Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 70

Archive 65

←

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

→

Archive 75

Condemnation of Uganda

Obama condemned Uganda for their support of the death penalty.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8693560.stm In Uganda, plans to introduce draconian new laws against homosexuality look likely to go ahead despite mass protests, a major petition, and condemnation from the international community.

The bill, which proposes the death penalty for so-called 'serial offenders', has already been described as 'odious' by President Obama.

We could add under foreign relations that "In 2010, Obama described as 'odious' planned Ugandan laws sentence homosexuals to the death penalty". The McChicken costs $1 (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me like it belongs in Presidency of Barack Obama, not a biographical article. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's less appropriate for Presidency than it is for something more like Barack Obama social policy, in the "Death penalty" or "LGBT" sections, but even there I'd rather see a ref that gives Obama's reaction to it more than a half a sentence aside. People should be able to click a source and read about why it's relevant to Obama or his presidency, or what the context of his comments were. The text and video at the ref you cited doesn't even give the actual sentence Obama said, merely name-drops that he used the word "odious" in reference to it, and it's not covered there as a foreign relations issue. Don't get me wrong, I think most people find "odious" the use of the death penalty or life in prison for something that isn't even a crime in most places, and I think it's a subject worth the world's attention. However, as presented at your ref, it seems more a story about Uganda, the sway of religious extremity in society, the mixture of church and state, LGBT rights, and the death penalty (and likely appropriate in one or more articles covering any of those topics), than it is a notable position of Obama's presidency. I'd be interested to know if you find a source for his comments, and if there were any diplomatic efforts that the public is aware of; sometimes administrations use what is called "soft power", and communicate through back channels, insofar as the law has apparently not actually been passed or enacted yet and so may not actually be an issue. Feel free to post at my talk if you're interested in my input once you find a better ref or two, as I don't currently watch the social policy page. Best, Abrazame (talk) 09:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, Obama's condemnation of Uganda's death penalty for gays is too minor an event to report here. Only if there is an Obama praises, condolences, and condemnation section would this be fair game. However, such section would be pretty weird to include unless some good writer has a different idea. The Chicken costs $1 (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Navbox/template problems

Obama cabinet navbox

I wanted to add the Obama cabinet navbox template to this article (since I wanted to compare the Clinton and Obama cabinets to see if any were the same), but it appears to be mal-formed, as adding it showed it screwing up the rest of the bottom part of the page. Can anyone figure it out and add it? --Habap (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Obama's cabinet is not the same as Clinton. Only Gates, a Bush hold out, is the same, but the same as Bush, not Clinton. Obama's cabinet does have some new departments, like Homeland Security. The Chicken costs $1 (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Broken templates

The Time person of the year, and featured article templates are broken. I've tried fixing them but honestly have no idea how to. Sir Richardson (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that too and tried to figure out how to fix it. Unfortunately, I found myself in the same situation as you and was unable to understand how to fix the errors. Hopefully someone who better understands the templates will get to it. It's at the bottom of the page and does not interfere much with any of the information, but it is irritating once you know it's there and should be fixed. Dave Dial (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Didn't this come up awhile back, where someone pointed out that there's some sort of wiki-limit on # of navboxes, and going over limit won't display them properly? Thought for sure we had discussed this here but I cannot at the moment locate anything in the archives. Tarc (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I just did a page preview from editing the article, and there's a shiny, red "Warning: Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included" message. Tarc (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Mother's second marriage

On his early life, are we sure his mom married Lolo Soetoro? If so, when?75.57.121.90 (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The marriage is mentioned in Dreams from My Father several times, so yes. No specific date given, though. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

If his mother was not legally the wife, she was the wife for practical purposes or maybe common law wife. The Chicken costs $1 (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Time to end article probation?

As useful as it has been, the article probation section is relatively moribund and people aren't giving out article probation notices anymore. Interesting to compare this with the climate change probation pages which were based on these ones, and are quite the hotbed of activity. By contrast disruption here has fallen to a fairly manageable clip, and most of the problems here are getting resolved in due course on the talk page or at AN/I without recourse to the special probation rules. Perhaps we could suspend it on a trial basis to see what happens. Any thoughts on this? - Wikidemon (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't really followed the article probation thing, but isn't your suggestion a bit like saying the speed limit has reduced traffic fatalities to a level so low and traffic cops and the ambulance corps have had no problem handling those few who do speed, so maybe it's time to go back to a policy of no speed limits? Abrazame (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears under your logic that if article probation is successful, then it should never end. SMP0328. (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the sanctions. Obama-related articles are open for editing by anyone (although an account is need to edit this article and possibly a couple of others, but that is not related to the sanctions). The probation simply means that (from the header at the top of this page): Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. There is still a steady stream of warriors who want to use highly unreliable sources to make peculiar claims: the sanctions do not stop that, they simply make it easier to deal with. See the recent history of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories for one example, and see Category:Books about Barack Obama for a good clue that this phenomenon is going to continue. Johnuniq (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Abrazame raises a good point. But like I said, I don't think they are being used anymore - not even in a speed limit sense. There's no urgency, but it would be nice to declare success and quit while we're ahead. If it's needed again we can always re-invoke probation. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think rather than the speed limit analogy, one to martial law would probably fit better. Once the worst of the rioting is over and the ringleaders sent off, it is best to let normality return. recent troubles, even JeezyJoshua or whatever the fuck, were handled via normal channels. Tarc (talk) 06:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

My feeling is that article probation was a necessary tool when the Obama-related articles were basically under siege by agenda-driven editors. Although one or two of these individuals are still around, the amount of noise has reduced to the point were it can be easily handled in the usual manner; however, I see no harm in leaving probation in place. Perhaps the probation can be suspended for now, but with a note that it can be reactivated by any administrator at any time if needed? I would note, however, that this meta discussion is probably best moved to Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Obama article probation. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If someone raises the birther issue, this is so stupid that nothing would happen. I don't even think it needs to be answered. The Chicken costs $1 (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

War on Terror

Obama since he got elected in his office had been approaching the war on terror in the same approach that Chine and Bush did in matter of using black OPS and drones. Furthermore, Obama did increase the usage of drones in Afghanistan and Yemen against Taliban and other terrorist groups but that also resulted in killing innocent civilians. Those acts had angered many countries affected by those drones and this issue had been covered multiple times in the Media.--Saab 1989 (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

My question should this be added about him? His war on terror? War on Taliban? I personally it should be covered because when someone read about him, he or she should be able to know all the positive and [b]negative[/b] policies he had implemented.--Saab 1989 (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Why would this possibly be in this article, instead of being addressed in the Presidency of Barack Obama article? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Suffix

Why is the Roman numeral II used instead of jr. for his full name? His father was Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. Is this a preference by the Obama family? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.120.160 (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Because that is what it says on his birth certificate. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Citizenship conspiracy theories

Note: I have reported this matter to AN/I, here. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

proposal perennial proposal, considered and rejected - please see FAQ #5-9
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
wasn't this a big deal when the elections were going on? where's the controversy? ie http://westernfrontamerica.com/2008/11/08/obama-coming-constitutional-crisis/ and all the other sites. O.o —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.203.26 (talk) 06:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC) See answer to Q5 in FAQ, above. Fat&Happy (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC) I feel it's worth mentioning in the article.TheiGuard (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Well, there are currently 69 volumes of archived discussions linked at the top of this page. Feel free to browse through them and estimate the odds of establishing a consensus for inclusion. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Well said, I must say I love the satirical sarcasm on wikipedia. --Iankap99 (talk) 04:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Like many criticisms of Obama, it is mentioned on a subpage, but won't be mentioned here since this is the page everyone visits. Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC) So, conspiracy theories are a criticism now? Someone is full of it. BrendanFrye (talk) 03:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC) I think the fact you think they can't be shows a need for further education. For one thing, if they can't be criticisms, then I think you'll have a tough time explaining why his citizenship is mentioned on a page of its own. So it has its own page, but not because it's a criticism? You haven't thought this through well enough. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 05:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC) No, it's not a criticism. A criticism is a sincere or plausible opinion voiced about facts. The birther stuff is somewhere between a fringe conspiracy theory and a political smear. But anyway, even if it were a criticism we don't divide the article into criticism and praise sections, but rather work things into the right article(s) in due proportion to their biographical importance and relevance. This stuff isn't terribly important or relevant to the overall scope of Obama's life or career, and is best mentioned in other articles about more narrow, related subjects. The subject has been discussed again and again, and has never gained substantial support among legitimate editors for its inclusion. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC) The citizenship issue is so dumb and minor.The Chicken costs $1 (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Source, WikiDemon? Wikipedia's page on Criticism simply defines it as "the judgement (using analysis and evaluation) of the merits and faults of the actions or work of another individual." I have a hard time believing you're trying to place as a definition of criticism that it has to have basis in fact. Criticism by many reliable definitions would simply be negative statements. According to Princeton's definition, for example, a critic can be defined simply as "someone who frequently finds fault or makes harsh and unfair judgments". Logically then, I'm not sure where you're coming up with this definition of the word. As for whether that merits mention in the article, you are again trying to read into this standards that are inaccurate. Regardless of whether it is fact-based (and I have my doubts), supported by 'legitimate editors' (I notice you are going to try and disqualify some of the many editors who have in the past brought this up), and regardless of whether it is a fringe theory, it can still be discussed if notable and reliably sourced. According to Wikipedia:Fringe theories, "A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory... Subjects receive attention in Wikipedia in proportion to the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written." Furthermore, according to that same article, "Likewise, exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources, and, with clear editorial consensus, unreliable sources for exceptional claims may be rejected due to a lack of quality." While consensus can block sources due to a lack of quality, it cannot block simply because they claim consensus. Logically, Wikipedia consensus should not be all that's needed to make a fringe theory notable, just as it should not be all that's needed to reject notable and well-sourced criticisms. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC) "I think the fact you think they can't be shows a need for further education." Ha ha. You're a troll. BrendanFrye (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Yeah, right, the guy here since February 2007 is a troll because the guy here since December 2009 said so. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC) The difference is that I've been not trolling since December. Your argument (like your logic) above is basically gibberish and just a huge waste of time. BrendanFrye (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC) I'll stop feeding the trolls now. Have fun spinning your wheels. BrendanFrye (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC) I feel he deserves a criticism section, he is one of the most controversial presidents of all time.TheiGuard (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Indeed. I have found in the past that no matter how notable a criticism of Obama, or how well-sourced it may be, that the editors on the Obama page will fight it tooth and nail, bringing in other liberal editors from elsewhere on Wikipedia and then claiming 'consensus' regardless of past editors who provided opposite consensus who just aren't present at the time. I would think consensus alone should not be enough to block mention of topics that are notable and reliably sourced. For example, Wikipedia mentions notable criticisms of Barack Obama, but none are mentioned on the main page because of how strongly the editors there fight it. Supposedly, though worthy of mention elsewhere on Wikipedia, they are somehow not valid on the page of the person they most concern. Furthermore, there is no denying the notability or relevance thereof, given that each of these issues, even apart from their mention on separate Wikipedia articles, has substantial independent media references. Obama's voting record on live birth abortion: Sourced on Wikipedia Pages: Barack_Obama_social_policy, United States Senate election in_Illinois, 2004, Nat Hentoff, James Dobson, David Freddoso, Jill Stanek, Gianna Jessen, Alan Keyes, The Committee for Truth in Politics Sourced Independently: FactCheck.org/Newsweek[1], New York Times[2][3], CNN[4][5], FOX News[6], National Right to Life Committee[7], New York Sun[8], Real Clear Politics (Time Magazine blog)[9][10], Chicago Tribune[11], National Review[12], MSNBC[13] Sourced additionally for Obama's present votes on these controversial bills: ABC News[14], PolitiFact[15][16], Chicago Tribune[17][18], Washington Post[19], Time Magazine[20], New York Sun[21], Huffington Post[22], Chicago Sun-Times[23] Obama's Own Words in IL Senate Transcripts for Bills: Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act[24] (pp. 84-90), Induced Birth Infants Liability Act[25] (pp. 29-35) Obama's Citizenship: Sourced on Wikipedia Pages: Natural born citizen of the United States, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, Andy Martin (American politician), Alan Keyes, Political positions of Sarah Palin, Ken Cuccinelli, Ted Poe, Wiley Drake Knocked off all candidates in 1st election by disqualifying petition signatures on technicalities: Sourced on Wikipedia Pages: Illinois Senate elections of Barack Obama, Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama, Alice Palmer (politician) Sourced Independently: CNN[26][27], Chicago Tribune[28] , Boston Globe[29], New York Times[30] Asked Emil Jones, head of Illinois Senate, to make him a U.S. Senator, following which he was appointed head of high-profile pieces of legislation worked on by other Illinois Senators: Sourced on Wikipedia Pages: Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama, Emil Jones Sourced Independently: Time Magazine [31], CBS News[32], Boston Globe[33], Houston Press[34] Left off citizenship sourcing since I'm sure most realize that can be provided readily enough. Will provide upon request. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Going for another topic ban Jzyehoshua? Your last topic ban on this page was what, three months ago? You were doing so well. Please stop posting walls of text, if you can't make your point succinctly than it probably isn't a point worth making. :) BrendanFrye (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC) It's been a while since Scjessey and others here (whether you were one I don't know) got banned/disciplined much more seriously for your attacks on members on this topic. I know you can't address the points other than to try and distract by focusing on the person rather than the argument, so I'll humor you for now. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC) What points? BrendanFrye (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC) I suppose your disregard for 'walls of text' led you to overlook them. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC) I realize I'm acting a bit edgy, but then so too would most people, I'm sure, who'd just provided 50 sources on controversial material being excluded from an article, only to be told they hadn't made any points. One wonders, was there a right answer? I provided too many sources, and got accused of making 'walls of text'. And had I provided no sources, I'd have doubtless been accused of not providing sources. It seems, no matter how much sourcing or facts I provide, I cannot generate any response from critics other than personal attacks about racism or Wikipedia history. Instead of answers, there are inflammatory remarks followed by edit war attempts to prevent said remarks from being removed, and vandalism attacks on the page. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Responding to Jzyehoshua's point, you are referring to a different meaning of the word "criticism". What you initially proposed is that we include negative facts about Obama for the sake of including negative facts, which is not criticism at all. It would fit the Wikipedia concept of a coatrack. Others refer to criticism as negative opinions about the facts of a thing, the oppositve of praise. That is the more serious proposal, covering people's negative opinions about Obama, and that is precisely what is discouraged on Wikipedia and has been rejected time after time. That is normally based in fact, although there is a different sense (one wholly unsuitable here) for baseless negative assertions - but even those are assertions of opinion. A factual claim, right or wrong, is not criticism. And what you're referring to is criticism in the sense of critique, something we don't really do for articles about people, but we do in say films, where many have a "critical reception" section. And yes, I am disqualifying many of the accounts from which this was brought this up in the past - they are now banned as fake accounts, and the long-term editors here have been very wary of new accounts making similar proposals. Anyway, it's very unlikely that the editors would agree now to adding a criticism section, and I'm not sure how productive a protracted discussion would be here. It's heading in the wrong direction as it is. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC) I never said that we should include negative facts for the sake of including them. Where are you getting this from? What I actually said was that if criticisms are notable and reliably sourced, then they should be included, and that consensus without a valid objection, such as on the basis of sourcing or notability, should not be enough to prevent the subject's mention. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC) @TheiGuard, after an edit conflict - That's a load of old cobblers, quite frankly. Obama has been among the least controversial of presidents by any legitimate measure. His policies and actions have been entirely predictable and mainstream. Just because a tiny band of ill-educated racists and a few political opponents regard Obama as controversial, this does not make it so. While there are indeed legitimate criticisms one can make against Obama, they are minor in scope and have attracted little notoriety. Certainly there is nothing substantive enough to warrant a criticism section. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC) I would appreciate if you would reframe from calling me a racist. I will no longer be engaging in this conversation. You are guarding this article as if it is yours. Wikipedia is about sharing information, and I plan to share plenty of knowledge on this article. TheiGuard (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC) I did not call you a racist. I was referring to that group of FOX News viewers calling themselves "Teabaggers" and the like. Besides, Wikipedia is not about "sharing information". It's not a social network. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC) I have attended several Tea parties, so that makes me a racist? There is no need for hatred. TheiGuard (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC) It may not make you racist, but it does make you uninformed on how reality works. Half-jokes aside, these are non-controversies. #1 was opposing on states rights grounds, I believe (we wouldn't raise this on, say, Ron Paul), #2 is a "shout loud enough and someone will hear you" 'controversy', and #3 and #4... seriously, Obama is a politician. If you're going to criticise him on this why not criticise every politician for every backroom deal they ever did? Sceptre (talk) 00:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Any politician with backroom deals that prominent (and I gave very reliable and prominent sources) would be expected to have the deals mentioned prominently on their Wikipedia page, and if not, they should be. No conservative politician on Wikipedia would be excluded from such standard, and you know it. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 04:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC) As for #1, if you mean Obama was opposing the bills on state's rights, then you're wrong, and I'm not sure where you are getting your sources. According to the IL Senate transcripts, which links I just included, Obama's reasons for opposing the bills can be seen as follows, from his words posted verbatim: "Senator O'Malley, the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was - is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the -- the fetus or child, as - as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living. Is that correct?" "Well, it turned out - that during the testimony a number of members who are typically in favor of a woman's right to choose an abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that your - you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the testimony. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest, not that I think it'll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny." "Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a - a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it - it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as - as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality. Now, as I said before, this probably won't make any difference. I recall the last time we had a debate about abortion, we passed a bill out of here. I suggested to Members of the Judiciary Committee that it was unconstitutional and it would be struck down by the Seventh Circuit. It was. I recognize this is a passionate issue, and so I - I won't, as I said, belabor the point. I think it's important to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we might have compromised and - and arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how a - a previable fetus or child was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. We're going much further than that in this bill. As a consequence, I think that we will probably end up in court once again, as we often do, on this issue. And as a consequence, I'll be voting Present." -Barack Obama. Born Alive Infants Protection Act. 92nd General Assembly Regular Session Senate Transcript. State of Illinois. pp. 84-90.[35][36] As such, the primary arguments made by Obama in fighting what he himself acknowledged were bills whose intent was to stop "a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the -- the fetus or child, as - as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb... not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living" were as follows: Not a full term. As Obama stated, "whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a - a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term." -Barack Obama. Born Alive Infants Protection Act. 92nd General Assembly Regular Session Senate Transcript. State of Illinois. pp. 84-90.[37] Logically then, he would consider children born prematurely, and who had not been born a "nine-month old... delivered to term" nothing more than a "previable fetus". Such logic cold-bloodedly places a new requirement beyond delivery outside the womb and capability of surviving as such, that you must have undergone a full 9-month term. I am sure that most can agree this is reprehensible. Don't burden doctors. As Obama stated, "As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child - however way you want to describe it - is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that it's nonviable but there's, let's say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just out limp and dead, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved... Because if these children are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they're looked after." -Barack Obama. Induced Birth Infants Liability Act. 92nd General Assembly Regular Session Senate Transcript. State of Illinois. pp. 29-35.[38]}} Ironically, Obama is asking Americans to place their trust in the abortion doctors making hundreds of thousands of dollars each year in potentially harming other human beings, when it is not in their best interests to even reveal that children are surviving their abortions, let alone care for those children, as it could endanger their industry and cause unnecessary expense. The bill's purpose was reasonable, to ensure at least 2 physicians were accountable for verifying live-born children were not in fact surviving the abortions, to prevent the same "infanticide" that led Congress to declare partial birth abortion illegal. This double-physician standard leads to further physician accountability and better assurance that children who survive abortions are not left to die unattended. Bill Unconstitutional. Obama declared that protecting children outside the womb who've survived abortions, or as he called them, "previable fetus[es]" would be unconstitutional simply because it would be an anti-abortion statute. According to his own rather muddled statements, "That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it - it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional." -Barack Obama. Born Alive Infants Protection Act. 92nd General Assembly Regular Session Senate Transcript. State of Illinois. pp. 84-90.[39] In other words, we shouldn't be concerned about whether or not it's killing a child, but whether it's placing restrictions on abortion. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 06:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Proposing close At this point the question has been posed and rejected, with no reasonable chance of gaining consensus (see FAQ #5) and I don't see anything productive coming out of this, particularly given the accusations here. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC) I think there can be a consensus to what the disagreements about Obama are. Health care, economy, space, Supreme Court are major ones. I think his handling of the oil spill is not a disagreement yet. There isn't much birther support, either. So there is a consensus that there be no oil spill and birther controversy but there is probably (or should be consensus) that the economy and health care are legimate controversies about Obama. The Chicken costs $1 (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC) If it weren't for his most recent edit here, I would have held back from responding here for a day or two to see if Jzyehoshua was going to take my advice and fish out one issue from the several above to focus on calmly and patiently discussing a responsible edit for, but his going back over earlier edits to change them to red boldface text as is his first edit after my admonition suggests it's still more for him about attracting attention on and strewing and smearing this stuff throughout the talk and archive pages than it is about responsible and rationally presented editorial suggestions for the article. The argument that it's elsewhere at Wikipedia so it belongs here, too, seems particularly obtuse. Some poor kids in Greece can't even get their suggestions on satellite articles. (Clumsy attempt at paraphrasing the depression-era humor of my grandparents.) A third of the articles Jzyeoshoua notes here are already linked from this bio, half likely linked from those, and a few are really stretches. I second Wikidemon's proposal, before anybody teas wolf again. The whole point of the FAQs is to preclude this sort of post from turning into a rehashing of the same tired arguments for the 70th time. Abrazame (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC) I changed the format due to Sceptre and another user here suggesting that the issues were not controversial. While in the process, I realized I could make the posts more concise, and thus merged them as per the topic on the noticeboards. I also decided it was too tough to distinguish between parts of the post, the headings/bullets, and the subheadings. But just bold didn't seem enough, so I used color as well. I don't mind removing the formatting, it was just a spur of the moment idea done for readability. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 06:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Keep spinning those wheels. Vote to close and pretend this never happened. BrendanFrye (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC) It's painfully obvious that Jzyehoshua has learned absolutely nothing from his extended topic ban, and is continuing to violate the BLP guidelines, accusing a living person of murdering children. Not only do I vote to close, I vote for the offending edits from Jzyehoshua to be deleted. If not self-reverted, to be taken to the appropriate outlet for a permanent topic ban to be enforced. Which would include all living persons and anything to do with abortion. Dave Dial (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Why does no-one mention the fact that Obama will not produce a birth certificate? Or the fact that, when prompted to name the hospital he was supposedly born in, the administration OFFICIALLY STATED the name of the hospital he was born in and came up with two different hospitals? Is it because they are just plain confused, and don't know the President's past? Or is it because Obama wasn't really born in U.S.A. and the administration can't make up it's mind about which hospital they decide to say he was born in? Obama's grandmother sated on the telephone with a major news company that she was in the delivery room, and he was DEFINITELY born in Kenya. She did not know, of course, that not being born in the US (or on a military base overseas) disqualifies one from running for the office of President. She was clearly not trying to blackmail her grandson. So why is this Kenyan native THE US'S PRESIDENT?

