexise (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I just don't think we need to go into too much recent stuff. The daily issues with the budget, stimulus package, etc., are too fresh to have any perspective. They could change on a daily basis, and will be old news in a week or a month. Things like Guantanamo Bay, stem cell research, etc., are not recent, though. They fulfill pledges Obama has made for many months, and terminate programs the Bush administration has had in place for years. As such, the coverage of these is ongoing. I think the right context for this, for the moment, is a sentence something: "Within the first week of taking office Obama did X, Y, and Z, and approved a continuation of ongoing missile attacks on Taliban and Al Qaida targets inside Packistan." That puts the focus on Obama's decision and his acts as president, not the military objective or body count. I think it's worth half a long sentence, or a short sentence, tops. Incidentally, here is a good new source:[23] Wikidemon (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue of bombing Pakistan is not recent either - it was mentioned as far back as August 2007. I still see no reason why body count shouldn't be mentioned - it's prominent and in the headlines of the sources that have been presented. Pexise (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Cite tag

I added cite tags to Protestant. I believe that he is. Shouldn't be hard to find a reliable third party source to state that Obama is without us relying on OR or Synth.Die4Dixie (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Has he ever belonged to anything besides a Protestant church? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

However, on the flip side, how do we know he's not planning to convert to Catholicism? (Other than the potential snag concerning embryonic stem cells.) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I know, it sounds logical that he his, but it seems that if notable it should be easy to find a reliable third party source that makes the leap for us. Seems like there is a policy that governs this.Die4Dixie (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

He has only ever belonged to one church, but he is no longer a member there:). Seems like OR to say he is protestant.Die4Dixie (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

How so? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

because we have no reliable third party source saying it for us. We would have to rely on our deductive powers to arrive at that conclusion instead of reliable sources.06:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you still say that if he were still in the UCC? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No. It would suffice to then say UCC and not even mention Protestant. Not sure why we would want to qualify it anymore than Christian at this time. Protestant is not supported by the cite as it appeared to be using the cite to support protestant as well at they were joined and wikilinked together.Die4Dixie (talk) 06:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I have some doubts about this. It clearly is OR, but I asked Ward about it on his discussion page. If you feel strongly that protestant needs to be included, I'll bow to you.Die4Dixie (talk) 06:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't. I just wanted to clarify the matter. Since he's not in a denomination at present, technically he's not anything. But there's no question he identifies with being Christian. However, for all we know, he could be planning on becoming a Catholic, a Mormon, or even a Southern Baptist. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You left out Zoroastrian and Jedi. PhGustaf (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it OR? I guess I'm looking for clarification too.Die4Dixie (talk) 06:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If he were still in UCC, it would not be OR. To call him a Protestent currently is not really OR either, it's more like "crystal ball" or at least "drawing conclusions", which I could also term "synthesis". It's also not really important. Christian is Christian, until he chooses a church. Then the church or denomination can be posted. Maybe he hasn't had time to look into that matter yet. He's a tad busy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This article [24] which I found randomly, suggests the Obamas are shopping around for a church, and taking their time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What source is there to suggest that he's any more likely to choose a Seventh-day Adventist, Methodist or Pentecostal church over a Catholic one? Without a source the term "Protestant" is just indefensible and quite frankly not that informative anyway. Bigbluefish (talk) 09:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

We'll have to be wary when they choose to attend a church, as attendance and formal membership don't always overlap on the Venn diagram.Die4Dixie (talk) 07:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no. If he starts attending a church regularly, we can mention that whether or not he signs a piece of paper or gets splashed with water. Liberal Protestants tend to not be fussy about that sort of detail. PhGustaf (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually , yes. Membership is a formal process and is quite distinct from attendance, even in the liberal UCC, for example. As far as sprinkling, that wouldn't need to be redone, unless he were to follow the Baptist or Anabaptist tradition which requires submersion. In fact, one can be baptized in a church without becoming a member of that Church.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

