Talk:Barack Obama

Redundant discussions

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

Race

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

Religion

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

Citizenship

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

Full name

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your comments are totally off base from beginning to end. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

We describe him the way the reliable sources describe him. And this has been already discussed at length. Your comments bring nothing new to the discussion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

We go by reliable sources, and the wording is proper on that basis. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Bombings Edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think this will overcome the WP:WEIGHT problem:

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

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

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

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

How about:

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

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

I see know reason not to include the body count.

So:

How about:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(unindent) I just don't think we need to go into too much recent stuff. The daily issues with the budget, stimulus package, etc., are too fresh to have any perspective. They could change on a daily basis, and will be old news in a week or a month. Things like Guantanamo Bay, stem cell research, etc., are not recent, though. They fulfill pledges Obama has made for many months, and terminate programs the Bush administration has had in place for years. As such, the coverage of these is ongoing. I think the right context for this, for the moment, is a sentence something: "Within the first week of taking office Obama did X, Y, and Z, and approved a continuation of ongoing missile attacks on Taliban and Al Qaida targets inside Packistan." That puts the focus on Obama's decision and his acts as president, not the military objective or body count. I think it's worth half a long sentence, or a short sentence, tops. Incidentally, here is a good new source:[4] Wikidemon (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

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

End of term

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

reorganizing the talk archives

Main page: Talk:Barack_Obama/Organisation

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

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

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

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

Cite tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article [5] which I found randomly, suggests the Obamas are shopping around for a church, and taking their time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama as "biracial"

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

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

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

There are a few things to look at.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama left handed.

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

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

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

from http://www.leftiesforobama.com/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ages of children

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The White House pages for Barack and Michelle Obama give the ages of the kids, so presumably the birth years are fair game. [6][7] The specific dates seem to be unimportant at this point, unless someone has in mind sending them birthday cards, in which case the sender could probably expect a pleasant visit from the FBI. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

This talk page's archive time

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

Political positions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama's half brother arrested on charge of marijuana possession

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Listing note

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

Steelers Fan

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

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

No matter how smart he is about his football, it's not relevant. Grsz¹¹--Review 00:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Only maybe if he sends a sure-fire play to the coach, the way Nixon did once. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Don't hold back. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Obama's Criticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What was Obama's school performance?

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

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

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

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

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

Presidency Section

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

First non-white western leader???

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

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

Broken Citations

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

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

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

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

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

See the answer to question 2 in the FAQ. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Washington Post, one of the most respected and referenced newspapers in the world, printed an article in which it pointed out that Obama is not African-American, in the proper sense of the term. An African-American would be entirely (or majority) African in ancestry, and American in citizenship. He is one-half African and one-half Caucasian in genetic ancestry (50/50). Thus, the proper term to categorize his racial makeup is bi-racial. It is not factually correct in any true interpretation to categorize him as African-American. Many people loosely interpret the "American" portion of his ancestry as being synonymous with "white" or Caucasian, and the African portion with his "black" side. This is improper. Unfortunately, there are powerful and widespread political and social pressures to do so, and that is why the term has been misused. What could possibly be any other reason to do so? As a result, to insist on categorizing him on his Wikipedia page, in effect, is to condone and intentionally disseminate false information. I challenge anyone in the world to disprove my argument from an intellectual, logical perspective. Chck castle (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC) It doesn't matter. The preponderance of sources say "African American", and he is so recognized by the public in general. Basically, you're making the "he's not black enough" argument, the flip side of the "not one drop" bar that once existed in this country. Everyone knows he's mixed-race, and the article makes his mixed ancestry perfectly clear. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Religion yet again

The addition of the second site reflects through the use of the preterit, that Obama is no longer affiliated with the UCC. I believe that we should remove the cite or use it fully to show the separation from the denomination. This is an official communication from the denomination and can thus be used to corroborate that he is no longer a member of the denomination. there is nothing in the article that disputes this : [[8]]Die4Dixie (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

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

(ec) I assume you're referring to "The United Church of Christ, the denomination from which Obama resigned when he left Wright's church, issued a written invitation to join a UCC denomination in Washington and resume his connections to the church."? I don't think it would hurt to find an addition cite stating he resigned the denomination because I think a writer could easily mistake congregation with denomination. Grsz¹¹_Review 19:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Has anything changed factually, since the last time this came up? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sounds good. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The info-box and the article are two different issues, so I say. Of course details of his past can and should be included in the article or a sub [aren't they already somewhere? At least they where at some point].--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And if Die4 can get the "official" answer, that should tell us which sources to use, if any. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

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

This source seems to take the synth problem away from us, and connects the dots, again from UCC:[[12]]Die4Dixie (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Hence the ambiguity and seeming contradiction among the sources. The possibility has to be considered that the sources may not know the right answer either. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

arbitrary break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Mr. "Die4Dixie",

Thanks so much for contacting us.

In the United Church of Christ, membership resides on the local church
level. When someone joins a local congregation, that person becomes a
member of the UCC. Similarly, if one resigns membership from a local
church, the person technically ceases being a member of the UCC. If a
person then joins a different UCC congregation, he or she is, once
again, a member of the denomination. The United Church of Christ is a
non-hierarchical denomination, and the relationships between its
settings are covenantal. The local church, then, becomes the
determinant for membership. Therefore, at this time, the President and
his family are not members of the United Church of Christ.

Thank you for taking the time to inquire.

-- Barb Powell


---
Barb Powell
Director for Production and Administration
UCC Proclamation, Identity and Communication
700 Prospect Ave.
Cleveland, OH 44115
216-736-2175
<email redacted>



>On 2/3/09 12:07 PM, "Die4Dixie" <someone@some.college.edu> wrote:

Dear Ms. Powell,

I am an editor at Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that anyone can not
only use, but also edit. In such a project, it has proven necessary for
the community to implement rules that govern the the way that we decide
what can be used to write articles and the manner in which it can be
used. As a community, we strive to present factual information in a
neutral way, and are particularly mindful of the information that is
added to biographies of living persons.

Currently, the article on President Barack Obama reflects that he is
Christian. Until the last week, the article reflected that he continued
to be a member of the UCC. As editors, we are unable to read the
Constitution and Bylaws of the Church and apply our personal
interpretations to arrive at a determination as to if the First Family
have retained their membership at a denominational level. Some of the
national media reports have also interjected a degree of ambiguity. In
light of this ambiguity and our prohibition on original research, a
group of editors felt that direct contact with the Church might help to
clarify the situation.

We would be extremely gratified if you could explain to us the Obamas'
current official relationship with the Church, and specifically if they
retain membership at the denominational level and the reasons they do
or do not. Your response will be shared with other members of the
community in order that the article be as accurate as possible.

I want to thank you for your having so graciously called me and for
your time and willingness to help us clarify the matter.

Sincerely,
"Die4Dixie"

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

Obama's health report

I've heard many times that the USA presidents health conditions (diseases etc.) are public and we can read them. Where can I downbload them? Why there is no link for that in the Obama's article? Pikacsu (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to research the matter and find the link. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)