Jump to content

Talk:Barack Obama: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→NPOV and unbalanced: removed unencyclopedic rant. Revert if and only IF you have a good reason to.
Line 301: Line 301:


[[User:Moesbob|Moesbob]] ([[User talk:Moesbob|talk]]) 02:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
[[User:Moesbob|Moesbob]] ([[User talk:Moesbob|talk]]) 02:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

== NPOV and unbalanced ==

I would prefer both tags, but I suppose once is enough. First a certificate of Life birth is not a birth certificate which the lefties are trying to say as proof he was born in hawaii. If his mom was a astronaunt and gave give on the moon, he could still have a certificate of live birth. So the certificate of live birth is worthless as evidence. His own family says he was born in Kenya, and if so his father was kenya and his mom was 16 and could not pass US citizenship to Obama. If this claim is true, he cannot be a natural born citizen required by artical 2 section 1 of the us constitution. Secondly his islamic school in Indonesia required him to be a Indonesian citizen, while it may be possible to get an exception, we don't know. He has traveled to ?Iran? during the 1980s when it was illegal for Us citizens to travel there, was his travels illegal or did he travel under a different citizenship. There is no proof that obama is a natural born citizen yet more than enough doubt, and there have been lawsuits over these doubts but the courts are refusing to hear these cases. We cannot say Obama was born in Hawaii, nor can we say he was Born in Kenya, his birthplace is unknown. Obama and his team of lawyers, probably on the taxpayers dole, are trying to hide whether or not he is a natural born citizen; smells fishy, what does he have to hide? As long as we have a constitution, we have to find that out or he is not the president. Needless to say our brave military have joined a quo warrento lawsuit, and ask by what authority obama has to be president and CEO over them. It remains an open issue, and so far there is no evidence leading us to his birthplace or his citizenship status, however the bulk of the evidence points in the direction of him being illegal.

Also being censored are obamas ties to socialist and terrorist organizations. He is affiliated with Ayers, who an uncover FBI agent recorded a dialog where Ayers group planned to kill 25 million americans who could not convert to socialism. During the 1990 the socialist New Party listed him as a member. His national security picks have ties to the chinese Government, and to the bin ladin Family. And he seems cozy to opening up to socialist Cuba as well. He has a harvard Law degree, his economic stimulus full of financing socialist and Keynesian polcies that will bleed the private sector dry while bankrupting our nation fiscally spending more and more money we don't even have and a debt we cannot repay, some newspapers have argued that obama's "fix" will cause a second depression. So one might have to argue is a harvard law degree completely worthless, or if Obama plans to lead us down the road to destruction to nationalism and communism. Not sure how the coffin workers bring paid in coffins will fair when everyone is starving to death, people will need food probably more than giving their loved ones a proper burial-if they don't resort to cannibalism. If we can learn that he is illegal the constitution would then render all his laws, treaties, and executive orders are illegal and will be reversed and he can be stopped from ruining our great republic; if in deed he is legal then we as a nation are screwed. {{unsigned|Neophytesoftware}}

:None of the above. What WND didn't tell you is that there are articles on Wikipedia where those fringe conspiracy theories are thoroughly covered. If you care to run a search here you will find them. Perhaps you will care to stay and make constructive edits, all are welcome, even WND readers! :) --[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 02:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:46, 9 March 2009

Template:Community article probation

Featured articleBarack Obama is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 4, 2008.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 12, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
August 18, 2004Today's featured articleMain Page
January 23, 2007Featured article reviewKept
July 26, 2007Featured article reviewKept
April 15, 2008Featured article reviewKept
September 16, 2008Featured article reviewKept
November 4, 2008Today's featured articleMain Page
December 2, 2008Featured article reviewKept
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on November 5, 2008.
Current status: Featured article

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

Religion

Citizenship

Full name

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

Please skim this page first (and ideally the FAQ) before starting a new discussion about Obama's birthplace, citizenship, race/ethnicity, etc. 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)[reply]

Creating (yet more) links on the page

A number of organizations that Obama was involved in or acted on the board of directors for don't have hyperlinks. Example, the Center for Neighborhood Technology. I think it would be beneficial to give people access to that kind of thing, and most of them have either their own webpages or wikipedia pages, so why not link to them? Unfortunately because of the (necessary) lock on the page, it's difficult to add those links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealintomorrow (talk • contribs)

Why isn't he called "Barack H. Obama"?