Oh wow. Read the FAQ. Falcon8765 (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

president link

Hi, I was hoping to click "President of the United States" and be redirected to the page "President of the United States", but to no avail could I do this. It seems i can't edit the page and fix this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.22.155 (talk) 04:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you can click the link to that phrase in the infobox immediately below the primary photo. It is probably not linked in the article because Wiki policy dissuades from linking adjoining words and phrases because it can become difficult for readers/surfers to determine where the links split.

Apparently some links have been removed earlier today with those policies cited; I approve of the reinstated link to African American. I am also going to re-link Christianity. Those two phrases are apparently misunderstood by a good many of the most vehement visitors to this page. I'm agnostic on linking POTUS in the lead, given its link in the adjacent infobox; if someone else wants to weigh in on that and link it, I don't imagine I would be opposed. Abrazame (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If someone doesn't know what an African American is, they can't understand enough English to read Wikipedia. We aren't talking about 1,3-paradifluorobenzene, we are talking simple English. The Chicken costs $1 (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, after following this discussionpage for some time, it seems to me that African American isn´t an easy concept. Not in this case, anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Improved FAQ functionality

Just a navel-gazing notice for those who frequently find themselves directing commenters to the FAQ above: I've added anchors to the FAQ headings, so that you can now make direct links like #Q1 to direct a reader to FAQ Q1. This eliminates any need to tell such commenters to "search", "look", or "scroll up" for specific FAQs; now you can be both lazy and unambiguous at once. I hope this functionality is useful. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. This is useful indeed.--JayJasper (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice work, Gavia immer. ClovisPt (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Image

Why did this image get removed from the article? Was there consensus to do so?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there was a consensus see this discussion. The edit here was made in October of last year. --Modocc (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 108.13.32.48, 30 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please remove the statement "(OBAMA IS A MUSLIM)" because it is both incorrect, but also contradicts the information given in his summary column on the right half of the webpage under the Religion section.

This statement is in the first line of paragraph 5 in the "Early Life and Career section." This sentence currently reads, "Following high school, (OBAMA IS A MUSLIM) Obama moved to Los Angeles in 1979 to attend Occidental College." 108.13.32.48 (talk) 05:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the request. I see that the vandalism has been reverted and an editor has been indefinitely blocked as a vandalism only account. Johnuniq (talk) 07:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No criticism?

The George W. Bush article contains the word "criticism" ten times, twice in the lead. This article only uses the word once, in the trifling matter of the Nobel Peace Prize. Obviously, Obama has received criticism for a number of his policies and activities in the last year, especially his push for health care legislation, his continuation of Bush's foreign policy, evinced by his decision to send additional troops into the field, and his unwillingness to close Gitmo, another Bush policy he's left unchanged. Those are major issues, and criticism of his positions on those issues is notable. 206.180.38.20 (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see questions 6-9 in the FAQ list at the top of this page. We cover major events in a logical / chronological order rather than highlighting criticism or praise sections. We generally just say what happened and not whether people are happy or unhappy about it, although critics and detractors are sometimes mentioned, particularly in some of the child articles about the "presidency of..." or the specific issues in question. Hope that helps. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If you enter "criticism" in the archive search box at the top of this page, you can view the numerous discussionsthat have taken place on the subject.--JayJasper (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with OP. If you were to take a neutral party and have them read both the Obama and Bush articles, they would come to one of two conclusions. Either there is no real criticism of Obama or their was a biased party who preferred Obama over Bush. This type of thing is only hurting wikipedia because any intelligent person can tell you there is valid criticism of both Presidents. So to have criticism in one but not the other is just ludicrous. 98.127.155.132 (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between the criticism aimed at Obama and the criticism aimed at Bush. Virtually all criticism aimed at Obama is foot-stamping hyperbole by political opponents. Virtually all criticism of Bush is based on legitimate complaints about his atrocious Presidency (which included 9/11, Katrina and the worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression). -- Scjessey (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey smacks of POV. Effectively, he is saying criticism of Bush is legit but not for Obama. There has been criticism of Obama by liberals. Are they now his "political opponents"? SMP0328. (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This is heading in an unnecessary and unproductive direction. In general, our articles about politicians try to avoid sections devoted to criticism, and avoid criticism generally, because criticism is not really a pertinent biographical fact about people unless it is tied somehow to their life. Sometimes a person's detractors, or problematic things about them or their actions, are of biographical importance, and they can be included. For example, in his book Obama recounted drug use in his youth, something that is a significant part of his life story. We don't call it a criticism or a controversy, it is simply an event that happened. Another thing we avoid is trying to balance articles about people against each other so they are equally or positive or negative. It just doesn't work like that - we would have to calibrate Obama's article against not only other presidents, but all of his political rivals, those of heads of state of other countries, and so on. And to what end? It is not our job here on this page to clean up the Bush article or speculate about what makes Bush a controversial figure, but if it is misfocused you are free to go there and try to improve it. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not acceptable. Obviously there's no way to fit everything into this article, but it is notable and noteworthy to at least MENTION that he's received criticism for certain things. There's not even a link to a criticism page. The health care page doesn't include any criticism of his positions either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.180.38.20 (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you justify the large amount of criticism mentioned in the GWB article? Why the difference. I don't think they should be held to different standards. 206.180.38.20 (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't want a criticm section anyway, and A7 doesn't apply, because there has been massive coverage of criticism of his health care position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.180.38.20 (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

So what specifically do you want to add or change?Falcon8765 (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, the Presidency of Barack Obama article uses the word criticism four times, and the Presidency of George W. Bush article doesn't use the word at all. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 21:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Just off a random google search, something like: Gitmo or Obamacare —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.180.38.20 (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There are two ways to fix the inequality, have no criticisms in any article or have them in both articles. Some articles have criticisms without calling it such. If there are criticisms, they should be only the main ones. Otherwise, every politician could have an entire book chapter about how bad they are. The McChicken costs $1 (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What about criticism of the oil spill?[40] Truthsort (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Obama had nothing to do with the oil spill? BP operated there long before he was in office.--Saab 1989 (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Answer could be correct but the logic is wrong. Otherwise, "Obama (or Bush) has nothing to do with the economy since it was there before they were even born". Obama's handling of the spill may be questioned in the future. Bush's handling of Hurricane Katrina made some people hate him. The Chicken costs $1 (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Opinion columns are not reliable sources. We assert facts here, even fact about opinions, but we do not assert an opinion as fact, which is what an OpEd is. Tarc (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

George W. Bush is not a fair comparison, as he has had two terms and has had some of the lowest approval ratings of all-time and is not a very popular president in general. Barak Obama hasn't even completed one term, so this argument doesn't make much sense. It shouldn't be a game anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Some critics are calling this oil spill "Obama's Katrina".[41] Truthsort (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If you actually read that article, you will find the "critics" are non-notable residents of the nowhere-near-the-spill NYC area. It also incorrectly refers to the "National Resources Defense Council" (presumably meant to be the Natural Resources Defense Council of the same area). To consider an appropriate inclusion of this sort of opinion, we would need to see a preponderance of mainstream reliable sources talking about it. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd also point out that half of everything these days is being nicknamed "Obama's Katrina," such as the earthquake in Haiti. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The consensus in the news is that it isn't Obama's Katrina yet. However, statements like Obama's Interior Secretary saying that the government will push BP out of the way when the government has neither the expertise nor the equipment to cap the well is making the administration look weak. Time will tell whether Obama is damaged by the spill. The Exxon Valdez did not damage any president. The Chicken costs $1 (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is just more unreferenced guesswork that is essentially meaningless and doesn't improve the article. The spill massive gushing plume of evil is the result of not enough regulation and oversight (a consequence of small government). It's yet another issue that Obama has inherited from other people/agencies. It is difficult to see circumstances in which this matter will become significant enough to be a notable aspect of Obama's biography, although there are conceivably related articles in which this could be brought up. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Would someone kindly

Get rid of the little (OBAMA IS A MUSLIM) junk under the early life section of this article. I'm sure many people would appreciate it. It's next to the picture of him as a child with his family. I beleive. Actually it is everywhere throughout some sections of the article. Please fix this somebody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legendofstuff (talk • contribs) 05:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. It's done and the account that made the edit is blocked (not by me). If it still looks that way in your browser you might have to refresh it or flush the cache to get the fixed version of the page to load. Many people are watching the page and usually spot these things quickly, but one of the byproducts of Wikipedia being "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" is that it's subject to random vandalism. Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 05:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'm sure a lot of people appreciated that being gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legendofstuff (talk • contribs) 06:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The Constitution does not require that one follow any specific religion to be president. Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and others can be President. None is any more shameful than another. Inaccurate reporting, such as calling a President a Jew or a Muslim, is not right. The Chicken costs $1 (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Was there a special reason why you felt the need to add your inflammatory statement to this old thread? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Note that what Scjessey was replying to initially was this bit of shit-stirring, and not the benign passage that now appears above. Tarc (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Also, any edits this user makes should be removed as a result that the editor is an obvious sock of JB50000/Judith Merrick/Gaydenver. At least until some admin blocks the sock or someone notifies the appropriate venue. Dave Dial (talk) 02:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, would someone please look at Senator Obama's predecessor and successor? I think you'll find they aren't Carol Moseley Braun and the current Democratic nominee. 68.41.79.206 (talk) 06:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

where? Tvoz/talk 07:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing the anon is misreading the 2004 senate race section; the sentence declares that Braun was Fitzgerald's predecessor, not Obama's. I don't know where he's getting an erroneous Democratic nominee successor. In the United States Senators from Illinois box at the end of the article, it notes Obama's predecessor was Fitzgerald and his successor Burress. Abrazame (talk) 07:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

My guess as well. All looks correct. Tvoz/talk 15:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

No, if you look towards the bottom of the page (in the succession navigation box), where predecessors and successors for any awards, offices, etc one has held or received, you will clearly see that Carol Moseley Braun is his "predecessor" and Alexi Gianoulias as his "successor". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.79.206 (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

And your problem with that is ____ ? - Wikidemon (talk) 06:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That portion is actually correct, as Carol Moseley Braun was the Democratic nominee for that senate seat in 1998 and lost to Peter Fitzgerald. Obama was the next Democratic nominee for that senate seat, with Alexi Giannoulias preceding Obama. So it's correct. Dave Dial (talk) 06:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Is President Obama's e-mail a reliable source?

Resolved

CNN is preferred.

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
President Obama regularly sends me e-mail. I admit that he sends the same e-mail to thousands of other people. Is this a reliable source? In general, I would not think so but the converse is that Obama's e-mail is unreliable and that is slander. Obama Email Recipient 21:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Now this, in contrast to the IP's post above, appears trollish.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC) DD2K keeps changing my edit so here's a correction: Obama e-mails a newsletter to campaign donors, of which I am one. Once in a while, there is some good information there. Can this be cited in the article? Obama Email Recipient 22:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC) I'll step past any question of why the question gets removed and simply try to answer it... this is mostly my opinion, not any hard fast rule here. It depends on what the email says, and what statement you're interested in showing. The general answer would be "no" in most cases, because it's probably a political email that represents the position of the presidential administration (Obama himself may or may not have even read it, much less written it). Although it's not a WP:RS question exactly, an email from an organization directly to the public does not really establish whether the matter is worth reporting on. We know it's important enough for them to feel they should put it in an email, but as a WP:WEIGHT matter we can't say without third party sourcing whether it's something important enough for people to need to read about here. Hope that helps. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Question regarding pictures' copyright status

I have a couple of pictures my brother took of Obama when he visited an ethanol plant near where I live (he was still a senator at the time, if that matters). What is the legal status on photographs of people? None of the stuff I've uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons was of people (it's mostly wildlife), so I wasn't sure if I could upload these pictures under a free license as required. --Evice (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

In this case, I believe the photographer would be the copyright holder. Therefore if your brother agrees to release the images under a creative commons share-alike license, there should be no problems.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll ask him about that whenever I get the chance. --Evice (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Response to Gulf Oil Spill

Is Wikipedia even going to mention it, or at least that he went down to the Gulf to check on the spill's cleanup process? Some pros and cons of his response would be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.14.239 (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a biography cover his entire life. Giving details of every incident during his presidency is impossible. A more thorough explanation would be appropriate perhaps at Presidency of Barack Obama. Grsz¹¹ 00:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but I agree with Grsz11 that it's too minor a detail to include for now. It could turn out in the end that Obama's actions in response to the oil spill, and/or the public perception and political fallout, are one of the events of the presidency that's worth covering here. However, at this point it's an event in progress, and too early to tell. Traveling to the scene of a disaster by itself isn't that remarkable. Every president does it many times while in office, it must be part of the job description, and the press always covers it of course. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of far more minor events from his presidency mentioned in the article. The article mentions secrecy given to presidential records, changing FOIA procedures, allowing federal funding of foreign abortions, signing the state children's health insurance bill, and the hate crimes law. All of these are far less significant than the oil spill. Even if it's just a sentence or two under Domestic policy (subject to expansion in the future if he takes more direct action concerning the spill), it should at least be mentioned. --B (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's the largest oil spill in U.S. history, that's not minor. Obama has also taken full responsibility for it which attaches the whole incident to his "presidential hip". It doesn't have to be a response section but some words under the environmental section, etc.--NortyNort (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It still doesn't have much to do with Obama's biography, quite frankly. The response of his administration is typical and unremarkable. If Obama himself were to do (or not do) something notable (like don a wetsuit and swim to the site of the leak) then it would be worth mentioning here. Until then, it is better covered under Presidency of Barack Obama and BP. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the news media thinks it has something to do with him. There is a USA Today/Gallup poll on his performance relative to the spill [42]. CNN has an article about Obama personally promising to triple the cleanup manpower [43]. Governor Jindal has a daily call with the White House [44]. I should note that Bobby Jindal doesn't mention the spill either, which is equally ridiculous. This is probably the most important event of Jindal's governorship and the second most important of Obama's presidency (behind health care). George W. Bush has three paragraphs on Hurricane Katrina and, while I'm aware that the references to this event as Obama's Katrina are hyperbole, I would think the oil spill would at least rate a sentence here. Not long before the spill, Obama had announced plans regarding offshore drilling. It would seem to me not unreasonable to add one sentence under Domestic policy that says something like, "Obama introduced a proposal to expand areas open to off-shore drilling on March 31, 2010 [45]. The plans were later shelved following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the worst oil spill in US history." That informs the reader of his actions on a key domestic policy issue and acknowledges the existence of this important piece of his presidency. --B (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I would not oppose an addition of an entry based on the oil spill. While I do agree the bulk of any mention should be included in Obama's presidency article, it's worth a mention here too. In regards to the back and forth here, I think the reasons for hesitation on inclusions of these types of things are legit, and Scjessey's response(while it does look POVish) is based on the fact that there were editors here wanting to included everything negative pushed at Obama during the first months of his presidency. Putting the blame on him for everything(which was absolutely ridiculous). While the Bush article developed over time and many of the aspects inside had the opportunity of time to reflect on decisions and actions. I would also caution that once this is included, and I think it should be, for editors to be aware of attempts to coatrack sections. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama's response to the Oil Spill become a frequent theme in the media. It is notable that there is an unprecedented gushing oil spill in the Gulf with tremendous ecological ramifications. Barack Obama has been criticized for his passivity in dealing with the spill, and it is certainly a NPOV to place recognition of this criticism. It is also very important to note that he has created a commission to study the spill and has promised a criminal prosecution on BP. For these reasons, I feel that his response to the spill deserves mention.

--Screwball23 talk 04:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

In theory, a good idea. We have a similar section in Bush's article about Katrina. However, your addition introduced some content that may need better verification or qualification; I see that the only source verifying criticism of Obama and/or BP—and it undoubtedly exists—is the Christian Science Monitor (who, I'll hazard a guess, supported exploratory off-shore drilling before this happened), and I don't really think they're a reliable source. I suggest that the CSMonitor source be removed and replaced with reputable print or broadcast news institutions, instead. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, The Christian Science Monitor is a reliable source, in almost all areas. The original wording was off base, as I believe are the comparisons to Katrina. Although there is surely room to be critical of the Obama administration for various reactions. Katrina was a natural disaster, which federal and state governments are largely responsible for aid and cleanup. The oil spill was a result of an entity(BP), and by law BP was supposed to have a plan in place for situations just like the current one. Like I indicated, there is valid criticism, but it's probably has more to do with appearances than actual responsibility. The oil companies are supposed to have the equipment and plans to deal with these situations. By law and common sense. Dave Dial (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid "Obama's Katrina" has all the hallmarks of a senseless political meme, like calling everything "-gate". If so, it's unencyclopedic no matter how many times it gets repeated by the press. Presidents are always criticized over everything bad that happens in the United States, that's the industry of politics. I hope it can be confined to large-scale water-borne disasters in the Gulf of Mexico, but I'm afraid from now on out, every time there is any lingering problem that a government leader cannot quickly fix they'll call it X's Katrina. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Just because it's a political meme, doesn't mean that the underlying issue and/or criticism cannot be included in the article. Each incident should be analyzed on its own merits, not on the popularity of a phrase.LedRush (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree. I was just expressing dissatisfaction with the meme, which makes a comparison between Bush's administration and Obama's that is superficial in every way except the realm of political fallout. The truth behind the meme, the disaster itself and the adequacy of the government response, is very important. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Why no mention of Transocean or Halliburton who were the companies actually working this rig. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.75.110 (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The section on the oil spill is way too long. The first two sentences explain when and how the spill occurred, and give details about how BP responded. These are not biographical details about Obama and are best covered in Deepwater Horizon oil spill. This article should only be concerned with the notable aspects of the event that specifically involve Obama. I would suggest something more like this:

Main article: Deepwater Horizon oil spill

Following a blowout at an offshore oil well in the Gulf of Mexico, President Obama directed Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar to review and report on the events surrounding incident. Obama visited the Gulf coast on May 2 and again on May 28, among visits by members of his cabinet. As efforts to significantly stanch the leak or entirely prevent the oil from reaching the coast continued, some in the media and public expressed confusion and criticism over various aspects of the incident, including a perceived lack of involvement by Obama and the federal government. Following a month-long series of Congressional hearings, Obama officially began a federal investigation and formed a bipartisan commission to review the matter and recommend steps to avoid similar events in the future.