And there's really no reason to say "Protestant". The Catholic position is that Protestants are doomed - and vice versa. But to the broader thinker, Christian is Christian. Protestant vs. Catholic vs. Eastern Orthodox or whatever, don't matter. Christian is Christian. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree no reason to use "Protestant". No offense, BB, but I think you need to spend a few hours brushing up on Catholic doctrine, especially from the last 100 years. Ward3001 (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The Catholic church's newfound liberal attitude towards Protestanism is probably the reason they don't excommunicate members anymore. In any case, "Protestant" is neither a religion nor a denomination, so I have zapped it again, especially based on the peculiar way that Lotus commented on it - like Protestantism taints him somehow. Hence the "POV-pushing" comment. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Zap away! And BB, the Catholic Church does in fact excommunicate members sometimes, even in this modern "liberal" age. Ward3001 (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be wise to keep the remainder of this discussion on the subject of article content, rather than somewhat offensive remarks about the attitude and character of different Christian groups. Bigbluefish (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure which remark(s) you consider offensive, but it is not offensive to say that the Catholic Church excommunicates people. It does. Ward3001 (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It is off topic for a talk page, though. I think we mostly agree that just "Christian" is tolerable, and that we won't have anything to add unless Obama starts going to church again. Let's let the matter lie till then; we've talked a whole lot about not that much already. PhGustaf (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I was being funny. Obviously, the Catholic Church still excommunicates. And those folks can go join Protestant churches, and are still Christians, even if the Catholic Church might disagree. In any case, "Protestant" is neither a religion nor a denomination, so there's really no point in putting it in the infobox. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

reorganizing the talk archives

Main page: Talk:Barack_Obama/Organisation

See Talk:Barack_Obama/Organisation, there is a suggestion for reorganizing the talk archives. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

While I'm sure this is well-intentioned, I would ask that nothing be done until and unless the proposal is well-understood and agreed to by the regular editors of the page - not just a couple of days, but as long as is needed to decide if we want to proceed. The talk archives are large, but they are searchable and indexed, and mostly they are chronologically true to how the discussions took place. If I understand this correctly, the proposal would entail cutting them up and redistributing comments by theme, and I am concerned that this would destroy the ability to find something based on memory of approximately when it took place or in what context. I'm more of a purist - archives to me are more useful when they more or less mirror what actually happened, as another way of finding the data needed. I have no problem with improved indexing, and would welcome it - but I would prefer to see the archives remain intact and true to the history. Of course I may be misunderstanding this - if so, please enlighten me. (For example, if you're proposing creating a parallel archive by theme, that would be fine with me - as long as there continued to be a chronological archive.) Thanks for your interest in improving this article and the usefulness of its history, but please wait for discussion. Tvoz/talk 04:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea that I don't think I've ever seen before. You can't create new pages as an IP address. Maybe register, get past the initial period that prevents you making pages--I think it's 10 edits plus 4 days right now?--and maybe do a mock up of what these special archives would like in parallel to the existing chronological ones? The replication to see what it looks like wouldn't hurt anything. The one thing that could get in it's way is that it would require constant work to maintain them, at least on a weekly basis forever. Who would take that work on? There's an automated bot that currently archives the archives, based on time, so it's hands-off, and we never have to do anything. If you can get around those two problems--show us what this would work like in practice, and figure out who would spend the time arranging them right, it might be worthwhile. It's definitely an interesting idea. rootology (C)(T) 06:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous users can create talk pages to their heart's content. Still recommend registering though! Bigbluefish (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama as "biracial"

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

I have reverted the change, as this is extensively covered by FAQ #2. Tarc (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

With respect to the FAQ, I am not sure why the introduction cannot mention Obama as biracial or half-white. Many of the sources do indicate him as "the first African American," but many other sources mention him as biracial/half white/half black. Mentioning this would not be at variance with what is in the FAQ. Kirsted (talk) 07:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a few things to look at.