Like Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, James A. Garfield, Chester A. Arthur, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and so on? 203.211.75.108 (talk) 07:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pure stylistic choice, as far as I can tell. George W. Bush employed the middle initial primarily to distinguish him from his father. The others did it because it mainly because it sounds good (compare "John Kennedy", "John F. Kennedy"). Dcoetzee 05:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan & Bill Clinton aren't called by their middle names. We name articles by the most common usage. Barack Obama is more common than Barack H. Obama. Burner0718 JibbaJabba! 05:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quick, without peaking, name the middle initials of Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, or James Madison. I can't do it, but I'm sure some editors can. However, in any case, the simple fact is that different presidents (or those who write about them) have made slightly different choices about which parts of their names to use most commonly. Obama happens to be one with "middle name/initial usually omitted." LotLE×talk 05:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of those presidents had middle names.TomCat4680 (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wilson did. It was Woodrow. It's of course not uncommon that people use their middle name as their first name Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And, in a practical sense, there's no Barack W. Obama or Barack Q. Obama out there he's likely to be confused with. PhGustaf (talk) 05:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an aside, many early presidents, including Abraham Lincoln, did not have middle names at all. Tad Lincoln (talk) 06:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, imagine how silly we would look if we had "Jimmy E. Carter" and "Bill J. Clinton". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would also point out that prior to W. George H.W. Bush was generally referred to simply as George Bush AFAIK. Even nowadays, I suspect if you say George Bush people are more likely to assume you mean H.W. then W. Nil Einne (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I cannot find sources, but the answer is simply the stylings in cycles. Notice that Grant, Hayes, Garfield and Arthur all served in the same historical clustering as post Civil War presidents, and that the other five you mentioned succeeded each other in a similar cluster of time. GW was to differentiate between his father, much as we do John Quincy Adams. Keegantalk 07:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2 "References" sections

Shouldn't the one containing the {{reflist}} tag be called Notes per WP:CITE and for both consistency and accessibility. It does not make sense to have them both named the same thing. I didn't want to make the change without discussion. Calebrw (talk) 05:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and changed it to Notes and References. I don't see where this would have been a controversial change... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was originally called notes. Some editor changed it without bothering to ask or to look and see that there was a separate section called "references". I thought I had reverted, but it seems that it didn't work for some reason. Tad Lincoln (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys. Calebrw (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Occidental College