The bit about Obama visiting the Gulf coast is clunky and out-of-date (he is there today), so that will also need fixing. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, unless it's miraculously over due to this new top-hat, or buzz kill, or whatever procedure, we're only partway into a very long and complex event that will almost certainly involve the President further. When all is said and done the event might be worth a section this long, or maybe shorter, and we will have to make room for the rest of the story as it arises. But anyway, that's rather normal. Current events are like a fast growing hedge in the spring, you have to keep trimming them back so they don't get unruly. Let the new shoots spring up and fill out the bush, cut them when they get too long. Just part of the normal editing process. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Some missing information added. Obama has stepped up to the plate and said he is responsible. He says he is directing the effort but BP didn't always listen, like to use other chemical dispersants. See http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100528/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_washington entitled Fixing oil spill my responsibility, Obama says Though he said the government was giving the orders in the aftermath, he acknowledged that BP hasn't always done what officials have asked, for instance ignoring directions to fully explore less-toxic alternatives to the chemical dispersant being used now on the oil...."I take responsibility. It is my job to make sure that everything is done to shut this down," Obama declared in a lengthy news conference at the White House on Thursday...

So this article can add.. On May 28, 2010, Obama said "I take responsibility. It is my job to make sure that everything is done to shut this down". He said "I'm confident that people are going to look back and say that this administration was on top of what was an unprecedented crisis". Obama said the government was giving the orders in the aftermath, but that BP had not always followed what official have asked, such as considering alternatives to chemical dispersants used. Early the next month, the LMRP containment cap was successfully deployed. Obama Takes Charge! 21:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits...

...to this section on the oil spill have actually expanded the text to what is now a ludicrously overlong weight-busting behemoth that is completely inappropriate for this biography. Certainly the oil spill is relevant to Obama's biography, but all the secondary details about other entities are most certainly not. This section should be cut down to two or three sentences at the most. This should only be a summary of the specific aspects of the oil spill that relate to Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. As I mentioned we'll likely have to keep trimming things back periodically to keep it focused. The other thing to watch out for in the recent edits is that a WP:PIPE should link to something the reader fairly expects from the text of the link. For example, Gerald Ford had a dog is not clear. Gerald Ford had a dog, Liberty is better. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(Out of sequence) That's well and good, but A.) As I've said, it wasn't Gerald Ford's dog, it was Spiro Agnew's, B.) Wikipedia has no article called dog, and C.) You didn't change it to "Gerald Ford had a dog, Liberty", you changed it to "A dog was had. Leslie Lynch King, Jr., the leash's majority owner..." Abrazame (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite understand that, and sorry if my analogy failed... but the pipes were done in a nonstandard and confusing way, so I thought I should note that.Wikidemon (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

For someone complaining about piping links, you don't check them. There is no Wikipedia article called oil rig. The Deepwater Horizon is a drilling rig, known at Wikipedia as an oil platform. It isn't BP's rig/platform, it is Transocean's rig/platform. The Macondo Prospect isn't a well, it's an oil field. What blew up was something drilled for the prior couple months by Transocean (allegedly faultily, with pieces of their BOP annulus breaking and coming up the riser pipe in chunks, indicating it was not in a condition to prevent a blowout) and the casing sealed early that morning by Halliburton (allegedly shoddily; cementing problems are associated with 18 of 39 blowouts in the previous 15 years; Halliburton admitted faulty cementing before the Montara oil spill in Australia last year). As to confusing, while BP is, as you say, the operator of the well, Transocean is the operator of the rig and Transocean is the driller of the well; it technically isn't an operating well until the drilling rig sails off and a production rig comes in. BP is the client, but Transocean is the captain of the ship (rig/platform). And, while BP was 65% owner of the field, and so of the oil gushing from that field, the hearings that have been held have raked Transocean and Halliburton over the coals, and the investigations are looking into their actions, inactions and histories as much as BP's. If the media and the public fails to grasp that, the public record of those official hearings is not irrelevant or subordinate (or even equal) to that. I'm not an apologist for BP, who should pay every penny they owe and then some, and may well do so, but I am trying to use the record to correct the recounting of the way the newsiness has unfolded, or the abbreviated version of such, neither of which is remotely encyclopedic. Abrazame (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, then, the pipes were confusing enough that they confused me too. I'll admit I did not verify the links' accuracy before trying to fix them. The point is that when you make a pipe, you don't call the link "an oil rig" and then link to a specific named rig. That would be what the WP:PIPE#Intuitiveness page calls an "easter egg" link. Instead, you need to inform the reader about what they can expect so they can make an intelligent decision on whether or not to click on the link. In the lead sentence we establish that an explosion at an oil rig in the gulf caused the rig's destruction and an uncontrolled flow of oil into the gulf. The reader doesn't need any more than by way of introduction, before reading about what this has to do with Obama, in order to understand Obama's life and times in 80,000 characters or less. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, you're incorrect about how you're characterizing my edits, even as your own edits bespeak a lack of understanding of (or a lack of focus on) the issue. The "an oil rig" wording was not created by my edit, it was created by yours. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=367249190 My wording had been "exploded a Transocean drilling rig" until Scjessey's complaint the section was too long after which I reduced it to "exploded a Transocean rig", which you changed to "exploded an oil rig", which, as I've already established, created an entirely new link leading to a disambiguation page.

As to your point about piping, I think your attitude is a little dismissive and your focus a little myopic. I maintain that finding a Deepwater Horizon link within the phrase "a blowout exploded a Transocean drilling rig" is as intuitive as the example of an appropriate link at the Wikipedia:Piped link#Intuitiveness page you link for me as a tutorial, finding "Pontiac's Rebellion#Origins" linked within the phrase "war launched in 1763 by a loose confederation of elements of Native American tribes".

Now you've changed it to "an explosion destroyed an offshore rig drilling for oil", with no link at all, again, as if you've got better things to do than properly edit this featured article. (If you thought it worth a link before, why not now?) The rig was not drilling for oil when it was destroyed by the explosion, as your edit makes it sound. In fact, the drilling had completely ceased, or the cementing wouldn't have commenced 20 hours earlier; in fact, the rig was basically done there, and about to undergo a routine check before unhitching from the well site and making way to another drilling location. I take it you've not caught much C-SPAN these past six or seven weeks?  ;) Abrazame (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's stick to discussing the article, not its editors. You seem to be saying that we should have a link to what a drilling rig is. Is that right? I'll go ahead and find the proper article for that wikilink. If there's any other improvement you care to propose, preferably one that doesn't involve some of the things other editors have objected to -- details on matters unrelated to Obama, substantial expansion of the section, or wikilinks that fall under the "easter egg" category described in the tutorial -- please feel free to propose them here or simply edit the article to improve it. Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

A different editor had already added a new paragraph with two further points. Following that, yet another editor added an "update" tag to the section.

It's inappropriate and undue weight to mention BP several times and the other companies not at all when it was Transocean who owned, staffed and operated, and was responsible for, the drilling of the well and the drilling rig that exploded (and lost 11 crew) and it was Halliburton contractors who had done the vital job of cementing, particularly given that faulty cementing by Halliburton was alleged to be a factor in two other major blowouts. Both of those companies figured about as prominently as BP in several Congressional hearings, and it is conceivable that one or both will ultimately be found partly if not fully responsible for the blowout. It's essentially slander to keep naming BP as though they're the only company involved, while ignoring the other companies at the heart of this. I have left out Anadarko, despite the fact they own 25% of the well and 25% of the oil, and the Japanese company who owns 10%, despite the fact that more than 1/3 of the oil involved in this is not owned by BP, and I have left out Cameron International who manufactured the blowout protector, as it was past the warrantee period and it has come to light that Transocean modified the BOP counter which voids Cameron's responsibility.

It's undue weight and out of context if we were to mention people expressed frustration at the president without noting that there was even more frustration being expressed toward BP et al.

On the other hand, it's similarly undue weight and out of context to note frustration and perception and not to give an adequate picture of what was really going on, either before or after, as reliably sourced, and further, to give it in a timeline as it actually happened and not as the storyline in the media has played out.

It would be absurd to note this happened without noting BP's failure to stop this early, as their plan suggested they could and would; yet at the same time, it would be inappropriate to note their failures without noting that they eventually had success in capturing a huge amount of oil, considering they were capturing absolutely none of it for over a month.

And of course, once you're going to note more than one event, you need to establish a timeline

Frankly, as I said when I first edited this section, I don't think any of this is really relevant to this bio yet. Will it ultimately lead to a major shift in energy policy, or a major environmental and engineering response? Quite probably; if it does, then that would be what would be relevant to mention here, if Obama used this moment of crisis to set a new or accelerated course. If he doesn't, then that could be what would be relevant to mention, that despite this major incident we soldiered on with the drilling because (the public/Southern governors/the oil industry complained that the loss of oil industry jobs was worse for the economy and the country than the possibility of future such accidents?) and as a result we were (just fine/experienced a few more but as with terrorism under George W. Bush, that became the new normal/were utterly devastated by a series of catastrophes that ended life as we know it). That's the problem with news, it's just news until it's history. We could fight any mention of the spill, or we could acknowledge that unlike other distractions this is a real thing with likely real repercussions in the real world, and err on the side of making this section, you know, bigger than the automaker rescue and almost as big as health care (both of which are also still unfolding and yet to be added to or updated).

At such time as there is a clear culprit for the cause, we could then focus on that and drop one or even two of the other company names in this bio version of the story, but until such time, that would be irresponsible. At such time as the commission announces measures and Obama enacts them, we can shift the focus of those mentions to that enactment. At such time as there is a real and understood shift in energy or environmental policy, we might drop a couple other issues to note that. If someone wants to remove the criticism that Obama and the federal government should do more, we can whittle down some of what he's done, but if we did that, people would arrive re-adding that aspect.

Until and unless one of the abovementioned things, or some other major detail, arises that fundamentally moves the story or resolves some loose end, I really don't see the problem with the size of the piece given what it covers. I'll say it again, if someone wants to remove the whole thing pending something that actually has major relevance to Obama's biography, I will not object at all. I think the whole section should be deleted from this bio entirely and moved to Presidency, and would applaud consensus to do so. But if someone wants to remove aspects of this, I have a hard time imagining it will be as responsible a representation of what is left, and I'd like to see these points addressed, not just undertaken. I'm not saying what I wrote can't be improved upon, I'm saying removing points currently for the sole purpose of making it shorter, if it then makes it lopsided, is not the answer here.

And to Wikidemon's already beginning editing, regardless of the colloquial use of their former name, they are not actually called "British Petroleum". Abrazame (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, we can clean up a few things. We ought to use the correct rather than colloquial name. The editors here seem to have agreed to include a brief mention of the event, but not to give a blow-by-blow account of what happened, when, whose fault it was, and what all of the players - something that will likely never be relevant here because this is an article about the life and times of Barack Obama, not BP and its tribulations. One way or another we need to keep this section manageable, and the most obvious solution is to chop off stuff of tangential relevance. If readers want to get a more complete picture of what is behind this, that's what wikilinks are for. Undue weight doesn't factor in as far as BP is concerned because we're covering how these events relate to Obama, not to BP. What would be undue would be lots of exculpatory material to try to show that what "actually happened" isn't as damning as the public perception. This wasn't a fine point, the prose looked awful and apologetic, full of things that have very little to do, and only indirectly, with the life and times of Barack Obama. Obama's role, and the public's expectations of his administration, revolve mostly around BP so far, not Haliburton or Transocean. And they are based on public perception, not legal conclusions or proven facts. If that's unfair it is because the situation is unfair, not because we're covering it with a different weight than the sources. And no, that's not slander. Wikipedia does not owe BP any duty to set the record straight, we merely reflect the published sources. If this changes due to subsequent events or coverage, we can change that. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've made some minor cleanups and corrections. Please note that the article does not in any way assign blame to BP, something that is beyond the scope here. Instead it correctly notes that BP is the well operator, lead the cleanup / containment effort so far, and bore the brunt of the public cry for Obama to do something. Those are the most salient facts of BP's involvement as it concerns Obama. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason to mention BP (or any of the involved corporate entities) in this biography at all. I gave an example text above which eschews the blame game and other details best explored elsewhere, although I conceded at the time that it was only an initial draft. Once again, this BLP must reflect only that which specifically relates to Obama. All other details are superfluous. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Judicial appointments

It would be great to start a Judicial appointments section under Presidency like other president wiki pages. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhenke (talk •contribs) 14:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a Judicial nominee section at the Presidency of Barack Obama article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DD2K (talk • contribs) 14:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn't realize it, but it seems most president pages like Bill_Clinton#Judicial_appointments and both Bush's (George_W._Bush#Judicial_appointments and George_H._W._Bush#Judicial_appointments have a small section over the Supreme Court nominations. A link could point to the page you referenced for more detailed summary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhenke (talk • contribs) 14:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Protection status

I've seen alot of changes regarding this article's protection status. With all of those changes, I've been left confused as to what is this article's current protection status. So tell me: What is the current protection status of this article? SMP0328. (talk) 03:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:SEMI, as it was before the attempted changes. Not even sure what the attempted change was, but I assume some form of flagged revisions that have been in the works for ages. Tarc (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is implementing a new option called Pending changes. Which will allow editors that are not auto-confirmed(new accounts, anon IPs) to make edits, but place them in a queue for those with reviewer rights to scan before implementation. Dave Dial (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

African?

Barack Obama is only half African, this article states that he is fully African(-American)... MrTranscript (talk) 13:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Read Q2 in the FAQ. Dave Dial (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphan

I assume I was correct in reverting this edit? He never actually was an orphan was he? (Just making sure). Orphan Wiki 10:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope, never. Raised by his mother and grandparents. Dave Dial (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thought so. Thanks for that, Orphan Wiki 19:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Something is wrong, nothing on General McCrystal

Whenever some minor actor dies, Wikipedia updates it in minutes. Once it even updated it before a wrestler's death was announced. General McChrystal is mentioned in the article in the Afghan War section (his appointment to the job by Obama). Yet nearly 2 days after his resignation, nothing is mentioned. I fixed that. A one sentence update. WH spokesman Gibbs said he was angry and this was reported by many, many news sources. The main idea, though is that McCrystal is gone. RIPGC (talk) 05:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the main idea is that Petraeus is now the general in direct command of Afghanistan operations. That McChrystal fell short of a code of military conduct and "the principles of personal honor and professional integrity," as noted in his statement about the article, resulting in his offer ahead of the meeting to resign despite the fact that he "strongly support(s) the president's strategy in Afghanistan" et al as noted in his statement about his resignation, is ultimately about McChrystal, and as such is aptly noted in his bio.

The something that is wrong is that in updating the war section, you focused on the gossip-column detail instead of the facts-on-the-ground detail. To use your phrase, I fixed that. A one sentence update that actually notes in the Afghanistan war section who the commander in Afghanistan will be.

Incidentally, starting a thread with two sentences about Wikipedia reporting on deaths and ending it with "McCrystal is gone"... Abrazame (talk) 06:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a note, I think a common mistake many editors make is thinking every political event of Obama's presidency should be mentioned here. I think a lot of people don't realize there is a separate article for Presidency of Barack Obama, where it would be easier to make the case for the inclusion of this type of information. Perhaps something mentioning that should be added to FAQ up top. —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 21:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I notice nothing has been added to Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama (2010) since April. A mention of McChrystal would be good there. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 74.68.37.79, 29 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} you are miss some of his curten bombings

74.68.37.79 (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. SpigotMap 12:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to update FAQ1

rm unproductive discussion - Wikidemon (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Question 1 probably should be amended to state that Obama was factually wrong when he stated that he went to a Muslim school. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Concur on that William. From following the links, it becomes obvious that Obama mis-identified his 4th-grade school as being a Muslim school, when it is a secular school at which he did read the Koran (and make faces while doing so....) One year of taking a class on the Koran at the age of 10 is far different than attending a school dedicated to Islam. --Habap (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Wikidemon: can you not remove threads on spurious BLP grounds? I see no BLP violation (he sourced the quotes, after all), and you removed my answer to him too by mistake. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Where is the BLP violation?--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

comments removed - Wikidemon (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It's nice to see some activity now after I have been deleted and banned multiple times. That really was sad from a supposed "encyclopdia" site. Now back to the topic at hand, I don't think Obama "mispoke" when he said he attended a Muslim school. A 4th grade student certainly knows what kind of school he is attending. I think the issue that needs to be addressed specifically is the schools curriculum - was it religious in nature and what was that religion? Otherwise I think it is negligent on the part of this article not to mention his Muslim background and I maintain my position on that. Wikipedia should be a place for reliable and verfied facts, not liberal viewpoints or a place where relevant information is omitted because somebody "doesn't like it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.23.139.106 (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Upon further research, Kim Barker of the Chicago Tribune has addressed the "madrassa" issue. She states in her article (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-070325obama-islam-story-archive,0,3358809.story): "When Obama attended 4th grade in 1971, Muslim children spent two hours a week studying Islam, and Christian children spent those two hours learning about the Christian religion." If Obama was a practicing Christian at that time, that's what he would have been studying. Yet he states in his book he was studying the Koran. Christian children do not study the Koran. I'm afraid the claim that he never "studied" or "practiced" is simply false. This was part of his childhood, and should be mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.23.139.106 (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

A 4th grade student may know what school he's attending, but a thirty-three year old looking back twenty-five years is going to make a few mistakes where he's simply forgotten. As I said, I'd actually have to check if my primary school was CoE or state, and I'm fifteen years younger than Obama was when he wrote Dreams from My Father. SDN Menteg 01 was a secular school, so the religious instruction was either comparative, or the one choice decided by the parents. In any case, I'm hesitant to call Obama Muslim based on the fourth-grade, partially for ethical reasons, as I don't believe in labelling children by religion before they can make a conscious decision, but also because multiple sources (of which DfMF, AoH, or both, are included) state that Lolo Soetoro and Ann Dunham emphasised comparative religion over indoctrination. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

We now need to discuss how to change the answer to question 1 to make sure it is noted that Obama was factually wrong when he stated in his book that he went to a "Muslim school".--William S. Saturn (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it needs to be changed, the links provided(in the FAQ) go into detail with explanations about it. If one is going to Catholic school for three years, and then transfers to a public school in a predominantly Muslim country, it will seem as if they are going to a "Muslim school". Just as if one went to a public rural school in the 1930's(in some cases up until the 1950's), one would get religious instructions based on the Christian faith. The full explanations are there, but if someone wants to tweak the wording, there may be consensus for that. I'm sure most of us that are over the age of 35 remember certain aspects of our life when we were 8-9 years old, but will admit that most of our 4th grade memories have disappeared. So it's a bit of nitpicking minutia to do into detail about most of this. Dave Dial (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The FAQ links to Snopes. Snopes is an entertainment website, no reputable encyclopedia uses them as a valid reference. Also, it does not address what Obama wrote in his book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.105.69 (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

See WP:REDFLAG and WP:PARITY. There are no reliable sources that assert a Muslim heritage, so Snopes is entirely adequate to refute such nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 08:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

How is a book, written by the man in question himself, not a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.105.69 (talk • contribs)

Side-note

There's a discussion on AN/I here other whether the anon's comments should be kept or removed. Thanks. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I see this still hasn't been resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.109.129 (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Obama's Ethnic Background

Regardless of what other sources refer to Obama as, he is still a bi-racial individual. Calling him African American means that he has no other racial background other than Black. Therefore your article on Obama is incorrect. It is clear that he had a Caucasian mother. You cannot force people to be Black because you want to based on some racist Jim Crow "one drop" rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Educatedlady (talk • contribs) 03:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, what exactly is he then other then just "Bi-Racial"? Phearson (talk) 03:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

