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 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)

If you want to read about where Obama was born and have concerns about it, read Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#Citizenship facts, rumors and claims and in particular this source which is heavily utilized in the article.

Bad faith all around

discussion played out and becoming a rant magnet - this page is not the place to complain about other editors
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
All over this talk page, the only consensus reached has been that Liberals and Conservatives two competing groups of editors will insult one another. Neither will show even a little bit of respect toward the other. This talk page has become an AGF-free zone. Comments that fail to comply with AGF should be removed. SMP0328. (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Does that apply to this comment as well? Wikidemon (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC) I didn't say all comments were in bad faith, but in general the comments on both sides have been insulting toward one another. SMP0328. (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC) While this may be true, how would this help improve the article, or stop the rampant reoccurring rehashing of old arguments? Brothejr (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Because this argument will never end voluntarily. Each group will continue to claim the other is part of a nefarious conspiracy. Deleting AGF violating comments could be done in conjunction with other actions. My point is that nothing is, or likely ever will be, resolved via commenting on the preceding sections. SMP0328. (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC) ← This isn't a dispute between liberals and conservatives. Both groups, and the moderates in the middle, have usefully contributed to this article and its various offspring for years. No, the current disagreements are between normal Wikipedians and batshit insane fringetards (and the poor sheep that follow them). The arguments have moved out of the mainstream into the realm of the ridiculous, where it is proposed the article should contain all sorts of fringey, crackpot nonsense that reasonable people just laugh off as wacky. These range from the only slightly ridiculous (article should contain criticisms to be "fair") to the completely ludicrous (Obama is a socialist communist terrorist Muslim from Mombasa). This is way beyond the normal discourse and consensus-building we are used to here, and it is all predicated on this manufactured controversy from Aaron Klein. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Why referring to him as a "communist" and "socialist" is reticules? Isn't he both? See socialism and communism - they are political ideologies which Obama supports; he has a long record supporting radical politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.55.178 (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Frankly, your opinion that he is a communist really lends nothing to this discussion or this article. It is OR, please read WP:OR. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Maybe you should reread WP:No personal attacks, where one is cautioned against "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream" (emphasis added) and "Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. " (emphasis added). I would caution you to avoid these "types of comments [that] are never acceptable" (emphasis in the original. Personal attacks would certainly include painting editors as "batshit insane fringetards". Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC) What personal attacks? seicer | talk | contribs 01:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC) I would say that referring to editors as "batshit insane fringetards" is a personal attack. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Well, that depends now doesn't it? Is he referring to us or them?99.135.173.51 (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC) I stand by my above comment, which I do not consider to be a personal attack. The commenter I was replying to had said that the disagreements were between conservatives and liberals, and I was pointing out that this is not the case (or at least, a gross oversimplification). The recent attempts to shove inappropriate fringe material into the BLP have not been made by Wikipedians, but rather they have been made by transient or new editors with extreme (well outside the mainstream) views. These sorts of people appear to be completely incapable of normal discourse and consensus-building. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC) I wouldn't say that. But they like most non editing people have a simplified view on what wikipedia, and didn't understand wikipedia cultural norms. As wikipedia editors, we should be careful what we say about others. Oldag07 (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC) YIKES! I've avoided getting into the fray because I feared it would devolve into exactly what happened. Having said that, I need to say this: On a number of places on this page, it states that we must remain neutral. It doesn't say "Remain Neutral except for the one in the corner slurping the ice cream." It says neutral ... all the way around. Poor Wikidemon, whom for the record I do disagree with about a great many things but whom I deeply respect must be ready to blow a fuse. Or two. Perhaps three? A few others are probably in the same boat. I'm going to be blunt: Outside of Wikipedia I do have my own political views. They do not, however, belong in a Wikipedia article ... and neither does anybody elses. I do hold my own opinions on a great number of issues. However, they don't belong here either ... and neither does anybody elses. I'm going to get into trouble for this, but I believe it needs to be said: Wikipedia must remain fair, unbiased, and friendly to use. I think (my opinion here) that a few people on both sides of this debate have forgotten that on the other side of the name is a living breathing person. If you disagree with somebody, that's great! That's free discussion and free discourse and should never be discouraged. The problem comes from when somebody says "I'm right. You're wrong. Shut up." I'd like to suggest that a few people, you know who you are, on both sides of the discussion step away from the table for a few days. Emotions are running high right now and a great many people aren't at their best (or are thinking clearly) when their emotions are this high. Let's take some cooldown time, yes? Happy Trails! --Dr. Entropy (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC) There truly seems to be Bad faith all around. And I have noticed that Wikipedia, and/or its Administrators are just as guilty. I do believe that we should beware of anyone who would deny us access to information, facts, opinion, or any form of open and free communication, for in his heart he dreams himself our master. I have no political axe to grind one way or another on this one. But I do have issue with the statements "fringe theories, and/or topics", “all sorts of fringey, crackpot nonsense that reasonable people just laugh off as wacky”, “it is all predicated on this manufactured controversy from Aaron Klein”. Looks like one group has decided that everyone is wrong if they do not believe like them. And therefore it is OK to not give them a say. First amendment be dammed. Many of these very ideas, free speech just to name one, that allow Wikipedia to even exist were once, not all that long ago, thought to be fringe theories, ideas, and/or topics as well as treason. Some of Wikipedia researchers should look into what the English said about the 13 colonies before they started sending troops. And if this article on Barack Obama was truly the result of “the collaboration of hundreds of registered users” with “editors from a young age to retirement age, of all political spectrums, and from users in countries spanning every time zone in the world” I really do not think that it would look like he, his wife or grandmother wrote it. And for the record Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin were supported by a consensus in the beginning. So consensus does not make it right or good. Consensus is more an issue of who is asked than it is of fact or reason. Gama1961 (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Sadly, any point you were trying to make has been automatically rendered useless per Godwin's law. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Aftermath