1. He calls himself a African American.
2. He looks African American.
3. Yes there are probably sources that call him bi-racial, but they most likely don't call him Obama the US bi-racial president.( and thats after separating the reliable sources from the nuts ), when they talk about bi-racial they are talking mostly about his family, and/or his mother and father.
4. No RS would call anyone half-white/black because thats just stupid.
5. There is a consensus that we just go with what RS say, so if most of the reliable sources start saying that Obama is from martian, then we will put martian in the article.

It says in the first line of Early life and career, that his mother is a white American.That is more then enough for people actually trying to find out the truth instead of just reading the first line of the article and assuming they know everything about Obama just because of that.

Can we close this now? This like all the other talks about his race will come to the same outcome, which is that we go with what reliable sources say, and the persons wanting us to change it for who knows what reason fail to give us enough reason to change it.Durga Dido (talk) 08:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

More importantly, no reliable sources introduce Obama as mixed-race. It's part of the detail of his race issue, not his overall definition. Bigbluefish (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what others say a person with two parents of different races is by definition 'mixed race'and is used as an example on the mixed race page. Adding 'mixed race' but not 'deleting 'African American' seems to cover everything.

Rsloch (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No. Please review the extensive discussions on this matter that exist in the talk page archive. The preponderance of reliable sources refer to him as African American, not "mixed race". I second the suggestion that this discussion be closed. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Also relevant to this discussion is the fact that the article is in the People of mixed Black African-European ethnicity category (though I doubt the typical reader spends much time perusing article categories). SteveChervitzTrutane (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Obama left handed.

Maybe it's trivial but maybe it should be mentioned that Obama is lefthanded(Or seems to be)

Quote-"Congratulations to President Barack Obama, the eighth left-handed person to become President of the United States.

Out of the 44 Presidents, 8 have been left-handed now—or 18%. Proportionally, that’s a higher percentage of lefties than the general population (which is estimated to be about 12% left-handed)."

from http://www.leftiesforobama.com/

Jellyboots (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

So how do we know if he's one of the 12% who would have been left-handed presidents anyway or the 6% who were advantaged because of their prowess in left-handedness? Put simply, this is an article about the most important details of Obama's life, and it draws from sources which discuss the most important details of Obama's life. The source you give is not like that - it exists purely to focus on his handedness without any balanced hint of where that might come between being the first black US president and what kind of pasta he likes. Bigbluefish (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I believe that for a country with 44 presidents randomly selected from a population with 12% lefties, the probability of at least 8 of them being left handed could be expressed as: $\sum _{n=8}^{44}{44 \choose n}\cdot 0.12^{n}\cdot 0.88^{44-n}=15.1\%$. In other words, given seven countries with this long a history of leaders, on average one of them would have at least this number of lefties in their history. I'm not saying that the factors are purely random, just that out of interest it's not that surprising really. Any proper statistician willing to scrutinise my calculation, please do tell me if I got this right! Bigbluefish (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

A political blog isn't a reliable source, and I find his handedness trivial and not worthy of inclusion here, unless a reliable source makes that the focus of significant commentary, like 'Obama is making a major decision about the economy because he's left handed, here's the medical studies blah blah blah'. I would not find' Obama's left handed, which proves hes' a lefty(handedness), and thus a leftie (political), thus he's making these decisions.' ThuranX (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It's possibly relevant in that left-handed people are statistically about half a sigma smarter and better looking than the other 88%. Nah. We had "left-handed" in there a while ago, along with stuff like his fondness for chili, but they were cut out as trivial. They should stay gone. PhGustaf (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama brought it up at one of his news conferences during a signing ceremony. That makes it relevant. Twested (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