← Please see question 2 in the FAQs above. Tvoz/talk 03:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, lazy journalists wishing to overstate Obama's blackness now know that Wikipedia has to use the most frequently reported version of events, whether true or not. There is no chance of making people on here see reason - they can't accept that Obama is as white as he is black. He is not 'African-American' in another sense either, as that term usually means the descendants of slaves, and used because their precise ethnic/national origin is unclear - Kenyan-American is more accurate in this case.--MartinUK (talk) 09:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I call foul on you. I have English, Russian, Polish, and other nationalities in my ancestry. The result of this is not that I'm only allowed to call myself "multi-national" anymore than we do with Andrew Jackson. He's happily celebrated for his ScotsIrish roots (despite not being pure ScotsIrish), just as I'm able to be called a Russian American, despite not being pure blood. In fact, the truth of the matter is that with the exception of first generation immigrants (and often including them, due to European colonization of Africa), there is no such thing as a person who is pure blood African living in America. We still call them "African American," just as Obama is, just as I'm a Russian American, etc. I call foul on your second point as well, I can still be called a Caucasian as well, and so can a first generation immigrant from Russia. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 09:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely absurd. You should look up the definition of African American. Obama self identifies as African American, sources indicate that he is, and the definition also states this. His whole heritage is listed in the body of the article. You, nor anyone else, gets to decide which portion of someone else's heritage they identify with. Perhaps if one is walking around America(especially in the 60's, 70's and 80's) and you look like a Black person, that is your identity and there is nothing you can do about it. We are not going to argue about this silliness every few weeks, that is what the FAQ is for. If nobody has anything new to add, this issue is closed. Dave Dial (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Again, please refer to FAQ #2. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearly it is misleading and confusing to say he is African-American without including further clarification. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No further clarification in this article is needed; Obama self-identifies as African-American, and reliable sources consistently refer to him as African-American. If readers wish to read more on the term, its history, and its usage, then they are quite able to click on the link and read more about it. The section African-American#The term "African American" in particular. Tarc (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

As this is an encyclopedia we should avoid ambiguity. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

And I have removed it it was removed (looks like my edit was beaten by a fraction of a seocnd, heh). Wholly unnecessary, especially as his detailed ancestry is covered in the Early Life...section right after the lead. readers do not need clarification that being African-American can mean a non-black parent. Common knowledge and common sense. Tarc (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It isn't ambiguous; it's discussed in the following section. "African-American" is how reliable sources report that Obama identifies himself, so claiming that it is "ambiguous" implies that his self-identification is subject to veto, which is not how we write a neutral encyclopedia. Also, if you are going to make such edits, it is imperative in terms of how your actions will be perceived by others that you capitalize proper nouns and adjectives scrupulously. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I propose a section called "Presidential controversies" with the following content

Grundle2600. Sock. Carry on. Tarc (talk) 02:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
redacted - Wikidemon (talk) 04:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Rory's Dance (talk) 02:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC) First off, these things would be better suited for his PRESIDENCY article, not his bio. Second, we try to avoid controversy sections so it would be best to break this up and distribute it into the article as best fits each situation. Finally, while your sourcing appears to be solid overall, some of your content appears to be of questionable importance. Soxwon (talk) 02:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Conversational Indonesian?

The article claims that Obama speaks Indonesian at a conversational level, yet the source only provides examples of Obama using very basic phrases such as "how are you", or "where from?", can we really consider such basic phrasing to be at a level capable of carrying on a substantive conversation? 99.241.90.42 (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Not for us to determine - the source questions whether he surpasses conversational Indonesian. If you have better source to clarify this, please present it. Otherwise, our text is consistent with our source. Tvoz/talk 19:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

We have to use common sense, and I agree that this needs better sourcing. I too can ask where somone is form and how they are in Indonesian. It should be removed unless it can be properly sourced and established. Freakshownerd (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Propose a Public image and perception section similar to other Presidents

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_clinton#Public_image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_clinton#Public_opinion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Public_image_and_perception

---—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.208.111 (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

As in public image of Barack Obama? PhGustaf (talk) 02:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Which, BTW, is linked as the Main article for Barack Obama#Cultural and political image. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn't catch that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.208.111 (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Minor point

"Obama Sr. remarried and returned to Kenya, visiting Barack in Hawaii only once, in 1971." Why "only"? 207.118.29.23 (talk) 02:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Economic policy section

The section needs a little updating. I was surprised to see the extension of first-time home buyer tax credit from the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 wasn't in there. It was modified by the ARRA before extension and has been successful as several notable people have remarked. The reason I opened this discussion though is that last sentence in the second paragraph is unnecessary and outdated. It certainly doesn't reflect the markets today and honestly doesn't add anything substantive to the article. Bernanke's language this week among many other facts and indicators reflect that. I plan to work on the section in the next week.--NortyNort | Holla 22:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Why would that possibly be in this biographical article, instead of the article on Presidency of Barack Obama? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, don't ask me. Ask whoever put the "Economic policy" section in this article in the first place. My comments reflect on subject matter that is already in this article.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Comma

The opening line should read "the 44th, and current President. I have fixed it twice. "44th", and "current", are not synonymous. He is the 44th POTUS, which he will always be. He is also the current POTUS, which he will eventually not be.Mk5384 (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with whether or not there should be a comma there. "44th, and current, President" might be correct, but your phrasing is as incorrect as "a tall, and thin man".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You're comparing apples to oranges. If it said "Barack Obama is a tall and thin man", I wouldn't have added a comma. But I know. This is all about consensus. It has nothing to do with whether or not a comma belongs, but whether a consensus of editors want a comma. See, I'm starting to get it. Aren't you proud of me, Sarek?Mk5384 (talk) 03:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to take Guy's advice, and go find one of our other 3,000,000 articles to improve. In the meanwhile, I'll see if someone can learn me some gooder English.Mk5384 (talk) 03:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If "and current" is meant to be a parenthetical then there should be a comma immediately before and after those words. Otherwise, no comma should be next to those words. SMP0328. (talk) 03:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree with SarekOfVulcan - proper grammar demands two commas (for a parenthetical phrase) or zero commas (for a compound modifier). One comma is wrong, and two commas would make it needlessly weak, so I vote for zero. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The comments above regarding the comma are correct (one comma is wrong, and two commas would not be helpful). If precedent is of interest, here is an old revision of George W. Bush which says "George Walker Bush ... is the forty-third and current President of the United States" (without a comma). Johnuniq (talk) 03:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

So one article being wrong is grounds for another to be wrong as well? Like I said, and is also illustrated above, we have "votes" for these things. Proper English is relegated to an afterthought.Mk5384 (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do you believe the earlier version of George W. Bush article was wrong? Deviating from your preference does not necessarily equate to deviating from Proper English. SMP0328. (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue of whether or not a comma would be required in this instance is one of grammar and not one of personal whim. Mk5384, you have expressed your justification for the comma, and others have explained the context in which a comma would be appropriate and the grammatical reason for why a comma where you have suggested one would require a second comma. The question of whether we add two or none is based on a determination of whether being the current president of the United States is a parenthetical detail. (It was that against which Gavia immer was voting, not the underlying rules of grammar.) The question of whether we add one comma is a matter of erroneousness. Your orange stems from the use of a single comma as substitute for the word and between two adjectives, as in changing "he is a tall and thin man" to "he is a tall, thin man". The and was still required despite your addition of the comma, which should tell you that is not the basis for insertion.

If you don't accept grammar as the basis upon which to justify the use of punctuation, we could address the logic of your explanation, as by saying, "At such eventual time as he is succeeded as POTUS the 'and current' qualifier will no longer be in the article. (Such is apparent from the comment about the Bush article.) Similarly, constancy is not a basis upon which to determine punctuation. The fact that he may not always be thin wouldn't have any more bearing than the fact that he will not always be president on whether to put a comma in either sentence. Tall and thin are not synonyms." But all of that would miss the point. Initial misunderstandings are a common fact of life, but they yield to understanding. Tenacious misunderstandings are quite a bit more of a problem. Contentious misunderstandings—say, using an editorial argument (and its alleged abandonment) as a platform to criticize a page or the project as a whole, and in doing so using it as a kicking-off place for several other misunderstandings—is a different, though at this page no less common, problem. The long and the short of it: you've been asking for it; eat it or slap yourself in the face with it already. Abrazame (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No comma is needed, period. (I wouldn't be surprised if some guide to writing for the insecure said it were necessary -- but then this is a genre of book that can be safely ignored, other than for unintended comedy value.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that less commas are needed. The Wikipedia article [[46]] contains a quote:

“ Nowadays… A passage peppered with commas — which in the past would have indicated painstaking and authoritative editorial attention — smacks simply of no backbone. People who put in all the commas betray themselves as moral weaklings with empty lives and out-of-date reference books. (Truss, 2004, p. 97–98) ”

For example, here is a line in this article that could be cleaned up:

His mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was born in Wichita, Kansas, of mostly English, but also some German, descent.

Loveonearth (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Space

There is no mention of the new direction in space with Obama. This is integral to his biography. There is plenty of information. Cancellation of Constellation, protest from Neil Armstrong and others, un-cancelling it but changing it, getting NASA out of the astronaut (earth orbit) business, wanting private companies to go into the astronaut business, manned asteroid mission, etc. It's tough to summarize it in a sentence or two but it can be done. Can we agree that a space section is needed? RIPGC (talk) 05:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so - it's not a particularly vital part of his biography and not often in the news in proportion to other things. Maybe later, if that's what his presidency is known for. It seems appropriate for the "presidency of..." article and sub-articles. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The suggestion of putting non-"vital part of his biography...for the 'presidency of...' article" is interesting. If this advice is followed, there would be a lot of this article removed. For example, the SCHIP mention under domestic policy is a very esoteric and minor point as well as something suited for the presidency article. There should be a wholesale removal of lots of this article. The political events that remain should be events that are related to Obama's own actions and actions that changes things. The space mention is in the middle, neither the top things that Obama did nor an obscure thing. The SCHIP mention is an obscure thing and not even clearly an Obama proposal but something that he attached a signature to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factchecker 3 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but things go incrementally around here so maybe shorten or eliminate one thing at a time. I don't remember the history, but my guess is that the SCHIP is in the article only because it's the second thing he signed, not because it's terribly germane to his presidency otherwise. I know that covering 4 million kids is a big deal but so are many things a President does, and there's no context that Obama had much to do with it other than signing it. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The history is that providing health care for tens of millions more Americans, beginning with children not covered in the previous administration, was unquestionably the cornerstone of Obama's domestic policy campaign and remained so despite having to tackle numerous other developments that vied for (and in some ways won) primacy. So it's germane to that overall policy that, while the cobbling and passage of the reform bill may have taken however many months, this aspect of the plan was instated immediately.

As far as context, it was vetoed twice by George W. Bush, who didn't approve of expanding the program to cover these additional 4 million children. Regardless of how one feels about the policy, stating that Obama had nothing to do with it other than signing it misses the point of the difference between an issue you build awareness of and support for as a primary point for two years of a campaign in one sense, and a bill that becomes a law and one that does not in another: Bush term, no law; Obama term, law. Abrazame (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I read an article about Obama's new space policy. It wasn't saying he was good or bad. That means space is a legitimate topic for the article. MVOO (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Where is our president's nationality information?

Hello,

Why is President Obama's Nationality entry missing? He was born in Hawaii, a state of the United States. George Bush, Bill Clinton, Abraham Lincoln all have nationality entries. Surprisingly John F. Kennedy is also missing the nationality entry. Shouldn't we correct that for both former Presidents?

Thank you, Naperville Illinois Citizen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.228.24 (talk) 04:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe it should be erased from all. What nationality could the president of the United States possibly have? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like the better idea to me. There's no point in having a "nationality" entry in the infobox for someone whose nationality is absolutely plain without it. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Not all Presidents were born in the USA, indeed some were born before the USA even existed. Furthermore, this is a Biography of a Living Person, not a Biography of a US President. Another key factor here is that many Wikipedians will be unfamiliar with the current Constitutional requirement for POTUS to be a US Citizen. Key biographical information like this must be written into the article on the assumption that not every reader is familiar with Article Two of the United States Constitution. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

What? Not everyone knows that the president must be a U.S.-citizen? How many more assumptions of utter stupidity and moronism should we cater to? How low can you go? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Every American ought to know that, but it's not necessarily something they cover in every English-speaking country (and non-English speaking country for that matter) on Earth. If you argue that this is irrelevant than might I remind you of population ratios. Soxwon (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Everyone knows that to be the president of X, you need to be a citizen of X. Anywhere. The step to replace X with "United States of America" shouldn't be too difficult. Name one place where one can be head of state/government w/o being a citizen and I stand corrected. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, one DOES come to mind, but then, that may be cheating. Soxwon (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Smartass :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

And there is the curious case of Milan Panić. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah well... I guess cases of states in transition coupled with rampant ethno-nationalism were off my radar for a moment. They also made Hitler ^{[do I have to link to that?]} a citizen so he could ruin the country.^{[do I have to say which?]} I stand corrected; I guess such cases do exist. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Now we wait for the birthers to notice our continuing efforts to cloud the truth about his citizenship... Soxwon (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

In that case, the Hitler-thingy wasn't the smartest analogy I guess... :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No, no, no, in fact it was incredibly appropriate. ;) Soxwon (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

←As I said before, not all US presidents have been US Citizens because the term didn't even exist before 1776. George Washington, for example, was born British. Nationality should be common to all biographies (living or dead), irrespective of whether or not the person in question is/was a president. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You missed the party. And I think you need a review on what citizenship means; it has nothing to do with place of birth. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

As a British citizen living in the US, I am fully cognizant of the meaning of citizenship. The fact remains that the nationality (derived from country of birth) of a person should be in every Wikipedia biography. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

..and robots may not always know these seemingly obvious facts. Robots read Wikipedia too! - Wikidemon (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Nationality is not derived from one's place of birth. Where do you get that from? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Your statement is incorrect. For most people, nationality most certainly is derived from their place of birth. A minority of people have their nationality derived by other factors, such as nationality of parents. Our own article on the subject explains this in some detail. I'm not sure why you are making such a big deal out of this. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

For some reason, Obama has a controversy over his birth and citizenship. There could be mention of the debate but the conclusion should be that he was born in Hawaii. MVOO (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Show Portal:Barack Obama in article alongside other portals?

If you look at the External links section of the article, there is a box which features five portals related to Obama. Since Obama himself has his own portal, Portal:Barack Obama, shouldn't it be shown too? Just a comment here. Thanks, AngChenrui ^Talk 06:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I had no idea someone had done up the portal, to be honest. I left it in a half-completed state months ago. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Liberal Bias

No legitimate suggestions of article improvement, just hand-wringing about "liberals" and SAT scores. Tarc (talk) 13:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I find it all over Wikipedia, but especially in the political arena, whether it's a politician or a political commentator or whatnot. This is actually the first time I have looked at the Obama page, and it's predictably predictable. You would think this guy walks on water, has never made a wrong move or a bad decision, and 100% of the nation loves him. I notice on the Bush page regarding most of his major policies and decisions, there's always something negative about them tacked on someplace, how he was accused of this nefarious move or that nefarious deal. No such thing with Obama or his moves, and there have been MANY complaints and many concerns about every aspect of his presidency. You'd never know it here. I suppose this will be removed, which will simply confirm my own suspicions. (75.3.242.197 (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)) <PatrioticHippie> I understand your frustration but there's nothing that can be done about it. Wikipedia will never be completely neutral because collectively, editors are biased.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC) (ec) Your message says "remove it so that I can despise you more" :-) Seriously, constructive comments would be more appreciated. Wikipedia aims to reflect reliable, secondary sources, which are always biased when it comes to politics. This might answer your comments, especially on Bush. Materialscientist (talk) 06:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Please, this page is for constructive discussions leading to potential improvements in the article. It isn't the place for airing gripes about Wikipedia and supposedly liberal bias here or in the press. There are other places for that but in general I have little sympathy. Failure to extensively cover the constant attacks that are the stuff of politics in a biography of a person does not represent a political bias in favor of that person, it is an encyclopedic approach to writing biographies. If there's anything specific to change, please feel free to discuss, but keep in mind that much of this has been extensively discussed already. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC) RIGHT! God knows having non-biased political editors would never help with "improving an article", nor asking for this be "constructive discussion". I was not allowed to post my response to William and Material, but your response says it all. 'We're biased like Hell, and STFU'. (75.3.242.197 (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)) <PatrioticHippie> That's not worth a response. You can explore the policies and guidelines for contributing to Wikipedia at WP:WELCOME. Lesson #1, please remember to sign your posts - four tildes. (~~~~). If there's no constructive discussion forthcoming I'll go ahead and close this thread. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC) I'm sure you will. But before you do, could I simply get even a brief explanation from yourself as to what exactly constitutes "constructive discussion" and Wikipedia aiming to "reflect reliable, secondary sources?" I personally take it to mean, depending on whether there's a D or an R next to the name, those "reliable" sources which the "editors" agree with, while ignoring those "reliable" sources they don't agree with, especially on Obama, to borrow a phrase from Material. If I'm wrong, I'd love to know where, rather than just be silenced, as tempting as I suspect it is. If these political pages are in reality just giant op-ed pages rather than an "encyclopedia", I believe your visitors deserve to know this going in, at the very least. (75.3.242.197 (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)) <PatrioticHippie> Well, that wasn't unconstructive! Constructive discussion: WP:TALK via [[47]]. Reliable sources: WP:RS. It's important to note that the issue isn't only which publication something appears in, but exactly what it is, who wrote it, and what it's supposed to stand for. When we're in the middleground of sources, which perhaps spans from Fox News and Wall Street Journal on the right to Time Magazine and Salon.com on the left, we still have to look to see whether it's an editorial opinion piece, commentary, analysis, rhetorical flourish, interview, whatever. And even the more partisan or special purpose sources, say the Washington Times, New York Post, Village Voice, etc., often have pieces that are reliable for some things. Surely you must be aware that the opinions you voiced here are considerably right of center by American standards, and are a criticism of Wikipedia rather than factual points in nature. In addition to trouble from people who want to "balance" the article towards whatever they feel is the correct pro or anti-Obama bias, we've had a lot of long term, persistent trouble from fake accounts. This is one of the most heavily trafficked and edited articles in the whole encyclopedia, which gives it lots of momentum and makes it hard to make broad changes for any reason. More specialized articles are a lot easier to write and help improve. When editors/accounts new to this article post broadside attacks here on the integrity of Wikipedia they can stir up dissent but they don't get a whole lot of traction. If you approach Wikipedia as an ideological battleground rather than a presentation of simple facts, you're just going to end up banking your head into a brick wall. The editors who expressed understanding with your opinion may (? - I don't really keep score) have conservative, skeptical politics. But try to stick to business around here and get along. I hope that helps explain things. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC) If you ask me, it's somewhat uncivil to equate Fox News and Wall Street Journal to Time Magazine and Salon.com. If Time equals Wall Street Journal on opposite sides, then does Salon equals Fox News? That's just crazy talk. And what's this about the Washington Times and New York Post being being considerably right of center. We don't call teh New York Times and Washington Post center, do we? 99.224.73.157 (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC) civility policy, like personal attack policy, is about the way editors treat each other, it is not about characterizing sources. I have trouble following your arguments. Each of these publications is very different and I'm not equating them. I'm simply saying that newspapers with varying political biases, and different levels of trustworthiness, can all be used if one is careful to evaluate each specific statement for whether it is supported by the source and whether the specific piece cited is reliable for supporting that particular statement. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC) It might help if the IP editor actually pointed out where they disagree with the article and place here what they think it should say. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC) I think we're running into the same thing we run into on all political Wikipedia articles. The argument consistently is "well, this guy has all this criticism, so why doesn't this guy get equal amount?" The problem is, that's not how balance works. You don't balance out articles by putting the same amount of criticism in one because this much is in the other, anymore than you determine how many characters, pictures or quotes appear in each article. That's the opposite of unbiased. Being unbiased ignores numerical instances of a thing and simply includes biographical, significant, verifiable data on a thing. If anything, trying to force fit more criticism into Obama's article for the mere reason that he doesn't have as many as Bush's is bias. It ignores the credibility of the arguments in favor of putting in a matching number. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 05:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Thank you for the response, Wikidemon. I don't ask for broad changes. Aside from sources being reliable and factual, wherever they are from, all I ever ask is that the people in question be treated equally on both sides of the aisle. If Bush's front page for example is going to mention nice little subtlely negative implications and the controversies and criticisms surrounding his policies, and on just about every part of his bio, Obama's should too. I don't see that, and much controversy and criticism certainly exists with Obama and his policies. Even if the establishment liberal network media steadfastly refuses to cover most of it, and attacks those who do. I see him and all of his policies made out to look fantastic here, and some of the entries make sure to point out how he's reversed Bush's policies, in a presumably positive way. It simply isn't balanced in my humble opinion. I don't push for Bush's article to be sterilized. I wouldn't want that. I'd just like to see Obama's not sterilized either. As for what is there, basically all that's missing is that he walks on water. (75.3.241.37 (talk) 08:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC))<PatrioticHippie> Perhaps you would care to suggest a specific addition or alteration. -- Hoary (talk) 08:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC) PatrioticHippie, the problem with your attempt to correct perceived errors with Wikipedia is that your claims are incredibly vague. You keep saying there's all these noteworthy problems that should be included in Obama's page yet you fail to name one. Name something you want to add, somthing that has reliable sources and something that is significant. There are going to be numerous successes and failures, or however you want to look at them, in any presidency that simply aren't significant to put in the person's bio. You may seek to include some of what you want to add under the sub article dedicated to Obama's presidency, provided they are sourced. The article that focusses on his presidency will have a much more narrow focus and will include much of what I am assuming you wish to see in his bio. By all means, and I am sure every editor would agree with me, if you feel there is something that is important enough to be included in his overall bio and not just a sub article, and it is well sourced, bring it up. Again vaguely saying there is negative stuff on Bush's articles and no negative stuff here isn't a real complaint. Say specifically what you want to see here, what sources you have and make a coherent argument for why it should be included in his bio. Wikipedia isn't about negative information and positive information, it's just information. It's not articles on good things and bad things, it's just articles. So saying there is no negative information in an article is no kind of argument. Say what you want to be included and why, and again be specific. And it is absolutely irrelevant what is on another person's bio. If you feel that bio is unfair take it up there, not here. If you feel that this bio is somehow bad state what you want to see and why but the contents on another person's bio is irrelevant here.Jdlund (talk) 03:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC) I'm not attempting to correct anything. I have already written what I find wrong with this. It's rather straightforward. If they are going to mention the criticism of the Bush policies or things he "allegedly" did or didn't do, which they make sure they included on his front page, then do it with Obama and his policies, on his front page. They do not. No heavy criticism about his health care bill? About 2/3 of the nation hates it bitterly. No criticism mentioned. The unprecendented spending bills and debt that most of the nation is now against bitterly? No criticism mentioned. Under the Iraq war, no mention of him voting "against" the surge [planned under Bush] that would later stablize Iraq? Nothing about his own "indifference" and the considerable criticism of him following the Gulf spill, after criticizing Bush for being indifferent following Katrina yet? Nothing about his refusal to release his SAT scores to the public? They made sure to include Bush saying he was "an average student". I could go on, but it's not what I'm after. (71.156.54.2 (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)) <PatrioticHippie> So start by choosing just one of these choices made by Obama or results of his administration that two thirds or most of the nation is bitterly against or bitterly hates, and summarizing the opposition or the hatred. I'm surprised to infer that presidential candidates are now expected to release their SAT scores, and indeed when I try googling for Obama and SAT all I see is mere bloggery. Where's the news coverage of this? -- Hoary (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Any bias is bad. We should combat all bias, not just give up and accept it. MVOO (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Am I to believe these subjects and points have not been summarized already? That I am the first to mention them here? I don't believe it for a second. (71.156.61.127 (talk) 11:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)) <PatrioticHippie>