Well it seems that WND ppl have finally given up, so are there any major changes or any new additions being considered? Personally, I advocate adding a couple of lines about Wright's influence in personal life (see above: [4]: What I value most about Pastor Wright is not his day-to-day political advice," Obama said. "He's much more of a sounding board for me to make sure that I am speaking as truthfully about what I believe as possible and that I'm not losing myself in some of the hype and hoopla and stress that's involved in national politics.") While Wright is a controversial figure, that doesn't necessarily reflect him as a person, and I'm hoping someone can summarize it in a way that shows the real story of a man who had the moral support and guidance of his pastor on his way to bigger and better things. Soxwon (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Does Obama give Wright that big a role in his autobiographies though? My impression was that most of the comment about Wright's influence was in response to the scandal that embroiled around him. Consider that his grandmother and mother are much better known for their role in his development, but this doesn't make it into this article either. If Wright is to be mentioned in this article, it's surely got to be to do with the scandal. Bigbluefish (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, like you said, that was then and not now. How would we resolve that against the fact that he later publicly rejected wright? The article currently reflects the rejection and shift away from Wright. Though, I wouldn't put anymore info on Wright past the line that is in the article now. This is mainly due to the fact that the article is written in Sumary Style which means we don't go in depth into each portion, but summarize the highlights and then leave the details to the daughter articles. If you read the portion on Wright in the personal section, you will see a link to not only the man himself, but also the controversy too. That is enough for the main article, no need to expand into a discourse into Obama's interactions with Wright. Brothejr (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wright had a rather large impact upon Obama's life. Attending Wright's sermons is what convinced Obama to become a Christian instead of just being "spiritual" and Obama's speech at the 2004 DNC and his Audacity of Hope book were inspired by a sermon from Wright. So one could argue that without Wright, Obama may not have had the meteoric rise he had following his primary victory in 2004. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 15:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"Does Obama give Wright that big a role in his autobiographies though?" Considering, Obama chose the title of his book from the title of one of Wright's sermons, the answer seems clear. Bytebear (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with how Wright was handled back before the whole controversy exploded.[5] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitely worth mention is his reason for leaving his church of 20 years, the one in which he was baptized and married. Scribner (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That's already in the article. Granted, it wasn't before the WND article, but it is mentioned now. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Bobblehead, I was responding to your mention of not seeing a problem with the way Wright was handled before the controversy. Scribner (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I meant how Wright was handled in the article before the whole Wright controversy exploded in addition to why Obama left the church and cut Wright off. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, our confusion arose from the fact that there are now two controversies, one in which cast Wiki in a very negative light. This blatant omission in such a major article, deliberate or not, severely mars the integrity of Wiki. Anyway, I'm moving on. Hope everyone has a great weekend. Someone please move the sentence about Obama saying he wouldn't smoke in the White House...hardly a way to end the section about the POTUS. Scribner (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wright seems to be mentioned well in the article, he shouldn't be given too much weight. Good to see that things have cooled down around here. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The coverage of the controversy around Wright seems to be appropriately covered, but the overall coverage of Wright is a bit lacking, IMHO. As I mentioned above, Wright was what drew Obama into being Christian vs. just "spiritual" and Wright's sermon was the inspiration for the theme of Obama's 2004 DNC speech and the Audacity of Hope book. Both the conversion to Christianity and the speech/book are pivotal points in Obama's biography and to leave out Wright's role in those pivots leaves this article with holes. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm kinda torn. I think that if we can mention Obama's non-smoking efforts, we can mention his former pastor, who was a significant part of his life and of whom Obama always spoke well, until all Hades broke loose. However, I'd personally hate to be judged by my former rabbi, who shall we just say had a very inventive view of the Internal Revenue Code. Also, I hate to see WP give in under fire, makes the point if you raise a big enough stink, you can force WP to do stuff.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we are judging Obama by Wright's actions by mentioning how important Wright was to him, especially since we don't say what Wright said, just that Obama left the church because of some controversial statements by Wright. Wright is an important part of Obama's bio and ignoring him probably isn't the best approach to take. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that Wright is biographically important to Obama's personal/religious development and deserves mention accordingly. Wright and the A More Perfect Union (speech) should also be briefly mentioned in the campaign section. All the campaign post-mortems have stated that the Wright controversy in spring 2008 was likely the campaign's greatest moment of peril; see this Politico story for example or page 68 ff. of the Evan Thomas "A Long Time Coming" book ("His advisors saw Jeremiah Wright as a true threat to Obama's candidacy."). Wasted Time R (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Then suggest a line or two and where it would go, then we can either work on it, or approve it, then throw it in. Brothejr (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"In March 2009, a number of news outlets began reporting on incindiary comments which Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's longtime pastor, had made during sermons at his church. Public reaction to the revelation was mixed, and Evan Thomas described this time as "a true threat to Obama's candidacy". Obama responded by resigning from the church and by delivering a speech, A More Perfect Union, during which he distanced himself from Wright, and the controversy died down." Of course with appropriate refs, I've concentrated on language here--Wehwalt (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, although the last phrase "and the controversy died down" sounds a bit subjective to me. Perhaps it could be worded differently or simply omitted. Bytebear (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I would try. The campaign section on the primaries is a bit off mark already; the Michigan/Florida decision really didn't make a difference, and the while the race was even on the popular vote metric, it wasn't on delegates, where Obama maintained a steady and crucial edge. I would rewrite the middle of that paragraph like this:

... The field narrowed to a contest between Obama and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton after initial contests, with the race remaining close throughout the primary process but with Obama gaining a steady lead in pledged delegates due to better long-range planning, superior fundraising, dominant organizing in caucus states, and better exploitation of delegate allocation rules. The Jeremiah Wright controversy became the greatest threat to Obama's campaign during the primaries, to which Obama responded with his well-received "A More Perfect Union" speech. ...

This gives a brief but good strategic analysis of why Obama beat Hillary, in addition to mentioning the Wright controversy. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the reader should be forced to click to learn what that was. I think it is OK to say what it was in the Obama article, either through my language or some other language. Otherwise the uninformed reader (recently returned from the Moon) is interruped by having to go look at what the controversy was.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, reading both entries, I think they would go good together. Basically, keep everything Wasted Time R wrote right up the end of the primary and then replace the portion about Wright with Wehwalt' entry, while keeping the ref's. That would make a nice addition. Brothejr (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, just like peanut butter and jelly. Sounds good to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right and I agree, things have to be explained at least at some basic level without clicking through. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good and we don't look like we're giving into the WND crazies valued contributers. Soxwon (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

IF we are in agreement, could someone insert it? While I am an admin, with the article on lockdown, I don't want to insert my own (in part) text for appearances' sake.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hold on a second. Before we go shoving new, and potentially controversial, stuff into the article, let's give people some time to think about and comment on this. For a long time, we have had a gentleman's agreement here that we build a solid consensus before inserting anything significant. Hurried insertions have historically led to edit wars, and ultimately the article probation. I think we need to spend a lot more time over this. I think the suggested text includes too much election-related detail - certainly more than a summary style article should need. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on the last point. Winning the Democratic nomination is one of the great achievements of Obama's career. Going into the race, Hillary was the strong favorite, with more name recognition, more establishment party support, higher poll numbers, and just as compelling a historical "first" associated with her. Yet Obama defeated her. How he did this is biographically relevant and deserves to be described. And as I said above, the existing text on this part of the campaign is misleading. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, how long is a "long time?" A week, a month, a year? Soxwon (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

When I said "election-related", I was referring specifically to the election with respect to Jeremiah Wright. In the end, Wright did not influence the result of the primary (or the election that followed it), so any mention of Wright should focus more on the 20-year relationship and not on the final few months of that relationship. Certainly this is not the case for the daughter articles about the primary and election, but definitely for this BLP. When I said "a lot more time", I meant a few days. I'm sure we could have an agreement with broad support before the end of the weekend. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

In the end, Vic Wertz's shot to center field in the Polo Grounds didn't affect the 1954 World Series, but it and Mays' catch are still worth discussing in that article. The Wright affair is the closest the Obama Express came to getting derailed. I would put it in along the lines outlined above.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The mention of Wright in the campaign section is biographically relevant because it sets up his speech on race. Elections are crucibles; the character of a candidate is illustrated by how they respond to the crises that occur during them. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Those are fair comments, and I agree that "the Wright affair" was a pivotal moment in the primary campaign - it didn't change the result, but it did galvanize Obama into making an important and memorable speech. We must be careful not to use this as a way of characterizing Wright ("incendiary", etc.) without the highest quality sources, and we must keep it as brief as possible. I think my comments demonstrate the need for more discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The Thomas book p. 68 says "For Obama, the fiery and vain reverend was a continuing source of vexation and personal pain." And says that Obama characterized Wright's remarks as "pretty incendiary" to a Newsweek reporter. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree that there should be more about Obama's association with Wright, but I also agree with Scjessey that we should wait longer than two days to make a change like this to the article. However, if we put in more about Wright, I think we should also put in more on former terrorist William Ayers. According to his Wikipedia page, "During the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, a controversy arose regarding Ayers' contacts with then-candidate Barack Obama, a matter that had been public knowledge in Chicago for years." Obama's article doesn't even contain the word, "Ayers."

Now even if this controversy may not be significant enough to put in this article, it just being a summary article and all, the lack of information on Ayers in this article has drawn the attention of FOXNews.com; they have an article about this (It also talks about the lack of info on Wright). According to the article, "users of the free online encyclopedia... deleted attempts to add Ayers' name to Obama's main entry."