He made a casual joke about it. That's not notable enough for a summary-style biography. PhGustaf (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The Presidents' right-or-left handedness would be more appropriate for an article about the U.S. Presidents overall. I think that same stat was brought up in The History Channel's recently re-broadcast series on the Presidents. FYI, Truman was ambidextrous, and used to alternate hands when he threw out the first ball each opening day. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I am a minimalist/deletionist, but this factoid actually wouldn't bother me if it was in the right section and "read well". My son is a lefty and we have spoken about Obama being a lefty. Anyways, no biggie either way, --Tom 15:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, Handedness of Presidents of the United States is not a redlink... - auburnpilot talk 15:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • So there you are. It's covered. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ages of children

WP:BLP indicates that giving a year of birth for the ages of the children would be appropriate; however, that should only apply to their own BLPs. Of course, since the children are only notable by inheritance, they (quite rightly) don't have their own BLPs. Personal information about a well known person is permissible in their own BLP, but not in the BLP of another. I have, therefore, removed the date of birth information from the infobox. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that Family of Barack Obama contains a section on Sasha and Malia, and gives their exact birth dates. I think the privacy concern expressed in Wikipedia:BLP#Privacy_of_personal_information is mooted by this fact. In any case, that issue does not prohibit including birth years, just specific dates. I do not believe this policy has any direct relevance to whether or not to include birth years (i.e. ages) of Obama's children in this article.

Including the ages of Obama's children would, in my opinion, have sufficient relevance and notability to include in this biography, such as in the infobox. A Senator or President having a family consisting of school age children has a somewhat different possible effect on his/her perspective/priorities/family life/etc. than would having either infant children or adult children (at least at the level of "something readers might wish to know). Or also, the events of their births is relevant to Obama's own life during the years of their birth, as context for what else he was doing at those times. Having no children would be relevant too, but listing names obviously indicates they exist, even without ages. It is harmless, accords with policy, and is nominally useful to include the children's birth years in the infobox of this article. LotLE×talk 21:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I would note also that information on birth year of Obama's children has been in this article for a while, and was only removed (twice) today by Scjessey. The burden of showing a revised consensus is on the removal, according to WP:BRD, not on including the information (since no, it is not a WP:BLP issue). I do agree that the addition earlier today of specific birthdays was unnecessary, but Scjessey should have only removed that day-of-year, not the birth years. LotLE×talk 21:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the information should be removed there. The years are enough, and the ages are covered elsewhere for the math-impaired. I can see no good reason to violate BLP with regards to anyone, including high profile famous kids. ThuranX (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The ages are pretty much common knowledge, so there shouldn't be a problem with including that. The exact birthdates, probably not so common, so not necessary for inclusion (here or in the Obama family article) IMHO. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with years yes, month/day no. Years of childrens' births are biographically significant to the parent, and are included in most of our BLPs. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok with me - that's been bothering me too on the family article. Tvoz/talk 05:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Birth years of children are relevant and there is no good reason to remove them, no need to be more specific though. Landon1980 (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That seems reasonable and appropriate. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The White House pages for Barack and Michelle Obama give the ages of the kids, so presumably the birth years are fair game. [25][26] The specific dates seem to be unimportant at this point, unless someone has in mind sending them birthday cards, in which case the sender could probably expect a pleasant visit from the FBI. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually want to know what astrological sign they are.... just kidding, keep exact date out but include year. --Tom 15:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)ps, birthday cards to the kids would not trigger FBI visit as it is a nice thought, what is the sinisterism in that? --Tom 15:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That's what the FBI would be determining. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This talk page's archive time

So, what do you all think? It was set to 3 days, but this page really cleared out fast as discussion in new sections slowed down way faster than I thought it could. I just set it to 7 days on the edit preceding this one, so that we don't archive too fast. Recommendations? rootology (C)(T) 05:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama's half brother arrested on charge of marijuana possession

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

It's time to close this WP:SOAPBOX section due to no consensus to add the information. Brothejr (talk)

See: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/01/31/george.obama.arrest/index.html