Minor fix

It Lists his religion as "Christianity", but in the source it says United CHurch of Christ, could someone fix this? Thanks. 173.75.234.3 (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

...and church of "Christ" is not "Christian"? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I have made the change. I agree the term "Christianity" is too broad. See George W. Bush. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Naw that's a denomination. Bessides, only one of the list of sources mentions UCC, all the rest of them talk at length about Christianity. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

See George W. Bush. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hm. I didn't know we edit-war our way into this. Whatever. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No one is edit warring. You're just being difficult and not listening.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

My dear Will, take a breath. Bush never dropped out of a specific church though, so the comparison really isn't applicable. This is a perennial topic that is IMO bordering on WP:LAME, but the last time this topic popped up, it was initiated and trolled by socks of Gaydenver, so I'm not sure how useful a review of that is. Basically we're stuck, since Obama has declined to join a specific church on a regular basis, and no one can seem to agree on whether or not leaving Wright's church mean he dropped out of the UCC itself. So what does one do when the subject himself has a particularly vague religious denomination/affiliation? Tarc (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I have self-reverted but would prefer a more general term such as Protestant.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for self-reverting. Maybe I should've been as clear as Tarc; I wasn't simply being difficult, I've seen the wars that took place over this. That being said, convince me. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This may need to be added to the FAQ. I know this has been discussed before ad nauseum. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I was actually looking for it in the FAQ at first... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This is strange that it list Christianity. The excuse is that it has been discussed before but what Mr. Saturn says makes sense, that he is United Church of Christ or Protestant. Obama's dispute was with Rev. Wright, not the religion. Part of the problem in real life (not saying it's here) is that some want to defend Obama so much that they think he abandoned the church and want to wipe it out. However, Obama never abandoned his religion or said he changed it. He just had a dispute with Rev. Wright. MVOO (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This is easy to compromise if we just look at George Bush's article which states under religion Episcopalian (before 1977), United Methodist (after 1977). Then all we have to do is say UCC (before 2008), non-denominational (after 2008) for Barack Obama.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 05:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

"Double dip" speculation

I've removed Obama's speculation on a double-dip recession from the article because it isn't biographically-relevant. Moreover, there is no indication that such an event would occur (quite the opposite, in fact, given the steady growth of the economy). It was originally removed as "trivia" (which is not the case), but it definitely isn't significant when compared to any of the other speculations Obama has made over the years. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

In case you aren't familiar with double dip recessions they are indicative of a recession followed by slow economic growth(like we're in now) followed by another dip and recession, so no the fact that the economy is growing(and predicted to be slowing down to below 2% in the next two quarters) is not at all indicative of not going into a double dip recession. Anyways many people here in America are greatly concerned about the possibility of this turning into a double dip recession and the president acknowledging that could happen is is definitely relevant. Now you may not say it's relevant here but is somewhere else, but I both wonder where else could this info be placed, and I would also like to point out that it takes little stretch of the imagination to see people coming to Barack Obama's wiki page for his view of how the U.S. is doing. In fact I think all info we can gather on how Obama views the current state of the U.S. as being relevant to this article(unless there's some other more relevant article I'm not familiar with).Wikiposter0123 (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"Double-dip" reception seems like a bit of a trendy numbers meme. How many of these has the United States had, historically? Zero? Maybe one? In substance the economy either grows or shrinks as a whole, depending one's measurement methodology and definitions, and behind this summary number are a lot of different pieces of the economy. Whether there is a short period of shrinkage followed by growth, or a longer period of slow growth, or any other curve you can imagine on the graph, high debt and long-term federal deficits cause a drag on the economy. The President's acknowledging a basic fact everybody knows does not seem like a signature event in his life, and this article is after all a telling of his life story. It's far more important what the economy actually does (which we don't know yet), what the President does about it, and how that affects and is affected by his political career and who he is. The President's opinion or statements about the economy might belong in an article that best covers the President's pronouncements on the economy. The month-by-month movements of the economy, and federal actions, would best fit in the "presidency of" article, or if there is one on the Presidential economic policy. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, the economy is growing. The chance of another recession in the near future is extremely low. In the US, recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth (contraction), and everywhere else in the world it is defined as three consecutive quarters. The statement is about as useful as if Obama had said "if an asteroid hits, it could wipe out humanity." It's only interesting to right-wingers trying to scare the US public into believing Obama's policies might cause another recession, but anyone with an ounce of common sense will see it is of little importance. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

There was 3.2% growth...in 2007 when there was also 3.2% growth there were clamors from left wingers that we were delving deeper into the recession JahnTeller07 (talk) 22:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that is true (which I don't), what has that got to do with anything? This discussion is about a specific comment from Obama, and why it would be retarded to include it. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If you looked into the matter you would see that quite a few economists think we're headed towards a double dip recession and your claim that this is fear tactics from conservatives is completely ridiculous and paranoid. Why are you even talking about the matter when you clearly don't understand that a period of growth happens between two recessions and that growth right now doesn't prove that we're not headed in a double dip recession at all. Anyways I didn't realize there was a presidency of Barack Obama article and all this info would be better suited for that article.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Nobody thinks we're heading into another recession except ill-educated folks who've been hoodwinked by the politicians they vote for. No economists of any standing whatsoever are making this outlandish claim. Show me a single legitimate source, but please bring it to my talk page instead of prolonging this discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You're kidding right? You mean all the "economists of standing" who were wrong the first time around? You want a mainstream economist who's predicting another crash - here: http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704113504575264513748386610.html Anyone who knows anything about economics knows who Art Laffer is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.105.69 (talk) 07:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Done, although I'm not as sure as you as to how far this right wing conspiracy delves, so I can't totally rule out brainwashing.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 00:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure as long as Obama keeps spending $500 Billion to create 600,000 jobs, the economy has nothing to worry about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.250.226 (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

IP, you wrote that just four minutes after writing (in a section above) it's a waste of trying to reason with these "editors". Did you change your mind within four minutes, or are you not attempting to reason but instead just venting? If you want to reason, reason (persuasively and concisely); if you just want to vent, please do so at some other website. -- Hoary (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Content proposals

editor proposing these is indefinitely blocked as a WP:SOCK
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Cigarette taxes I think that it should be mentioned that although Obama said that "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes"1 he has signed in to law a tax on tanning, as well as buying cigarettes (which are bought overwhelmingly by people making less than 250,000)2 These facts should be mentioned, I think, because they have caused some controversy among his opponents, and some supporters alike. JahnTeller07 (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Ehh... while technically true, I never, for one minute, believed he was including sin taxes in that too. Politifact, as well, were debating on whether sin taxes counted. However, I'd personally rate the promise broken, because of the insurance mandate, as the administration are defending it as a tax now. I'd personally wait until the end of the PPACA lawsuits, just to be sure. Sceptre (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC) I think that's been discussed here. That's a political argument, not a simple fact about the President's life and times. It's a question of how to characterize something, when there's no dispute over what it is, just how to describe it. As such it belongs in a sub-article about the presidency or the economic policy. Further, Wikipedia can't endorse one side or the other on political arguments. If the criticism or debate over this are important enough, we can simply report that some people criticized or disparaged the president, using this as an argument. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Indeed. The only way we can agree that Obama raised taxes for under-$250k is a court ruling accepting the administration's argument re: the mandate. It's not like HW's "read my lips: no new taxes"; it's much more ambiguous. Sceptre (talk) 16:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Long story short: We'll know he raised taxes on under $250,000s if and only if a reliable source says he did. We are not going to add our own analysis of the situation. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC) So if I find a source (which I have...a reliable one) that says that the vast majority of people that were affected by the cigarette tax, as well as the tanning tax earn under 250K/yr. I can add it in right? JahnTeller07 (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC) You can only say what independent reliable sources say. To add that the cigarette tax was, contrary to his promise, effectively raising taxes on those earning less than a quarter of a million dollars a year, you would need independant reliable sources saying exactly that. Please note: that's sources that are 1) "independent" 2) "reliable" and 3) plural. Then, there's the question of weight... No hurry, you've got 24 hours to figure it out before you can do anything with it. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Be careful too. You'll need to find non-partisan sources too, given that the right-wing will try to vilify him and the left-wing will try to vindicate him... Sceptre (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC) It's not going to happen. What you will get at most is independent reliable neutral sources that say the partisans are bickering on it. Some of them might get into an analysis of the merits of the claims, but in doing so they take themselves out of reliable source territory and voice opinions. And after all that, it still would belong in the economic policy or presidency article, not here. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC) I'm going to go ahead and pre-emp your objections to whatever source is going to be presented by noting that although CNN, the Huffington Post and MSNBC are typically seen as liberal and Fox News and WSJ are typically seen as conservative none of these groups identify with a political ideology and they all count as independent sources as far as RS guidelines are concerned.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC) I'd personally be wary about calling Fox a RS after Sherrodgate. They need to take a hard look at their editorial policy (I mean, seriously, when you call the chairman of the Republican Governor's Association a Democrat...). Sceptre (talk) 23:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Wait I'm still confused as to why it shouldn't be included, when all that was going to go in the article were properly sourced facts. JahnTeller07 (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC) The thing is, we aren't sure on whether either the sin taxes count or the mandate count. Politifact spent quite a lot of time debating it. As we said, it's not like HW's "read my lips: no new taxes". It's more complex than that, because we don't know what counts as a tax on under-$250,000s. Hence why I said we should wait for the court ruling agreeing with the administration's argument that the mandate is a tax. Sceptre (talk) 23:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC) OO okay gotcha...thank you for clarifying; and thank you for the input. I appreciate it. JahnTeller07 (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Sceptre says, "I'd personally be wary about calling Fox a RS". LOL Yea, but Media Matters, MSNBC et ARE, eh? I rest my case, and obviously JahnTeller sees what I have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.48.141 (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC) — 71.156.48.141 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Yeah that does seem kinda hypocritical...but is that the argument that's being made (I agree that FOX is way more reliable than MMFA and the likes) JahnTeller07 (talk) 01:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC) I'd not use MMFA as a source, personally. And I'd not use MSNBC as a source regarding the right-wing. However, while the worst MSNBC have done is lean to the left, FOX has a history of failing to do basic fact checking: before Sanford, they called Specter, Foley, and even McCain Democrats on one occasion or another. Sceptre (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC) This is fallacy. FOX makes occassional honest and small mistakes like every news outlet in the history of news. They correct them when they do. They make a mistake, MSNBC and the rest blow it up into a scandal that doesn't exist. MSNBC deliberately lies and deliberately slanders people they disagree with. Conservatives/Republicans, moderate Democrats. FOX is now the mainstream TV news in America. They have far and away more in common with where most of the country is at politically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.250.226 (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC) That's pretty funny. But anyway, this is not the place to discuss the merits of various news outlets. We consider citations here one at a time. Even at the WP:RS/N-related pages, they generally don't paint any particular publication in black or white terms according to how accurate or how partisan it is. Instead, different people, publishers, news sections, and articles all have their degree of apparent reliability, and may or may not be useful within their scope of expertise. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Just look around, Jahn. There's mention of criticism and allegations under about every part of Bush's front page, including from left wing sources. Obama's is sanitized. The man is perfection and is loved by 100% of America if you believe this page. Look at any conservative's bio compared to the liberals. Politicians and commentators both. There is no question there is big time bias here. It needs to be brought to a brighter light, because Wikipedia fronts itself as a neutral site. It is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.250.226 (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC) I completely agree, this is worse than MediaMatters, at lt they admit to being biased. Trying to put anything controversial about someone from the left is like pulling teeth around here. JahnTeller07 (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Immigration memo In terms of immigration policy, a memo that recently surfaced suggests that in-depth discussions have occurred on how to keep many illegal immigrants in the country, which would be at least a temporary alternative to the proposals Democrats in Congress have made to legalize illegal immigrants. The notion of using these tools have drawn the ire of many people who say that it is circumventing congressional authority in order to grant illegal immigrants amnesty. Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/29/memo-outlines-backdoor-amnesty-plan-for-obama/?page=1 Everything I wrote about the administration's policy on immigration reform is true, and sourced by a reliable source. Keeping it out is further bias censorship which already seems to be rampant in this article JahnTeller07 (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Because it has nothing to do whatsoever with Barack Obama's biography. A memo discussing a possible immigration strategy was obtained by Chuck "pull the plug on Grandma" Grassley, spun in the usual way, and fed to a conservative newspaper. In fact, the memo was addressed to the head of USCIS and written by its staffers. There is nothing to suggest that Obama admin officials are even aware of it. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC) "The memo suggests that in-depth discussions have occurred on how to keep many illegal immigrants in the country, which would be at least a temporary alternative to the proposals Democrats in Congress have made to legalize illegal immigrants." "In testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 11, Mr. Mayorkas first said he was unaware of discussions to use these kinds of tools on a categorical basis, then later clarified that officials had talked about expanding the use of those powers." Both statements support the fact that the administration has discussed using this power JahnTeller07 (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)As noted in my edit summary, this article is about the life and career of Barack Obama. It is not an in-depth article about all of the policy decisions and the politics that go along with them. Even if the content were well-sourced, and of sufficient weight to include in the encyclopedia somewhere (neither of which are the case), it is not pertinent to the subject of this article. Although the Washington Times is sometimes a reliable source for some content, it is problematic when it comes to politics due to the paper's strong conservative bent, lackluster respect for factual accuracy (often mischaracterizing or printing unsubstantiated facts to support its position), and being very sloppy about distinguishing opinion and propaganda from factual reportage. This article is a case in point. It is masquerading as a news story, but it uses phrases like "back door" and conjecture like "the memo suggests that...", amidst a highly selective choice of quotes, to hide what is partly an opinion and speculation piece. Regarding weight here or anywhere, the substance is that a second or third tier official approved a report written by four staffers (or something like that) proposing a form of immigration amnesty. There is nothing in the source that says it has anything to do with Obama, or is anywhere close to getting enacted. No substance to it at all. Finally, as you'll note from the cautions on your talk page, please do not use this page (or any of the others) to make accusations of censorship, bias, etc., against the editors here. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC) (after ec) Again, how is this biographically relevant? At best, this is a lower-level discussion by immigration officials. No policy has been announced. At this point, we're in the same territory as "who do you fancy for the Final Four?" -- Scjessey (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Approval ratings "As of August 2010 Obama hit a new low in approval ratings, according to RealClearPolitics. The RCP average was 45% approve, 49.7% disapprove. The two extremes were a Rasmussen poll which had Obama at a -11 spread (44% approve, 55% disapprove) and a Reuters which had him at a spread of 0 (48% approve, 48% disapprove)." How in the world is that original research, or synthesis? Approval ratings were listed previously in his article. This is going back in if I don't get a clear reason it shouldn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JahnTeller07 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by JahnTeller07 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Agreed with removal. The only thing sourced here is the numbers themselves, which are being used as a primary source, everything else is the editor's analysis. We've discussed before, and agreed, that this is not the place for either week by week or selective inclusion of the latest poll numbers. The Presidency article[48] is also not a good place for original research or selectively quoting negative data. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC) I'm just going to put the numbers then, that's not analysis JahnTeller07 (talk) 04:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Of course you agreed Wikidemon, because you let bias cloud your judgement. But I see that you didn't interject when the Pew poll taken in 2008 or 2009 had him at a positive approval rating. This is unbelievably hypocritical, and a glaring double standard that any impartial 3rd party would say is ridiculous. JahnTeller07 (talk) 04:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC) While we're housecleaning polls, can somebody explain why the Siena College poll, currently at the end of the section, belongs here in its current form? The only cited reference is the poll release from Siena itself, so noteworthiness can be legitimately questioned. And personally, I have a bit of a problem with a poll that determines the "greatness" of presidents and includes the category "luck". Fat&Happy (talk) 04:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC) I would say that doesn't belong in this article either. But at least that isn't original research and synthesis. Dave Dial (talk) 04:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC) I also want to add that the Siena College Poll is a well respected poll for Presidential rankings, and has been one of the main contributors to those rankings for almost 30 years. There is no problem with the poll or any question at all about the criteria used. Dave Dial (talk) 04:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC) "According to the Pew Research Center, Obama's approval ratings dropped from 64% in February, 2009 to 49% in December, a trend similar to Ronald Reagan's and Bill Clinton's first years.[196]" How is this different than what I put? This article needs some unbiased editors or sane people will continue to see it as a joke fan page, not an encyclopedic entry. JahnTeller07 (talk) 04:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Because nobody has a decent answer for the addition of some approval numbers, but the omission of others, I'm going to add the following sentence (which is properly sourced) As of August 2010, Rasmussen polls found that the total percent of approval was 44%, while the total percent of disapproval was 55%. Further analysis showed that 25% strongly approved, while 44% strongly disapproved. source:http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history —Preceding unsigned comment added by JahnTeller07 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Disputed, so no consensus. That's still original analysis, selective use of primary sourced data, and against the consensus that we are not including poll updates. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC) It's so obvious, it's ridiculous. It doesn't matter what you put here, they will run you around with their own biased logic as to why it isn't "reliable". Check out the "reliable sources" for their "approved" inclusions on Bush's page at the bottom of it. MSNBC, New York Times, The Guardian, Rolling Stone magazine, PBS, Boston Globe, Salon.com, Newsweek, BBC. It goes on. These steadfast liberal publications are "reliable sources" while FOX News is not, according to these editors. FOX is fine and reliable when it's something against Bush. They are there too. But here for Obama, suddenly they become unreliable. It's really embarrassing. It's clear they will never admit it, so it has to be highlighted publicly. Yeah, there are so many double standards on this article, and this website in general that it would take a massive overhaul of the whole system to clear out the bias of these "editors." JahnTeller07 (talk) 05:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Move to close these Move to close - we're getting hit simultaneously by two trolling accounts. I've already stricken and deleted some soapboxing and personal attacks, which has lead to some stalking tit-for-tat behavior. The least disruptive course, I think, is to warn the IP (the registered editor has already rejected warnings) and close down the discussion threads that have no reasonable likelihood of leading to edits that improve the encyclopedia. This one isn't going to gain consensus for sure. Thoughts? - Wikidemon (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC) I disagree JahnTeller07 (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Note - that's one of the two accounts I was referring to. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)' Obviously the only thing that counts as "improving" an article here is a positive entry for a Democrat and a negative for a Republican. Nothing else passes, and any complaints are called "disruptive". Time and time again I have watched legitimate topics and stories from legitimate sources get shot down because a Democrat is in question, while clear left wing sources count as "reliable" when it's a Republican. It goes on all over Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.250.226 (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC) I agree. But with all the biased editors no progress will ever be made in making the articles impartial. Why bother trying? JahnTeller07 (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC) I agree, Jhan, it's a waste of trying to reason with these "editors". They are clearly biased. They simply put you, me or anybody else who tries for a legitimate edit, through what is obviously a run-around, until we give up. Thus, Obama's and most other Democrats pages stay clean. It's a whitewash, so just do everything you can as I am going to, to shine a far larger light on Wiki. People should not go into this site thinking they are reading a neutral account. This might as well be Huffington Post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.250.226 (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Haha at least the Huffington Post admits to their bias...something wiki clearly won't do. JahnTeller07 (talk) 03:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Support - Further engagement with both the anon ip and the single purpose account JahnTeller07 will just lead to more battle grounds that used to be talk pages to improve articles. The type of attacks, and some of the responses to the accusations, are not helpful. Dave Dial (talk) 04:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Oppose - at least refute the claims, then you can think about closing the case. JahnTeller07 (talk) 04:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Note - I have reported this matter to WP:AN/I - Wikidemon (talk) 05:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Oppose, if only because I am completely opposed to the idea of closing discussing and building a precedent for it. I do however believe this stuff isn't at all relevant to Obama's bio and would recommend to JahnTeller to look in the future into trying to get info on his legislative works in his Presidency of Barack Obama article instead of here.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 06:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Support on two issues and if you want to open a separate discussion on the third, that's ok. The approval ratings are already covered in Presidency of Barack Obama with August 2010 as the earliest result. I don't think the immigration memo supports a policy right now that the administration has made clear. Obama did support the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act which offered a similar "amnesty" and that is mentioned in this article. There is also a discussion on the Presidency page about the Arizona bill controversy which represents a more profound, factual and reliable opinion on the administrations immigration view than the memo. However, regarding the cigarette tax, I think it should be included in the article. To not include the tax promise within paragraph 3 of the Political positions section demonstrates undue weight on the presented topic. The cigarette tax was not a huge or "blanket" violation of the tax promise but a violation nonetheless. I think the issue may be expanded in the future with health care and Bush tax cut issues but I made a sentence suggestion below: During his campaign, Obama had pledged that "no family making less than $250,000.00 a year will see any form of tax increase." This was violated though when he raised the cigarette tax by 156% in April 2009, a tax that effects people below the poverty line.1, 2 --NortyNort (Holla) 09:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC) I, or someone else, will be closing soon, as the primary instigator of these threads is now blocked for two weeks. If anyone wants to open up a discussion of the cigarette tax they may, but inclusion does seem unlikely to gain consensus. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it time to revisit the editing conflicts on this page?