Does it really matter that he didn't graduate from there? He spent half his undergraduate career there. Why discount it just because it wasn't where he spent his final years? I don't think there's anything wrong with being inclusive here. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:15, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Everyone please stop reverting the article. Telling others to discuss the issue in your edit summary doesn't make it okay. Discuss the issue here yourself or shut the hell up. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:57, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)
According to the Alma mater article, that term applies to "the university or college from where a person has attended or graduated." Under that definition, Occidental College should be mentioned in the Infobox. SMP0328. (talk) 04:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. And by the way, Equazcion, I edited this passage ONCE. That is nowhere near WP:3RR, in spirit or in reality. So the next time you crawl up on a high horse and decide to call someone out in an edit summary, it might be smart for you to get your facts straight. And I have now done #2, as this user's revert was clearly done in bad faith as an exercise in point-making, rather than in the spirit of improving the article. Tarc (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was in error when I warned you of 3RR. That having been said, 3RR isn't absolute. You're not supposed to edit war in order to get your version of the article instated, but discuss instead. And there was absolutely nothing bad-faith about my edit. There's no need for accusations. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:22, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)
Tarc, in restoring the reference to Occidental College in the Infobox, referred to its removal as a "bad faith edit". I don't agree with that description. While I agree with the restoration, I believe the removal was in good faith. Whether "alma mater" included Occidental College was not clear. SMP0328. (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was specifically referring to Equazcion's edit, not the newbie's. The former was made to make a point about a (wrong) assumption about 3RR. Not about the subject matter itself. Tarc (talk) 05:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was an attempt to put a stop to the edit warring, not to make a point about 3RR. As someone relatively uninvolved I thought it might do the trick. If I were an admin I would've protected the article instead, but since I'm not, this seemed like the next best thing. There's nothing bad-faith about that. You'll notice I actually reverted to the version I disagree with. Besides which, if you think continuing the revert war based on the subject matter is somehow more proper, I'd say you're mistaken. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:37, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)
The best way to put a stop to the edit warring is simply not to edit it again, but to come here and discuss it. While it may be irking that editors put in their edit summaries: "please discuss in talk page first," it means just that. Why not discuss it before elevating the issue to a revert war. While WP:BOLD may mean at times go on in and fix what you see wrong, it also means that maybe it might be better to bring it to the talk page first and discuss it. Sometimes what you see wrong may not actually be wrong in the first place, or is a product of a long running argument that led to a consensus version. Changing things because you, as the editor, want to see it differently is not a good excuse to change things and can even be argued as just trying to make a WP:POINT. Brothejr (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah Palin attended FIVE different colleges for her B.A. alone, but the only one listed is the University of Idaho. Why? BECAUSE THAT'S HER ALMA MATER. Your alma mater is not "any school you attended", it's WHERE YOU GRADUATED FROM. I cannot find a single other Wikipedia page, besides Obama's, that features a school that person DID NOT graduate from as their "alma mater." It's ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.111.52 (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, an alma mater is anywhere you attended. Graduation is irrelevant. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, that doesn't matter. The only places traditionally considered "alma mater" and the once places recorded in this spot on someone's Wiki page are where they graduated from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.111.52 (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I Agree 72.207.65.76 (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obama spent two years each at Occidental and Colombia. They were both important to his education and both deserve mention in the infobox. I bet Occidental considers him enough of an alumnus to ask him for money. PhGustaf (talk) 07:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For those arguing for one college equals one Alma Mater, then how about this real life example: A person goes into a program where they first start out in one college for two years. Then they finish their last two years in a different college graduating with a bachelors degree. After a couple more years they attended a third university and attained their master degree. Finally they went to a fourth university and graduated with a doctorate. They technically graduated all four colleges, receives alumni mailings from all four colleges, and thinks fondly of all four colleges. Which is their Alma Mater? (I personally know this person and I've heard of hundred and hundreds of others doing the same thing.)

Facts about Barack Obama

Why is wikipedia not allowing edits that question Obama's eligibility? It has been widely reported from many news sources and there are several court case at various levels of the legal system ranging up to the supreme court. Further his associations with Rev. Wright and Ayers are not allowed to be posted. Why is wikipedia allowing a whitewash of history? These are relevant to the historical account. Facts are facts no matter how inconvenient they may be to someones ideology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pt1604 (talk) 00:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an easy one: Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Things that violate WP:BLP aren't "allowed" - otherwise, if you can find citations from reliable sources, it is allowed. But if it can't be properly cited...then it can't be in there, simply put.  Frank  |  talk  00:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Chicago Tribune isn't a reliable source?

Read Wikipedia's standard: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

Guess what? Reliable sources have been used and it's still being edited in a tainted way. The entry should be flagged until bias is removed (bias from anything critical about Obama on his page)

Now, read what else Wikipedia demands: Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors.

Does this apply to Obama or not? As the entry currently is displayed, bias is clearly showing by censoring ANY and ALL entries that may show controversy or negatively toward the President.