Include this on the article. OK, I know this isn't very good for the president, but we have to write the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.151.211 (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd agree. We're talking about a half brother, in Kenya, who Obama has only met once in his life. It doesn't seem very relevant to Barack's bio at this point, and the article linked above even states "George Obama and the president barely know each other". - auburnpilot talk 17:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless Barack supplied the dope, it has no relevance whatsoever to Barack's bio. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, IP, a contributor has already contributed this info here: George Obama. ↜Just me, here, now … 17:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's also covered in Family of Barack Obama. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As a point of reference, Bill Clinton's half-brother had some drug problems, which are not mentioned in Bill Clinton. The former President even controversially pardoned his brother, and that's not in Bill Clinton either. This is why we have WP:RECENT. Issues that people seize on as huge today (note "!!!!!" in the section header above) dwindle to almost nothing weeks or months later. Ward3001 (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the exclamation points from the header. To me, they seemed to be a form of POV pushing. SMP0328. (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ya think? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this the same brother who was living in a shack on a few dollars a month?--Jojhutton (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The Republican view would be that if someone's living in a shack, it's by choice. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"I've removed the exclamation points from the header." A small team from White House is working on to colour the president's bio on wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.151.211 (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Please watch the false accusations. You're edging into a personal attack. If you're concerned that the White House is editing this article please ask for a checkuser. Otherwise keep the personal comments about editors off this page. Ward3001 (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

How many 3 letters agency do you know? Do you really think that by a simple IP check you can catch them?

It's a non-starter here. I've removed it for the moment from the "family" article, where it is attracting some tabloid-ish BLP problems, until and unless the notability becomes clearer. We'll see how it plays out but it's a minor current incident. We have time to get these things right, Wikipedia is not world news today. Wikidemon (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"minor current incident" currently this is a top story on cnn, I wouldn't call this minor incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.151.211 (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The operative word there is "currently". It's minor. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's number 2 on the list, right ahead of "Prison employee sentenced to prison for having sex with inmate". Want to write an article on that? AnyPerson (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This section should be closed because it is just soapery from an IP looking to push negative POV into a featured article. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

gb2conservapedia Sceptre ^(talk) 15:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Listing note

• I've listed a question re WP's coverage of George's arrest at the BLP noticeboard. ↜Just me, here, now … 17:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Obama's Criticism

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

Closing this discussion before it degrades any farther. Brothejr (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think even though Obama's approval ratings soar in the high 70s, for the sake of equal criticism (or at least an attempt at it), I think we should make a criticism section. This way we can be more neutral, and see why there are still people who don't like him. FOX News broadcasts propagated lies, for example about him "being a communist," and paling with terrorists, but we don't have any reason understand why people believe this other than the theory that they just don't know any better. Many people like Rush Limbaugh say that they hope he fails, but we need to understand why they say this rather than just dismiss them as unpatriotic. Then, of course, we have the illogical racists who resent having a black man as president, but...actually I guess we can just exclude that since it's too childish to even give attention to. People also point out that he is opposed to same-sex marriage, and that's something common of conservatives which liberals would criticize him for. People like Vladimir Putin say that as a politicion, he made alot of promises, but like all politicions, is not likely to keep them. In the interest of fairness, I think like George W. Bush had a criticism section, his successor, Obama, should have one too...however small anything valid may be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.199.102 (talk • contribs)