Nothing more than a violation of WP:PERSONAL
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Several of you editors were sanctioned by the powers that be at Wikipedia for your dictatorial control of this page and your refusal to work toward consensus or allow dissenting views not only on the page itself but also here in the comments section. Things settled down for a bit, but now that some of the probationary periods have ended, it appears that the same 3 or 4 overtly pro-Obama editors are right back at it, locking down the page such that the Administration could not have produced a more biased article themselves. I would like to see those 3 or 4 of you go ahead and step back and go work on some other articles for a while and let this page evolve in accordance with the community's dynamicism; if this does not occur, then I think we're just going to have to the take the issue back to the conflict resolution arena and see about forcing you guys to release your iron grip over this page. It's neither scholarly nor encyclopedic to be so inflexible. Ikilled007 (talk) 13:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Er, no, that is an overly-broad and quite inaccurate brush. There was quite an array of sanctions levied depending on the severity of the users' actions, ranging from topic bans to warnings about civility. The full range can be seen at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#Remedies. ArbCom rules on behavioral and policy issues, they most certainly do not arbitrate content disputes. Your claims that people were sanctioned for their (in your opinion) "dictatorial control" is completely false. If you have suggestions for the article, then make them, and they will be evaluated by any interested editors here. If you really feel there is a problem beyond that, then by all means follow the steps outlined at dispute resolution. Tarc (talk) 13:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)\ The attitude expressed in the original post is exactly the kind of attitude that caused the problem in the first place, and why we have article probation. Per article probation and WP:TALK this page is not the place to launch broadside accusations against other editors. I'm not eager to start that up again. Constructive suggestions are welcome, as well as any reasonable mechanism to resolve good faith content disputes. Complaints that Wikipedia is a pro-Obama conspiracy because it deals with sockpuppets, trolls, and tendentiousness is not. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC) This is false. You're one of about 3 or 4 editors who rule this article with an iron fist. That is a fact. This is your pet article. Do you dispute that? I think it is time to go back to arbitration. Apparently you did not learn your lesson last time you were sanctioned. This is not YOUR article. It belongs to the community. YOu are not the community. You are one person. Ikilled007 (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Tony Blair Meeting

"Obama's international appeal has been described as a defining factor for his public image.[197] Polls show strong support for Obama in other countries,[198] and he has met with prominent foreign figures including then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair,[199] Italy's Democratic Party leader and then Mayor of Rome Walter Veltroni,[200] and French President Nicolas Sarkozy.[201]"

His meeting with Tony Blair was in February 2009, well after Tony Blair had left office. Tony Blair left office in June 2007 before even the first primary had begun for the 2008 election.

I'm a wikipedia newbie so don't want to change such a significant article myself but thought I should flag this up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.223.163 (talk) 12:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for noting that; however, the meeting actually took place in September 2005. The reference given in the text is now dead, but it can still be seen here. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.223.163 (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Full name FAQ item

Above:

Q3: Why can't we use his full name outside of the lead? It's his name, isn't it?

A3: Per the manual of style guidelines on names, it is appropriate to only use the person's conventional name outside of the lead. Talk page consensus has also established this.

I find the answer awkwardly worded and rather opaque. How about:

A3 The relevant part of the Manual of Style says that outside the lead of an article on a person, that person's conventional name is the only one that's appropriate. (Thus one use of "Richard Milhous Nixon" in the lead of Richard Nixon, "Richard Nixon" thereafter.) Talk page consensus has also established this.

I thought that an example would help, and that "Richard Milhous Nixon" would be handier for this than would the name of any recent president, but am of course open to better suggestions. -- Hoary (talk) 00:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Tarc (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. -- Hoary (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Warren G. Harding Was First Black President

I remember reading in history books that Warren G. Harding was our first black President. He was only partially black but this information was not bandied about back then for obvious reasons...I think the Wiki article on Harding mentions his black ancestry. Harding even addressed the issue obliquely by saying that some of his ancestors "may have jumped the fence". I think this is notable and the opening statement that Obama is our first black president in the Obama Wiki article should make mention of this, because of its historical significance. How do Wiki editors think this matter should be handled?71.154.158.137 (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The article here simply mentions that it was rumours. I think it would be WP:UNDUE to mention it on this article or go against the weight of reliable sources that say otherwise. So no. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The last time this topic came up, this question was answered pretty definitively, IMO. Harding was accused of having black ancestors by political opponents at a time when such accusations were extremely derogatory and potentially damaging, i.e. the one drop rule; it was never a claim he made of himself, nor has it been corroborated by any serious historian. Tarc (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is a reliable source confirming verifiable proof of what seems now to only be accusations, I don't see eeason to change this article.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I loled when I saw this topic header. Warren Harding didn't have black skin, so even if he was black it wasn't significant unlike now with Obama where it is significant. The info isn't really relevant.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Say what? -- Hoary (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, and I always thought that Bill Clinton was the first Black president. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.197.219 (talk)

maybe it should say that Obama is the first "openly-Black" president? RodCrosby (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe people should stop obsessing over Obama's race and leave it as it is? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Muslim, criticism section, Wright

This is the biggest lie I have ever read on wikipedia. The same article that states Obama is not Muslim also states that he attended Muslim schools in Indonesia. Second off Snopes is not a recognized source but they dispute your claims otherwise. The biggest problem is the lack of a criticism section. Obama is frequently criticized in the media on all points of his opinions and did attend a radical church led by a racist preacher for over 20 years. The article needs to be revised for fair standards.

Tomgazer (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Everything you say is true. He did attend a Muslim school, and he did attend a church with an outspoken preacher, but its not always helpful to pile on critisisms in this article each time he is critisized. I suggest that you make a make a suggestion for an improvement, rather than ranting about how much this site is lying.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So if I went to a CoE, I would be an Anglican? Not really. Secondly, Snopes is recognised for its fact-checking and impartiality (going so far to be designated as free from bias for both McCain and Obama). Thirdly, neither do the articles for Clinton and Bush; instead, prominent criticisms of them have been interspersed into the article (e.g. Monica or Iraq). And fourthly, the characterisation of Wright as radical or racist being a criticism of Obama is classic guilt by association (which even McCain pointed out). While the criticism is indeed notable, we don't really need to point it out at the expense of everything else he's done. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Do not accuse me of ranting. This article is clearly biased and poorly constructed. In the Q & A at the top of the page it blatantly claims he did not attend a Muslim school and points to snopes which refutes that and points to evidence and his own biography in which he admits attending Muslim schools. The blatant lie that he didn't is obviously a lapse in editing skills. I did not claim he was Muslim in anything I have said and do not like being called out on something I did not claim. A section is needed to discus the criticisms put forth against him and his rebuttals. Tomgazer (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry that you feel that way, but this talk page is used for considering and working through specific proposals to edit the article. It's not the place to decide whether the article or its editors are biased, lying, unskilled, etc. The only way that people can work together to create an encyclopedia is if they show a basic level of cooperation and respect in that regard. Comments that don't contain an actionable proposal, and accuse people of things, generally get very little consideration here. The sentence on Obama's education in Indonesia reads: "From ages six to ten, Obama attended local schools in Jakarta, including Besuki Public School and St. Francis of Assisi School". The article text does not comment, and has no reason to comment, on whether these or any other schools Obama attended are "Muslim" (or Catholic, or anything else). It is simply not biographically relevant to Obama. The claims that Obama did this or that are well vetted in outside sources, and we don't try to use his words against him to prove something other than what we can source. We can source that there have been various accusations about Obama being, being called, attending, etc., Muslim schools, mostly in the conservative blogosphere, which the mainstream sources describe mainly as an untruthful political attack by election-year opponents, i.e. a smear. I believe those accusations are mentioned in the "public image" and presidential campaign articles, where they belong. However, there is no substance to the claim that Obama attended a radical Muslim school, and what we can source is unremarkable. At least one of the schools Obama attended was mostly Muslim, and that school, like his Catholic school(s?), offered religious instruction. The FAQ, which is not part of the article but rather a guide to those editing it and commenting here, notes that we have decided not to add all these Muslim smears to this article, and points to Snopes, CNN, and other sources, for further reading. We (and by "we", I mean the large number of editors who have worked on this article over time and formed a WP:CONSENSUS about how it should read) have decided that this article, like most, does not merit a special section for attacks and defenses on his character, because they would fill up (and do - see the public image article, the article about the Ayers controversy, the article about the "birther" fringe theories, and others) whereas this is a biography. If you can take a step back and imagine someone long dead, say Teddy Roosevelt or Mark Twain, we don't devote a section to criticisms of them and their rebuttals. We tell their life story. If their story includes a particularly interesting controversy, scandal, lawsuit, escapade, whatever, and there isn't room in the article, we write a separate article about it. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I neither claimed he was a radical nor was he a Muslim. There is an obvious bias in this article and changes need to be made. Your only sources Snopes.com and Barack Obama himself both claim he attended Muslim schools in Indonesia. The fact that he attended muslim schools is not a smear but an acknowledged fact known before he announced his run for president. There is nothing in what I said about fringe, birther, or any other accusation. Do not accuse me of saying anything I did not say. There obviously needs to be corrections and the addition of of criticism section to discuss he charges labeled against him as there are on many Presidents and Senators entries. The fact that he is president does not discredit him from criticism.

Tomgazer (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not say you claimed that he was a radical or Muslim. There is no bias here in deciding we will not treat this issue, which became an election smear, as a matter worthy of the biography. Again you misstate the sources, something I addressed so I will not correct that again. I share the community's aversion to criticism sections, here and in most other articles so you're not going to convince me on that (in a few cases, say, books and films, critical reception is relevant to the notability of the subject). The suggestion has been considered before here, as has the notion of connecting Obama to Islam, and rejected. Please either propose a specific change to the article or not. Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You specifically do not have the authority to declare facts. The fact that Obama attended Muslim schools is not a smear but an acknowledged part of his history. It does not matter whether he received criticism for it due to the fact that he wrote about it before the election is relevant and necessary to mention. There is no claim he is connected to Islam or that he was born outside the United States it simply is a part of his history which needs to be mentioned. Obama has a long and controversial history which needs to be addressed in a criticism section. - Tomgazer (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

My position is no to the above for the reasons already mentioned. You're free to believe otherwise but it's unlikely that consensus will change on this. The sources call it a smear. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That is a blatant lie the sources that have been presented both claim that he attended Muslim schools while in Indonesia. You have not listed one claim that I have made as a smear but instead have gone on a diatribe about birthers, haters of Islam, and hate towards Obama. You have no sources to back up the claim that there is a smear but have instead resorted to blatant lies about Obama and claims that everyone other than you must be mistaken including the Barack Obama himself and Snopes.com.

Tomgazer (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

And so what do you propose? -- Hoary (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Obama did not attend a "Muslim" school, any more than many Americans who attend/ed public school in America attend/ed "Christian" schools(mainly before the 1960's or in some rural areas that still have religious teachings). That is explained in detail in the sources from the FAQ. The fringe conspiracy articles about Obama also cover this. If you want to know more about the reasons why this will not be included in the article, search the talk page archives, read the FAQ, and visit websites that are reliable sources. I move to close these threads. Dave Dial (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd give Tomgazer one last chance to say something reality-based, coherent and constructive. -- Hoary (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The Q and A section needs to be revised to clearly state and substantiate his own claims and that of snopes.com who you clearly cite that he attended muslim and Catholic schools in Indonesia while he may not have been either Muslim or Catholic at the time which what the only sources you can find back up. Your own conjectures about American schools and the schools in Indonesia are not based on substantiated fact you can either concede or can find new evidence substantiating your blatant accusations.

Tomgazer (talk) 06:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I would propose that we add this source[49] and amend the FAQ to say something along the lines of the following:"Barack Obama did not attend a madrassa while living in Indonesia age 6-10, as had been falsely reported. Rather, he attended a secular government school for two years that was majority Muslim, and a Roman Catholic school for two years that was majority Catholic." The reliable sources unambiguously describe the first as a government-run nondenominational school that did offer religious instruction, and in so doing, say it is not proper to call it a Muslim religious school. We have no reason to confuse the issue here, and no reason to cover it at all. It is most notable as part of a false story, on Fox News and out from there, to say that Obama went to a madrassa. If we were to cover this at all it would regard the whole election year Muslim smear matter, which belongs if anywhere in the public perception article. There is zero chance given the sources I have seen that I would support any mention of this false story in the article, and the chance of it gaining consensus is no more than that. I do not wish to discuss further whether I have provided sources or refuted anything. I've looked in detail at the facts and formed my opinion. Over and out... - Wikidemon (talk) 06:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Anything that helps calms the ripping waters of the duck pool here is fine by me. Hard to believe this stuff is still being perpetuated almost 2 years post-election season. Tarc (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

"Allegations that Sen. Barack Obama was educated in a radical Muslim school known as a "madrassa" are not accurate, according to CNN reporting." "Obama lived in Indonesia as a child, from 1967 to 1971, with his mother and stepfather and has acknowledged attending a Muslim school" Your own source disputes your claim. It also clearly disputes your claim. If you can find any evidence that he did not attend a Muslim school bring it forward otherwise the Q and A still needs to be revised and the article needs to add this information. You are completely side stepping the issue once more by going on a tirade about fox news and conservatives that smear without offering any evidence to that claim. "I came here to Barack Obama's elementary school in Jakarta looking for what some are calling an Islamic madrassa ... like the ones that teach hate and violence in Pakistan and Afghanistan," Vause said on the "Situation Room" Monday. "I've been to those madrassas in Pakistan ... this school is nothing like that." The claim that he attended a radical school is not at issue it is the issue of whether he attended a Muslim school in Indonesia which is blatantly denied even though all of your sources including Barack Obama himself claim he did.

Tomgazer (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You do understand that not every, quote, "Muslim school" is a "madrassa", right? The two are not synonyms; if you actually read the article rather than cherry-picked it, you would have seen quotes attesting the school's all-inclusive, non-Islamic teaching nature. Tarc (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Tomgazer, even if he did attend the school, why do you want it listed under "criticism"? Should we criticize you for where your parents sent you when you were six years old? --Jleon (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a good one. :) I've worked with Muslims who were sent to Catholic schools. They aren't Catholics themselves, though. Their parents just wanted what they considered to be the best schools they could get. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Page protection requested ar RFPP. Let's archive so e of these forum-ish threads, as they become troll magnets. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

early Koran education, and Q1

In this edit, DD2K removed the following passage from this talk page, with the comment "Removing unhelpful commentary":

ONCE AGAIN: Obama wrote in his own book, DREAMS FROM MY FATHER, that he studied the Koran. Pg 84, quote: "In Indonesia, I had spent two years at a Muslim school, two years at a Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell my mother that I made faces during Koranic studies." Furthermore, it is stated on HIS OWN WEBSITE: http://www.barackobama.com/2007/03/06/obama_man_of_the_world.php

Kim Barker of the Chicago Tribune, investigated FALSE CLAIMS that Obama attended a "radical muslim school" or madrassa. However, she wrote: "Weekly religious classes are required for all students, whether Muslims, Christians or Hindus, under the government curriculum. A new shiny mosque is in the corner of the courtyard. The Muslims learn about Islam, prayer and religious activity," said Hardi Priyono, the vice principal for curriculum. "And for the Christians, during the religious class, they also have a special room teaching Christianity. It's always been like that. We are a public school. We have always been a public school." http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-070325obama-islam-story-archive,0,3358809.story

SO, the christian children were studying Christianity. Muslims studied the Koran. Obama said he studied the Koran, hence he has some Muslim heritage and education.

There are the sources. It is all fact. Is this "nice enough" for you, or would you just prefer deleting the truth again? Q1 is incorrect. This is part of the man's history and should absolutely be included in the article. It is not "conspiracy" or "fringe theory" when the man himself said he did it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.105.69 (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the bolding and CAPS, but they're not mine.

The first thing I notice here is that although part of it is (irritated) commentary, most of it is (right or wrong) assertion of fact. Unlike a lot of junk recently posted here by IPs, I see nothing obviously deleteworthy here.