There's an article about his campaign that goes into attempts to paint him with guilt by association. There's also an article that covers all of those frivolous court cases at some length. Those articles have been out there for months, and anyone who knows how to spell "Barack" can find them. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make any sense. This is an ongoing controversy. It is quite easy to verify the truth, from most notable news sources, that this is, in fact, an ongoing controversy. So, again, why no mention of the controversies in the article? 69.248.3.210 (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, if such material is added to the article, I recommend any such material be put into a new section. That way, it will be easier to integrate into the article. SMP0328. (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the neutrality tag, because this discussion is ongoing. I've seen this discussion over at Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. As long as at least one editor believes the article violates NPOV, that tag must stay. SMP0328. (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to this ongoing discussion? And no, NPOV tags should be used when disputes cannot be resolved. A single editor complaining about an article does not validate tagging. You've got to have actionable issues with the article. Guettarda (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no sense to apply NPOV when the info about Obama's ineligibility controversy is verifiable by linking it to Chicago Tribune, a reputable newspaper. If anything, it seems that leftist bias of an editor is preventing a discussion about a very important issue. It is hard to believe that one biased part of leftist "machine" can murder our quest to get to the full truth.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokietek (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia does in fact have a lot on this subject Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories. Do the fringey theories merit inclusion in the main article? They do not. IronDuke 01:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose implementing the solution to a similar problem at the Sixteenth Amendment article. I tried doing it, but was reverted. SMP0328. (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it gives undue weight, i.e. undeserved dignity, to a fringe theory that the courts have already rejected. WND and others are desparate to keep it alive. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's clearly fringe material, on the far outer edge of the campaign period blog attacks. Not a single serious reliable source ever reported either questions surrounding his birthplace, or the "natural born citizen" rule, a legitimate claim. The few that reported it at all simply said that somebody made the claim, and the few lawsuits that were filed were not by reputable plaintiffs and all were summarily dismissed. The fact that fringe litigants file frivolous lawsuits against the president, and that partisan publications take up the cause, is not a significant issue in the life of a sitting president. If it were significant the reliable sources would cover it. Most issues that even get a few words of mention have hundreds of reliable sources to establish weight - things that take up paragraph have thousands to tens of thousands of articles. Wikipedia does cover the fringe Obama theories in depth in its own article. But space is limited here in the main article about Obama, and we do not have room for every conspiracy theory people care to believe on the subject. Wikidemon (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. It is on Wikipedia; we do not censor. However, a Presidential article is long and we can't have everything in it. Since the Kenya thing has little to no factual basis, we place it in its own article.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality dispute?

The page is tagged, but I can't find any active discussion here. Am I missing something? Guettarda (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the above discussion. SMP0328. (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The tag is totally frivolous, and every question the original tagger raises is answered elsewhere. I have posted a complaint about that conservapedia/conspiracist drive-by at WP:ANI. This article is under probation for a good reason. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe the citizenship issue belongs in the main article. The conspirary theories page is appropriate for that. However, references to the Ayers & Wright controversies absolutely belong in there. These were major issues during his campaign and eventually became some of the most prominent arguments against electing him. If that is constantly edited out this article will continue to be in violation of Wikipedia NPOV guidelines KK5000 8 March 2009, 19:58 (EDT)

So why isn't any negative or critical information allowed on the Obama page? As the previous poster stated, Ayers and Wright were legitimate election controversies. If Wikipedia censors only from the left, it is useless as a source.

Those aren't bad points, but they're wrong from a Wikipedia point of view. We have stuff -- lots of stuff, on for example Wright: See here. The point being, yes, there are all sort of wonderful negative things one could cram into this article (and also any other majot politican's article) but there simply isn't room, and it isn't nearly relevant enough to make the cut for the main article. I mean... Ayers? Seriously? That's a footnote in the campaign article, let along the main BHO article. IronDuke 02:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


It appears that wikipedia is carrying obamas water. Pleanty of the "critics" claims about bush are STILL on his wikipedia page yet if you dare bring these you on obamas page you are banned? Shamefull. In fact why not just redirect the entire page to the whitehouse main page?

Exactly. Why not remove anything critical of Bush while you're at it?

President Obama's Oratory Skills

Cultural and Political Image

I recommend an addition to the second paragraph of this section starting “Many have argued that Obama is and adept orator on par with other renowned speakers…” While this paragraph goes to great lengths to mention President Obama’s oratory skills, it does not address his use of Teleprompters. While it is expected that he would use it for state addresses, his constant use of them for small trivial appearances begins to question his oratory skills. There have been a few occasions were the Teleprompters had failed and the President was criticized for less than spectacular speeches. I would recommend adding the following after the first sentence of the second paragraph:

However, President Obama has also been recently criticized for the constant use of Teleprompters.

I would also recommend adding the following references:

[1] [2] [3]

Moesbob (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19663.html
  2. ^ http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/15/obamas-teleprompter-hits-the-trail/
  3. ^ http://news.aol.com/article/obamas-teleprompter-use-debated/372666
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&oldid=275952192"