Criticism sections are strongly discouraged in Wikipedia articles. Rather than balancing the article, such a section is likely to become unnecessarily inflated by POV-pushers. Any criticism (or positive statements) should be well sourced and integrated into other sections of the article. And George W. Bush does not have a criticism section. Ward3001 (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Bush doesn't have a section, he has an entire article. That being said, other crap exists isn't a valid reason for creating an article here. As has been covered many, many times on this talk page, if you have any specific criticisms that you feel are missing from this article, they can be interleaved into the existing text here, or in one of the many sub-articles. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I realize that Bush has an article of criticisms, just as there is an entire article about Obama controversies, but anon 76.27.199.102 was suggesting a criticism section in Barack Obama. Ward3001 (talk) 05:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Please to point to an article that is entirely dedicated to Obama controversies. Can't find it.--Jojhutton (talk) 05:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think he was referring to Barack Obama citizenship controversy, Bill Ayers presidential election controversy or Jeremiah Wright controversy. Grsz¹¹--Review 05:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Remember, Impartial (NPOV), which we do seek to achieve, may not mean 'balanced'. We don't have to give equal coverage, simply proportional, at best. With over 70 percent support, and some moer people still on the fence, the Rush Limbaugh type 'hope he fails/he's a dirty commie wrong for America' vibing folks are a small, if not FRINGE minority, and do not warrant 'equality' on the page. ThuranX (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we are being neutral, we aren't trying to push one side or the other.We should not give FoX or Rush Limbaugh any more light then what the media gives them.In general even if the bigger portion of RS started to give Limbaugh more light because of something he said about Obama, I'm not sure if it would even fit in this article, as this article is about Obama and not really about what people say about him.The article would be insanely long if we were to talk about what every person thinks/says about Obama.The illogical racist ( are their logical racists?) are just as childish as Limbaugh is, who wants Obama to fail simply because he does not like what he Obama is saying/doing.The racist doesn't like the person of different race, because they are different, you can see the similarities.From what i have figured from Obama's talk on same sex issues is that, he personally does not approve of SS marriage( maybe because he does not want it to be called "marriage" ) however Obama has said, he does not want to be the one to decide as President, he wants to leave that to the states.If he was completely opposed to the idea you would think he would try better to make it hard for the SS couples.All politicians make a lot of promises, Obama is no different in that respect to any other politician.According to politifact its 510, most politicians are unable to keep all their promises, and with Obama having that many i wouldn't be surprised if he cant keep them all.Having a section for purely criticisms or praise is bad, because it attracts more criticisms or praise, mostly of stuff that are not really of importance in the bigger scope of the article.If you think there are items (criticism) missing from the article then find RS that report it and then add it to the article at the location it best fits. Durga Dido (talk) 07:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

To tally the present discussion page, some editors seem to want coverage of the following "criticisms":

• That, according to a certain conspiracy theory, Obama was not actually born in the US.
• That Justice Roberts flubbed the presidential oath, and this was ... "bad."
• That despite being "bi-racial", Obama has assumed the African-American moniker, to great political effect.
• That Obama's half-brother, who he may never have actually met, was arrested for drug possession.
• That Obama is a politician, who has made some promises.
• That Obama opposes same-sex marriage (maybe), and is pro-choice (maybe). There are people who disagree with these two positions.
• That Obama "is a Communist".

While it is very likely that a "Criticism of Barack Obama" article is likely to develop eventually, the above bullet points seem to be a rather tenuous basis for doing so. Can we please try to do this with some decent sources? Nothing from the blogosphere or extreme-right-wingo-sphere (read "The Free Republic"). siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 07:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

sounds like an article better suited for Conservapedia. Theserialcomma (talk) 09:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If you make a critic, then it a large chance that it will be deleted in 5 minutes, and perhaps your wiki account also. They say for every critic that it is a personal attack and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.145.160 (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Broken Citations

I have found two broken citations, and than i removed them. You can see them on the history page. C H J L ^Discuss 10:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Was that a personal attack? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.144.8 (talk) 10:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

None is personal attack! I just removed the broken links which can't be accessed, please check it! C H J L ^Discuss 10:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where the IP editor's comment about "personal attack" came from, but as a sourcing matter, citations are allowed whether or not a live link can be found. Library books, offline government documents, radio and television shows, etc., are all valid sources in the right context - although where possible it is useful to find a live link, or provide a "courtesy link" to another copy of the same thing, or to add a second source that can be found online. When a link goes dead it's best to keep it, and if possible to find an archive or alternate version. Hope that helps. Wikidemon (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)