Now let's turn to Q1 and A1 (and pardon the markup-stripping):

Q1: Why isn't Barack Obama's Muslim heritage or education included in this article?

A1: Barack Obama was never a practitioner of the Muslim faith. His biological father having been "raised as a Muslim" but being a "confirmed atheist" by the time Obama was born is mentioned in the article. Please see this article on Snopes.com for a fairly in-depth debunking of the myth that Obama is Muslim. Barack Obama did not attend an Islamic or Muslim school while living in Indonesia age 6-10, but Roman Catholic and secular public schools. See [1], [2], [3] The sub-article Public image of Barack Obama addresses this issue.

Now, whether or not the young Barry O went to Koran classes is of absolutely no interest to me. (A few soporific Bible classes were enough to turn me from agnostic to atheist.) But clearly it's of tremendous interest to plenty of people (admirers of Glenn Beck and so on) in the inscrutable US.

I don't have the Obama's book on me, but I did look at this on barackobama.com. Yes, it say: He once got in trouble for making faces during Koran study classes in his elementary school, but a president is less likely to stereotype Muslims as fanatics -- and more likely to be aware of their nationalism -- if he once studied the Koran with them.

This does not say anything about the school. It could for all I know (or care) have been nominally secular or nominally Christian. The question is about "Muslim [...] education" and the answer vaguely implies that there wasn't any. But it seems that there indeed was some; surely (a) this should be added to the article, or (b) this should be withheld from the article, with the reason clearly given in A1 that the amount or significance was trivial, or (c) there should be an intelligent discussion (easy on the bold, the all caps and the exclamation points) about this here.

Incidentally, Public image of Barack Obama does not deal with his early education. (And rightly so, I'd have thought). -- Hoary (talk) 04:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

PS I do notice this discussion near the foot of the most recent talk archive. However, this doesn't seem to me to deal with credible remarks that -- regardless of the affiliation or non-affiliation of the school, or of the slant if any of the education in general -- he attended some Koran classes. -- Hoary (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The commentary was unhelpful and I don't see much need to discuss it. The editor, who seems to be part of an IP/sock swarm, is here to make personal attacks on other editors, complain about Wikipedia's liberal bias, and WP:SOAP-box on the old Obama=Muslim nonsense. The fact that they state some true but trivial facts as a premise for their speculative fallacies (Obama studied Koran; Christian kids studied the Bible; therefore Obama=not Christian) doesn't mean that the posts are productive. Anyway, there's no way it's going into this article because it's not only trivial, it's illogical WP:SYNTH and sourced as untrue. It's not a public perception issue either. If we had an "early childhood education of..." article it could go there. For the moment people can read all about it at Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories. FAQs are always subject to incremental improvement, and if someone has a modest viable suggestion for doing it we should talk about it. Based on this discussion I will update the FAQ to mention the conspiracy theory article. But I don't see any point updating FAQ #1 to include every single argument and piece of trivia used to argue that Obama is Muslim. We reference the claim, refer to a string of sources, and say that we're not going to include it. That's enough. I don't see that this merits any intelligent discussion at this point. That discussion has already been had, nothing has changed, and it's not worth feeding the trolls or wasting a lot of editor time on it on this page. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Come come, Wikidemon, my point was to ask about whether or not Obama studied the Koran, and whether or not he did then how this should be handled. I'm entirely open to the suggestion that it's too trivial to be mentioned in the article, but if so then Q1 might say this. If he did study it and we say he did, then the OS by which he must therefore have been a Muslim is of no more interest to me than it is to you. (Well, other than morbid humor interest. Always fun to read up on Wonkette about what the birthers and so on have been up to.) If the IP is here to make personal attacks on other editors, then he has at least largely refrained from doing so in the passage above (and anyway you and I are both adults here in the kitchen and can stand some heat). -- Hoary (talk) 04:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

For Pete's sake, the edit is a troll edit that has been covered here ad nauseum by the same God Damned trolls that constantly bring up the same bullshit over and over. And it's unhelpful to recreate the damn posts of a anon ip troll. Dave Dial (talk) 05:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You're sounding curiously flustered. I don't care whether he's logged in or not, and, in principle, neither does WP. Yes, he's written some rubbish in his time. Yes, there's some rubbish in this. But he appears to be making a valid little point (whether or not merely as a plank in some would-be edifice of OS) and cites an URL to support it. The URL checks out. So we deal with it -- tersely and firmly, but we deal with it. Or we just call it names and play into the hands of the nitwits. -- Hoary (talk) 05:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You can deal with whatever you like, but there is zero chance any of this synthesis and original research has a chance to pass the laugh test. I read a book called "Europe:A History". Am I now an European Anthropologist? This is more than a little bit silly. Dave Dial (talk) 05:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(Also let me add) The "flustered" part comes from having a supposed long time wiki editor and admin feed a anon ip troll that is obviously here NOT to improve wikipedia or this article. One only has to view the history for that. Dave Dial (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, you're probably no more a European historian (or anthropologist) than I (after my Bible classes) am a Christian. The OS is of no more interest to me than it is to you. I'm only interested in the narrow point of what to do with evidence that the young lad went to Koran classes. (An entirely uninteresting point to me, but clearly one of great interest to some buyers of bumper stickers.) If the thing to do is to dismiss it as trivia, fine with me -- but let the answer to Q1 say so clearly. As it is, the answer purports to address such an objection to the article but does not really do so. At the least, the answer needs revising. I've already revised the answer to one FAQ here (see a recent message archive) but am probably less qualified than others here to revise this one. ¶ I'm well aware that the IP's contribution history is undistinguished, and sympathize with your flusteredness (flustration?). But again, within the larger "point" (yawn), he did have a point. -- Hoary (talk) 05:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a viable point. In short: too trivial to mention in the article; too trivial to add to the FAQ; and too trivial, unlikely to lead to content improvement, rejected repeatedly by consensus already, and tendentiously presented, to be worth discussing here. Regarding the FAQ, we simply say that despite the smear campaign, Obama attended a public school in Indonesia. We're not going to use the FAQ to go class by class, student by student, conspiracy theory by conspiracy theory, to debunk every claim that a Muslim sneezed in Indonesia. The statement (assuming it is true) that Obama's public school education included lessons in the Koran, is no more damning than a hundred other factoids advanced to prove that Obama is a Muslim, and refuting them one by one is not the job of the encyclopedia, much less this parent biographical article. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the editor indirectly made a point that FAQ 1 needs to change. I think we should discuss a way to address the problem within the FAQ but word it carefully. The problem, a legitimate one, is that there are two really reliable sources from Obama himself, a book he wrote and a statement he issued. Source here. I think with two such reliable sources, it should be mentioned in Q1. I don't think it is a conspiracy but the confusion that it draws is understandable, let's be honest. A short explanation could alleviate some of the confusion that is seen on this talk page regarding the issue. I don't think it belongs in the article, just the FAQ. Any ideas?

I also don't think it is good practice to over-react to discussions as well. We should judge the references, not the user. Although socks do troll and ruin discussions; not every case is the same. A discussion shouldn't be removed after 20 minutes, especially after it wasn't that bad, like this one wasn't. The editor's confusion made a good point that is reinforced by similar past discussions. The Obama article's are contentious but this is still Wikipedia and consensus isn't one person or numbers.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right. Not every case is the same. Just 99.99% of them. Obvious troll posts should be deleted without comment, and if the aforementioned troll feels aggrieved they can march on over to WP:ANI and complain about it. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

One trouble about talking of "obvious troll posts" is: Obvious to whom? The same IP posted a little tantrum a bit earlier; its trollishness aside, it was worthless and I therefore unhesitatingly deleted it. I posted a comment on his talk page saying that if he had anything worth saying, he should say it persuasively, with evidence. He thereupon posted something that was not a tantrum, that wasn't offensive, and that appeared to make a small factual (reliably sourced) suggestion for the article. So he had a bash at doing just what I'd asked him to do. It was odd to see this summarily deleted as mere commentary. Its trollishness was not obvious to me. ¶ There have been repeated allegations here of a "liberal" bias in this article or in WP as a whole. For WP as a whole, I've seen no reasoning -- unless of course you see the description of a world at variance with the one painted by AM radio blowhards as a liberal description. For this particular article, I'm not so sure. The "trolls" repeatedly claim that it's unfair that Bush's article is full of criticism and this one isn't; whatever the amount and fairness of criticism in the article on the Leader of the Free World that brought it Guantánamo Bay Detention Camp and "PATRIOT", it is a little surprising to read in this article no mention of the former beyond the order to close it "as soon as practicable and no later than" half a year ago, and no mention whatever of the latter. Et cetera. The denizens of this talk page had better distinguish between (a) mere rants, and (b) substantive requests and suggestions (however unwelcome), and respond to the latter openly and fairly. This is of course likely to take time and generally be a pain in the butt, but that's the Wikipedia editing process for you. -- Hoary (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Identifying trolls is not rocket science: "You lefty editors just delete it. Good luck blocking me. They tried that once before... didn't work out so hot." -- Scjessey (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

We know that neither his mother, father or stepfather was religious themselves, so it could be that Obama studied the Koran at school because his parents didn't want to mark him out as a non-Muslim in a primarily Muslim country? We're talking about a kid who was known as 'Barry' in an effort to sound more Western (his idea or his parents'?). The fact that he had Koranic education at school suggests that he was raised non-Christian, not so much that he was raised Muslim. And he clearly showed no interest in it. However, I think this evidence should be dealt with in the article, perhaps a section such as "The secular school he attended in Malaysia offered Koranic classes, plus alternatives for Christians. Obama attended the Koranic classes, but showed no interest in them" - seems to state the facts accurately enough without making unverifiable claims.--MartinUK (talk) 10:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think we should shy away from the school issue since it is generally in reliable sources. But how important is it to cover that in his biography (over the FAQ)? The topic can be a confusing part of his early life but insignificant given the known facts and his other endeavors. Do you have a reliable source for your quoted sentence above? Maybe some tweaking in Early life and career of Barack Obama? I'm not involved in the early life and career article but there seems to have been some similar discussion there.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What "school issue"? It's only an "issue" for the intolerant. I went to a CofE parish school where we daily recited the Lord's Prayer, and I was an avid attendee of Sunday School because I loved singing hymns. I learned about several other religions while in the same school system (particularly Islam), but I've always been an atheist. Learning about religions is not the same as being religious. This is an FAQ-type matter at best. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"School issue" implies the issue in this discussion, i.e. whether or where to cite the issue in related articles. An inclusion in the FAQ would be to provide factual clarity. We can't label readers who are reasonably baffled about where he went to school as intolerant and deem it not worthy for the FAQ. An inclusion in an Obama-related article would provide facts, no commentary, POV pushing or implications on his faith. Given the reliable sources that cause this understandable confusion, it would be intolerant to not address the issue with an open-mind and provide factual clarity. Not every editor here is trying to put fringe theories in his articles. Tolerance is hard on these articles but necessary to a degree.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You know, it's stuff like this that makes the article so difficult to manage. If a legitimate editor has a legitimate point they can make without disrupting things or leveling accusations against everyone we can entertain it, and this one I would have rejected as unsourced and undue. I really don't care to discuss this further, as it's only a matter of time before page protection expires and we get the editor, or socks, coming back to stir up trouble. As it stands, I have not seen any sourcing that suggests that this is a bona fide issue. Why would we update the FAQ to answer to every single facet of the conspiracy theory? We don't have any indication that this is a significant new part of that, just an editor trying out a new fallacious argument. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree, Wikidemon, and I think it's bordering on the absurd(to put it politely) that because a child of 7 years old may have been in some class where the Koran was studied, while in school in Indonesia, well there you go, he's a secret Muslim. I went back through the history last night and found dozens upon dozens of edits this anon ip(and it's socks) made over the past year. All accusing Wikipedia editors of trying to hide the fact that Obama is a "Muslim" and making this same point over and over and over. It's unhelpful and violates any number of guidelines to continue to allow this kind of disruption. And not only allow it, but encourage it. I'm not going to keep discussing these ridiculous accusations anymore. There is a next step in the process if this persists, and I would hope that established editors would circumvent these kinds of obvious disruptions and not encourage them. Dave Dial (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Here you go again calling this "conspiracy theory", synthesis, and original research. 3 questions -

1) Did or did not Obama write that he attended a Muslim school for 2 years?

2) Did or did not Obama write that he studied the Koran?

3) Did or did not Kim Barker of the Chicago Tribune establish that, while the school was public, children practicing Islam studied the Koran?

Pray tell, where is the conspiracy? How have I submitted any original research? What have I synthesized? And where did I say Obama is currently a Muslim? I didn't. I said he practiced, irregularly according to other sources, as a CHILD. This is part of his history. IMO, having this IN the article might help to clear up some of the "Obama is a Muslim" claims by pointing out how this accusation came to be.

When you blatantly deny and delete valid information that can be obtained in black and white at any book store you show yourself to be biased, and I will call you out on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.105.69 (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

And when you continually try to push the bogus notion that Obama is a Muslim, YOU will be called on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Sigh*. Typical. You didn't even bother to read the above did you? I did not say Obama is a Muslim. You look like a fool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.105.69 (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If he's not a Muslim, then why did his study of the Quran have any significance or notability? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

A) Because Q1 states: " Barack Obama did not attend an Islamic or Muslim school while living in Indonesia age 6-10". Obama himself says he did. B) Because there is a huge controversy over whether Obama is/was a Muslim. The whole purpose of Wikipedia is to provide truthful, sourced, and unbiased information. A lot of people come here for that information. I find it negligent on the part of the editors not to mention that Obama studied Islam as a child (but changed afterwards) if only to inform people how the "Obama is a Muslim" claim came to be. I mean really, what has to be done? Does someone have to smack some of you editors upside the head with Obama's book before you stop calling it "unsourced"?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.105.69 (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What possible "valid information" have you provided other than insinuations of the Obama-Muslim conspiracy theories? What other possible significance is it if Obama made faces during "Koranic studies" in an Indonesian public school? He was also taught the Catechism for years, which has far more sources and significance. I've read all of your edits over the last year(from your numerous IPs and socks) and virtually all of them are attacking Wiki editors, accusing editors of Bias, hiding "facts" and you pushing this silly Obama-Muslim meme. Excuse me if I lost my ability to keep tolerating your disruptions and obvious trollish behavior. Dave Dial (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

And excuse me if I've lost the ability to tolerate incessant deletions and obviously nit-picked reading. GO READ THE MANS BOOK. What better source than straight from the horses mouth? Also excuse me for attacking your accusations of an "Obama-Muslim" agenda. No where and not once did I say that Obama is a Muslim. I'm challenging the validity of Q1. You don't like the information being suggested, factual as it may be, so you and others retreat to your BS claim of trolling and conspiracy. That is not a neutral standpoint and exposes you for exactly what you are - an Obama supporter with a chip on his shoulder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.105.69 (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There you go accusing me of being a troll again. How about adequately rebutting the facts instead of closing what you don't want to hear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.105.69 (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

We've clearly established consensus at this point. I've asked for page protection again. Better to ignore this until that happens, then archive, rather than edit warring against an IP. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's all cut the amateur psychologizing of each other.

As I understand it, some people are keen to have the article show that Obama went to Koran classes. It seems that he did go to Koran classes. I'll assume for now that this is an established fact. It's a fact of no interest to me. I can't see how it's related to his later life; but it's a fact that at least one journalist presents it (on Obama's website, no less) as a hint that Obama is less likely than many other Americans to be Islamophobic.

Perhaps it would also be of interest to the kind of people televised at "tea parties" carrying misspelled placards. That's their problem, not ours.

It could be objected that the relevance of this little fact to the aspects of Obama that are significant to the world is unclear or minuscule, and that it is therefore better avoided. I have quite a lot of sympathy for this argument, but I don't understand how it applies here and not to (as one example among many) "In 2009, he threw out the ceremonial first pitch at the all star game while wearing a White Sox jacket" -- who cares about ceremonial first pitches or his taste in jackets? -- Hoary (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Propose to close

Okay, since we have one legitimate editor who wishes to continue stirring the pot, I'll go through the motions.
Reject content proposal - having considered the matter, I do not support any change to the FAQ or mention of this matter in the article.

• Agree with rejection, as proposer - Wikidemon (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with rejection based on lack of reliable, verifiable and neutral sources. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 01:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • If your rejection of the addition of the (to me, uninteresting) factoid that the young Barry O went to Koran class is based on the lack of adequate sources, then what's your comment on this? -- Hoary (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral on the content proposal, but want a minor change either to content or (more likely) to FAQ answer. I'm open-minded about adding this to the article. If it's worth adding, it surely merits a half sentence, no more. If it isn't worth adding, then the reason why should be explained in the answer to Q1. -- Hoary (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC) ... PS Here's what the article now says on these years: From ages six to ten, Obama attended local schools in Jakarta, including Besuki Public School and St. Francis of Assisi School. It seems absurd to explain the extent to which the former was a Muslim school, or to say that it had this or that kind of class, or that the potus-in-training misbehaved in one of these. -- Hoary (talk) 07:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• DisagreeI think arbitration is in order—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.239.90 (talk • contribs)
• Agree with rejection, And it's a shame that we have to do this AGAIN. Dave Dial (talk) 01:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with rejection, again, per Dave. Tvoz/talk 15:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to close with prejudice - there being a long term consensus not to add this and similar material to the article, and there being concern over the legitimacy and behavior of editors who bring repeated proposals, I propose that this discussion be closed and archived as a rejected proposal, that attempts to re-open or repeat this or similar proposalsor other recently rejected proposals to describe Obama's religion, schooling, or upbringing, as Muslim, may be archived or deleted on sight by any editor with a good faith objection that the proposal is unhelpful, that re-opening it after warnings and/or reversions is considered disruption for which administrative help may be sought, and that civil good faith discussion be encouraged but only if there is something substantially new to discuss.

• Agree with close, as proposer - Wikidemon (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Disagree. Factual information is being ignored and treated as "conspiracy". Q1 does not adequately answer or refute the information provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.105.69 (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with close. No reliable, verifiable sources presented to support insertion of proposed edit. Editor proposing appears to be ignoring all arguments to the contrary, and by editor's comments is not adhering to WP:NPOV. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

AGAIN I ask how a book the man wrote himself is not a reliable, verifiable source?? Are you even READING what has been posted? Good God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.105.69 (talk) 01:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It does not logically follow that studying the Qu'ran makes one a Muslim. I myself have studied several religious texts...does that make me an adherent of any of those religions? Your assertion fails, and your continued aggressive pushing of that assertion is what is being examined here. I strongly urge you to review several Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:OR, WP:POINT, and WP:TEND. I'd also remind you that this Discussion page has already been placed on probation, as noted at the top of the page. You might wish to review that as well. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a source, yes, though your interpretation is not; the book does not draw the conclusions that you are trying to sell us here. That is more you taking a few bits and pieces and cobbling them together to support the pre-formed opinion you apparently have on the matter. Dabbling for a few years in an Indonesian public school where the Koran was taught does not make one a Muslim, or rise to the point where one can be said to have had a "Muslim heritage or education". There is nothing that needs to be altered for the FAQ. Nothing needs to be added to the article. Time to move on. Tarc (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Q1 SAYS HE NEVER ATTENDED A MUSLIM SCHOOL OR PRACTICED ISLAM. HE SAYS HE DID. THIS IS NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH, SYNTH, OR FRINGE. IT IS VERBATIM FROM THE MAN'S OWN BOOK. HE WROTE IT HIMSELF, HOW MUCH BETTER OF A SOURCE CAN YOU GET? AND AGAIN, I AM NOT ACCUSING OBAMA OF BEING A MUSLIM, WHY DON'T YOU ACTUALLY READ WHAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED.

The more capitals you use, the nuttier you look. Pity really. -- Hoary (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well obviously some can't read what's right in front of them, maybe the larger text will help those with selective reading skills. If I could draw it in crayon I would. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.105.69 (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You entirely miss the point that it simply isn't significant; certainly not significant enough so that a 2-year stint in what really wasn't much of a "Muslim school" acording to other sources can be used to characterize or label his entire educational background as "Muslim-schooled". This is where your argument is going south; cherry-picking one small event in order to describe the whole with it. No one's buying what you're selling, bro. Tarc (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree. The business about "similar material" and "similar proposals" is far too vague. Does it mean "any material that looks as if it might be used as a plank in a birther/teabagger fiction"? If so, this is coming perilously close to preemptive deletion by "IDONTLIKEIT"; if not, then just what do you have in mind? ¶ A talk page is for talk. Some of the talk is likely to be tiresome. Some but not all of this should be deleted on sight. -- Hoary (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It relies on the discretion of good faith editors to know when someone is being tendentious. Nevertheless I've made the wording more specific. Note that it only applies to rehashing discussions that have already been had, on the subject of Obama=Muslim, and explicitly excepts good faith civil discussions when there is something new to add. We don't really need this proposal, it's well within the discretion of editors to close pointless discussions, I am simply making this explicit and on the record. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I'm hoping it will be sufficiently specific to allow this poor dead horse to lie undisturbed, rather than watching it get beaten into a fine pulp. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Wikidemon. Well put. Well, this particular cherry (that the wee lad attended Koran classes) will no doubt continue to be picked. The reason for its absence will be Frequently Asked, whether or not the question is summarily deleted. So I'd expand the answer to Q1 accordingly. -- Hoary (talk) 01:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree There is no established criteria on what is conspiracy or otherwise. There are valid points here. It is not appropriate for editors to delete things on what they deem similar without consensus.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.239.90 (talk • contribs)
• Agree with close, ditto as above. It's a shame that we have to entertain and humor an obvious troll with an obvious agenda. Dave Dial (talk) 01:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Close it up, as this is getting tiresome and rather tendentious. Tarc (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh but it has long been tiresome and tendentious. However, this is what happens when one attempts to edit an article on a potus. Tarc, you make more sense in a comment a short distance above. The proposal here is far too vague. However, if it's limited to outlawing from discussion the potty notion that Obama is covert Muslim, then I could go along with that. -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC) PS Wikidemon has since made the proposal a lot better. -- Hoary (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Suggestion Can some editor in good standing who possesses a copy of Obama's book take a look at what Obama wrote? We're told above (after I strip the caps) that whereas the FAQ says he never attended a Muslim school or practiced Islam. He says [in the book] he did. I find that extraordinarily hard to believe, but don't want to resort to "that can't be true so it isn't true". -- Hoary (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty to upload a digital copy of his book to 4shared. 4shared is blocked by wikipedia, so go to [redacted, copyvio] I will remove in one hour. pg 84 for your reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.105.69 (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh . . . thank you, I suppose. Well, above you specified p.84, and this is all that we're told on the PDF of this that's illegally but conveniently there: In Indonesia, I had spent two years at a Muslim school, two years at a Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell my mother that I made faces during Koranic studies. So he says it was a "Muslim school", whereas snopes.com says it was a school that was "Muslim" primarily in the sense that its population was (as expected in predominantly Muslim Java) predominantly Muslim. -- Hoary (talk) 02:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. Although I find it funny... there's a host of people here disavowing this was ever said or exists... yet only 2 people have downloaded it. Interesting... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.105.69 (talk) 03:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm given to understand he DID attend a madrassa for a short time, somewhere around the age of seven or eight years old. But I haven't read any of his books, nor have I had the leisure to do so, thanks to my continued efforts to remain gainfully employed, so I don't have a means of either verifying or refuting. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to the discussion at the top of this section, and the snopes article referenced in FAQ#1, regarding the statement Obama made in his book, and the "Muslim school" / madrassa smear campaign. Obama attended a secular public school in Indonesia where the majority of students were from Muslim families, and that offered religious instruction. That's what all this refers to. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The FAQ: Barack Obama did not attend an Islamic or Muslim school while living in Indonesia age 6-10, but Roman Catholic and secular public schools. Snopes: Barack and his mother moved to Jakarta, Indonesia, where Obama spent 4-5 years attending both Muslim and Catholic schools before his mother sent him back to the United States to live with his maternal grandmother. The school Barack Obama attended in Indonesia was "Muslim" primarily in the sense that the preponderance of its student body was Muslim (because Indonesia is a predominantly Muslim country), but both the Muslim and Catholic schools he attended in Indonesia offered a few hours of religious instruction each week. This isn't incompatible with the FAQ answer, but I think could be summarized rather better. -- Hoary (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'm surprised that people haven't brought up the fact that Obama may have actually been mistaken; he referred to it as a "Muslim school" in his book, but others have looked into it and found it to be a secular school of various faiths. Just because it's Obama saying it doesn't make him the expert on the nature of the school he attended when he was a child. Klondike (talk) 03:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It seems to shed light on why he called it a Muslim school in his book. Placing something similar in the FAQ, maybe under a new question would definitely be consistent and accurate along with offering another tool to point curious editors to. Unless of course, they already read it on the FAQ.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Close but after a adding/modifying school facts in FAQ. The facts about his school are too insignificant to be in his bio but maybe Early life and career of Barack Obama. As I have said above, the facts, as seen here, about where he went to school have caused understandable confusion because they are from very reliable sources. An FAQ addition is not intended to put 1 + 1 together and assume he is Muslim, just to state facts to help alleviate confusion.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur with this. It was NEVER to prove he was a Muslim, but to address issues with Q1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.105.69 (talk) 02:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with close, with prejudice Tendentious barely covers it. Tvoz/talk 15:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Tweak to FAQ answer

How about the following for the FAQ?

Q1. Why isn't Barack Obama's Muslim heritage or education included in this article?

Q2. Barack Obama was never a practitioner of Islam. The fact that his biological father was "raised as a Muslim" but was a "confirmed atheist" by the time Obama was born is mentioned in the article. Yes, in The Audacity of Hope Barack Obama loosely describes one of the two schools he went to as Muslim, and yes he also mentions his unenthusiam for Koranic studies there; thus he had some "Muslim education". But the amount of education in Islam was minor, the education outside this one class was not Muslim, and the school as a whole was a secular one that (as would be expected in predominantly Muslim Jakarta) merely happened to have a predominantly Muslim intake. (His other school in Jakarta was Roman Catholic.) Please see this article on Snopes.com for a fairly in-depth debunking of the myth -- which originated in a story of Insight on the News, ultimately owned by Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church -- that Obama is Muslim. See also this page of Obama's, this Washington Post article, and this page at MSNBC. The sub-articles Public image of Barack Obama and Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories address this non-issue.

It's just a first bash and no doubt could be improved. -- Hoary (talk) 08:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a good tweak. It addresses and clarifies what he wrote in his book and what he said in his statement not the other made up stuff. For brevity, the only thing I can see removing is the reference to Insight on the News and Sun Myung Moon. Also, is unenthusiasm a word? Maybe "...he also expressed not being an earnest student with Koranic studies..."--NortyNort (Holla) 13:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Um . . . I prefer "mentions his unenthusiasm for" to "expressed not being an earnest student with", but Google News has just one measly hit for "unenthusiasm" (in which it comes shortly after "wesbite" [sic]), so the word does seem uncommon; how about "mentions his lack of enthusiasm for"? On further thought, I'd be happy to delete "ultimately owned by Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church". -- Hoary (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense, I was trying to find a synonym but you did better.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Per above do not favor any change to FAQ, and do not care to reopen or further discuss the matter. We have considered all of this many times before. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think an inability to amend FAQ1 facilitates part of this problem. We're talking about two reliable not unreliable sources, so the reoccurring discussion seems warranted. If such discussion about schooling comes up again, Q1 better supports Q/A13 as well. So, editors can point it out and end it easier without lengthy explanation.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Disagree per latest discussion and many other discussions. There is nothing new here. We have considered this very matter and those sources before before in light of Obama's book and the many other conspiracy theories and written FAQ1 as a result. Modifying it to add trivial and a defensive-sounding rebuttal in response to the latest disruptive agitation on the talk page is not the way to go. This will hardly quiet the Obama=Muslim conspiracy theories, which are not based on sourcing or logic; next week it will be a different argument. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There you go calling it conspiracy again. Did the man say it or not?

I do not think any 'new information' has been provided, or the FAQ needs to be updated. The links and the text in the current FAQ address the 'conspiracy theory' well, and I think it's very unbecoming to go into this kind of detail about what a 7-8 year old did in school that is very unremarkable. First, who knows what 'Koranic studies' Obama was talking about? There were "religious affairs" classes twice a week in the public school, but the students were separated by faith most of the time. There are sources that indicate the school taught the children of all faiths different aspects of the numerous faiths the children in the school had. For example, during Christmas all children were taught about the Bible and what Christmas meant, and during Islamic holidays all children were taught about the Koran and what Islam meant. Since Obama went to the public school barely 1 year, and there are barely any reliable sourced references to this time, it's not really responsible to guess which times Obama was taught about the Koran when he was a small child. I mean, this is absurd and poorly sourced original research to the nth degree. I don't think that, until a reliable source addresses the specifics of the claims made here, it should be included anywhere(FAQ, this article, the conspiracy theory article). The overwhelming sources indicate that the school was a public school(the other school he attended while in Indonesia being Catholic) and religious instruction was minimal. There is no reliable source that indicates otherwise and to go into detail about something that is not properly sourced is both OR and synthesis. Now, if someone wants to reword the FAQ a little, without references to Insight and Rev. Moon and the OR and SYNTH, that may be agreeable. On a slightly lighter note, the book refered to here is 'Dreams From My Father", not Audacity of Hope", and the word is unenthusiastic. Dave Dial (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for getting the book title wrong. ¶ Unenthusiastic is a fine adjective a but worthless as a noun. ¶ I'd hoped that at least "Islam" (two syllables) would be seen as an improvement on "the Muslim faith" (four), but there's no accounting.... ¶ Of course all of this is silly, but a certain, depressingly large, section of the US has now worked itself into such a froth over Islam ("ground zero mosque" etc) that I think you're going to continue to have people pointing out that potus himself said he went to a Muslim blah blah until A1 addresses this directly. Hoary (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

If Snopes isn't a reliable source than why is it referenced in the FAQ anyway? Most of the FAQ amendment is based off of his book and his statement. I don't think the fringe theory of him being a Muslim belongs on this talk page or the article but their is due cause to update FAQ1 just about the school misunderstanding. As insignificant it was about his childhood, there is reason for the confusion. As far as a defensive FAQ, these discussions are defensive enough as it is and the FAQ would save time and words.--NortyNort (Holla) 15:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Who claimed that Snopes is not a reliable source? It most certainly is, on specific issues. Dave Dial (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree for 3 reasons. 1) Snopes is an entertainment website. 2) It does NOT address the information I provided. 3) No reputable encyclopedia uses Snopes.com as a reference. I challenge you to find them cited in Britannica or Encarta.

Encarta is no more. -- Hoary (talk) 03:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That may all be true, and probably is, but my reasons against still stand. Believe me, adding a more defensive posture in the FAQ and 'explaining away' the Obama-Muslim links, is not going to convince any of the conspiracy theorist that Obama was not 'raised a Muslim' or is some 'secret Muslim'. As for the 'ground zero Mosque', that's an entirely different subject. One I have no interest in. I decided to stop adding to my watch list months ago, and to try and avoid adding any(more) controversial topics. Most people will believe(on all sides) what they are predisposed to believe. This is a different animal here. Rational people cannot believe that because Obama may have had some religious instruction as a small child in Islam that he is a 'secret Muslim' or that Obama can even remember in detail his life at that age. Most of what we remember from childhood is because of relating/retelling stories with family members/friends through the years. So the whole endeavor is folly, imo. No offense to anyone. Dave Dial (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

←The FAQ is fine as it is, and as has been discussed in great depth many times. There is nothing new here whatsoever. Tvoz/talk 15:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Tvoz, you say There is nothing new here whatsoever. If you mean there's no new support for any "secret Islamist" theory, then of course you are entirely right. If you're talking about a suggestion for the FAQ, you may be right: I'm not going to search through hundreds of kilobytes of past discussion to find out. If you're talking about the answer to the FAQ, you're wrong. ¶ Dave Dial is certainly right about both childhood recall and about the impossibility of persuading people to abandon their faith in wacky conspiracy theories. But it's a narrower matter. According to this talk page: Q1: Why isn't Barack Obama's Muslim [...] education included in this article? / A1: [...] Barack Obama did not attend an Islamic or Muslim school while living in Indonesia age 6-10 Yet according to Obama himself, he did. As long as this apparent contradiction goes unexplained, you're going to have people pointing it out in this talk page. Some of these people could well be the same monomaniacs with new IP numbers or new throwaway usernames, but it's unlikely that all will be. And it's entirely possible that some who point out the apparent contradiction are no more subscribers to "Islamist" conspiracy theories than you are or I am. ¶ NortyNort seems to agree that a slight augmentation of the answer would help. I've seen no reasoned opposition, aside from (and I paraphrase) "rewriting it would do nothing to deter the conspiracy theorists", which of course is true but doesn't address the understandable bewilderment of non-conspirators who've merely read his book or had it quoted at them. -- Hoary (talk) 03:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I see the point the less detail in the FAQ, the better but at least Dreams From My Father should be mentioned. "Despite Dreams From My Father, Obama did not" or even better: "See 1,2,3, published after Dreams From My Father.", etc. I'd have no problem supporting a close of similar discussion about his book in the future, if cited in FAQ#1.--NortyNort (Holla) 04:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No, still disagree. The FAQ as is addresses the point already and was written with full knowledge of the book in mind - the main issues head on, and random things via the links. The point of the FAQ is to announce our consensus, not to argue for why it is valid. Defensively arguing against the birthers here only invites more argument. It won't slow disruption like this latest IP incident one bit. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Nothing new. Tvoz/talk 04:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The FAQ as is does not address the point that Obama himself (casually) called the school Muslim. (I reread it again just seconds ago in order to treble-check, but I'll forgo quoting it.) I'll take your "birthers" to include people who fantasize that Obama is a crypto-Islamist (for which concept no convenient term comes to my mind either; I'll call them monomaniacs). Right, the monomaniacs will of course not be deterred by argument. Yet a smallish group of people who point others to a FAQ answer that neither argues a fairly comprehensive rationale nor points to it lay themselves open to the charge of being a cabal -- a charge that will look credible not only to the monomaniacs but also to those who are genuinely bewildered and inquisitive. -- Hoary (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

My tendency through this discussion has been to agree with you and NortyNort, that a small additional clarification in the FAQ answer might be indicated. I find the "siege mentality" exhibited in some of these discussions a bit disconcerting and not conducive to collaborative effort (says the one who has deleted quite a few talk comments as inappropriate use when others usually just hat and archive them :-)). But I do note the existing answer contains four links, including one to an extensive Snopes article. That article mentions Obama's literary references to attending a "Muslim school" (though they reference Audacity, not Dreams), and clarify that it is really a public school with a predominantly Muslim population. They deal with the subject extensively, with at least two news reports quoted in depth. So while I don't think an additional note in the FAQ answer itself would be the end of civilization as we know it, I don't see at as being completely necessaey either. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

A full explanation isn't necessary but a simple reference to misconceptions about his book, ex "... in regards to his description of schooling in Dreams From My Father, see 1,2,3." We're not saying "in regards to Glen Beck's accusations, see..." It also falls in line with the FAQ's purpose which "...addresses these common concerns, criticisms, and arguments, and answers various misconceptions behind them". I don't think this should be a huge deal but the reasoning behind saying no to any suggestion, including something this small and viable is disconcerting. I've agreed with a lot of the points made by editors here and don't think much has to be done. I consider it an improvement to the FAQ and talk page. It shouldn't be this controversial.--NortyNort (Holla) 05:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I would not characterize attempts to deal with abusive provocation, or taking exception when an experienced editor edit wars the talk page on the side of the provocation, a "siege mentality". It's sensible talk page management of an article under probation. Years of experience with this page has shown that the most effective way to keep the editing environment productive and free of trolls, socks, and vandals, is to quickly and politely decline to engage them - and if they persist, to close the thread, ask for blocking or page protection, and move on. When editors allow themselves to be baited into bickering among themselves, drama sets in and we end up on AN/I. Because the question was fairly if aggressively raised by an editor in good standing I made two proposals to gauge editors' opinions, first that the FAQ is fine as is, and second that this discussion be closed as unproductive. Both seem to have the support of the majority of editors in good standing here. If you think that you can gain consensus otherwise by continuing to lobby for a FAQ change you're certainly free to do that, but I remain unconvinced both that the FAQ should be changed, and that when an IP editor who regularly harangues us Obama campaign workers or whatever the insult is today to jump, that we should ask how high. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

CNN poll - fringe becomes significant - no side knows better than the other

There's a latest CNN poll that came out, about HALF Americans are not sure where Obama was born and about 25 percent think that he was literally born out of the US. Wow. These percentages used to be very low but they creep up. It's no longer fringe. The so called birthers should now be listed in the main article, not some obscure 'controversy-conspiracy section', please can we list the issue in couple of phrases, ref to that the CNN poll, edit 'was LIKELY born in Hawaii, but it is not confirmed and subject to intense controversy' ref ref ref. It is important to see actual data, no side (birthers or anti-bitrthers) has the info, they accuse the other side of being nuts or clueless but truth is nobody has the infoK1PK, and the controversy growns. People who judge by these online reprint documents are just as clueless than birthers who say he was FOR SURE born overseas, truth is NOBODY KNOWS. What we need is the document revealed either original long form paper or microfilm from vital records of Hawaii, then an unbiased scientific forensic analysis of the document. All other records such as college records would help too but are all hidden. I am a scientitst and I do investigations all the time I know what I am talking about. I am not certifying ANY document online. I examined the statement of Fukino, it seems strong, but is only words. She could lie (which of course would be a gigantic fraud. Fraud has happened in US history). As long as this document is not found asnd proven we cannot close or ignore the issue, rather we must mention it, and in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.160.62 (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The view you express above regarding how we humans know the truth about things, much less how an encyclopedia verifies its facts, is certainly peculiar. Anyway, it's not just one CNN poll, there are several recent polls with consistent results as you describe... although saying half are not sure is a little misleading. Half of Americans aren't sure Alaska is a state, but they think it probably is and they don't question it. The more interesting number is that 27% in that poll, and similar numbers in others, are either sure he wasn't born in Hawaii, or think he probably wasn't. Anyway, no matter how many people believe it, the conspiracy is a WP:FRINGE matter that as yet has had very little impact on him or the nation. We do cover fringe theories, and this one is covered at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories‎, where the CNN and other polls are mentioned. In my opinion it would have to get a whole lot more significant before it's added here, but if it does turn out to have a huge effect (for example, costing him the next election, or affecting his ability to lead) then it's potentially worth mentioning here. Again, just my opinion. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of Obama being born in anywhere other than Hawaii, let's defer to Robert Gibbs on this:

A pregnant woman leaves her home to go overseas to have a child — who there’s not a passport for — so is in cahoots with someone…to smuggle that child, that previously doesn’t exist on a government roll somewhere back into the country and has the amazing foresight to place birth announcements in the Hawaii newspapers? All while this is transpiring in cahoots with those in the border, all so some kid named Barack Obama could run for President 46 and a half years later.

And if you were a scientist, you would recognise that the multitude of evidence points to Obama being born in Hawaii, and popular opinion doesn't make it less of a fact. Gee, sounds awfully familiar. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That a high number of people believe something is NOT evidence that that something is true. It is merely evidence that a high number of people believe in something. So sure put the birther stuff in its own page and report how many people believe in it, but putting it in Obama's page makes no sense. The belief is inherently ridiculous, on so many levels, there are several pieces of uncontroverted evidence that he was born in Hawaii and literally none that he was born elsewhere. It doesn't deserve to be in his bio until there is at least a shread of believability, I don't care if 100 million or 200 million believe it, if that belief is baseless and runs contrary to ALL available evidence then that's that. Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.50.136 (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

At the height of the Watergate scandal, a polled showed that, as Harry Reasoner reported it, "More Americans believe in UFOs than believe in Richard Nixon. I'm not sure what that says, but it says something." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Dates in the lede.

In the 3rd paragraph there are three dates directly above and below each other, this looks a little messy (But I suppose the only way around it is reconstructing the paragraph entirely) and the sheer number of dates in the lede is pretty awkward looking too. That's my two cents. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The lineup is largely dependent on individual browser settings; I don't show three dates in alignment anywhere in the lead, though some, probably the ones you refer to, are almost that way. I agree the lead seems a bit date-heavy, and as a summary could probably be trimmed back a bit in that regard. This may be a side effect of the amount of time editors need to spend fighting vandals and POV-pushers instead of reviewing the entire article for possible improvement. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)