I don't know if this is true or not; it wouldn't surprise me with all the argumentation above; but if so, this supports my view that we should add info on Ayers to the article, since other Wikipedians have tried to keep the references to him in. On the other hand, it could just be that those who wanted Ayers in this article were just as misguided as I, in which case, ignore this post. --STAR TREK enthusiast Open channel 13:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability isn't an equal, two-way street. That Obama figures as an important event in Ayers biography doesn't necessarily mean that Ayers carries the same weight in Obama's. Tarc (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Ayers is a whole different story from Wright, being much more minor in biographical significance and in effect on the 2008 campaign. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If you read up on it, here or in the responsible press, the original claims were a hoax. When Wikipedia editors gang up to remove objectionable material from the encyclopedia we call that "consensus". At any rate, Ayers has been re-politicized again.[6] People are still fighting the Obama/McCain election, and using Ayers as a smear on Obama. Elsewhere, the material has been added (and I removed it) from four other articles. The material is politically motivated, and I don't think we should play to that.Wikidemon (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Working version

Criticism of the working version concept

{{Criticism of Barack Obama}} Is there any reason to create a skeleton version of a deleted article in article space redirected from template space, and transclude it here? That's kind of weird and it interferes with editing the talk page. I have doubts that anything good will come of this, but if you want to work on it why not do it in a sandbox? Wikidemon (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Is "that's kind of weird" kind of like "WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT?" Your "skeleton version" terminology also does not give due substance to the concept that the term "working version" does. Skeletons symbolize death, while "working" here symbolizes growth and development. I don't understand how at all a transcluded template could "interfere[] with editing the talk page." There are cases where transclusion actually assists talk page discussion; for example see WP:OBT. "If you want [you can] do it in a sandbox" sounds a lot like "go do it somewhere else," or maybe even "go sit in the back of the bus." If by "if you want to work on it" you mean to indicate that what I want is relevant here (it actually is), then I'll respectfully just say that I "want" to do it here. Here is called a "talk page" and here is where people talk about the subject. The relevant "Talk:Criticism of" article was deleted with the article itself, so that leaves here. Thanks for your interest, and again, the working version is open for editing (not whitewashing, which would be sort of ironic). -Stevertigo 16:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama's Citizenship Has Not Been Proven and Is Not a Trivial Matter.

Wikipedia is not for fringe theories
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Being that Obama has yet to bring forth a 'real' birth certificate and plans to change the constitution (so that he can legally be president) I believe is the biggest lie to the American people. It's a little funny how this is working out since he is a democrat. If it was a republican trying to pull the same stunt, CNN & MSNBC, all of the milllions of democrats would be all over it...just like Bristol Palin's pregnancy. Since it's just Barack Hussein Obama, DEM, then who cares...forge all of the birth certificates you want and no one will care or question...obviously since nothing has been done about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.111.156.84 (talk • contribs) This long, glowing main article about Obama should at least mention the citizenship controversy even if the article states that such charge is unproven and that the courts have not given any plaintiffs status. Because this important matter interests many people, Wikipedia should not completely fail to mention it, whether or not Wikipedia considers it true. Wikipedia deals with this elsewhere in an obscure, one-sided article. That article does not mention 1)Obama's maternal grandmother having said she was in the delivery room in Kenya when Obama was born, 2)Wayne Madsen locating records of Obama's birth in the Kenya Maternity Hospital in Mombassa, 3) Dr. Ron Polarik's analysis of the bogus certificate of live birth in Hawaii, and 4) Obama not producing a regular birth certificate or hospital records. Similarly, Obama's long, close relationship with unrepentant terrorist, Bill Ayers isn't mentioned in this long main article. Is Wikipedia controlled by leftists, or is Wikipedia trying to please powerful people in Washington? 76.177.225.181 (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Antiayers, 3/12/09 I agree 100%. Barack Hussein Obama has not proven his eligibility to hold the office of the President of the United States, and until he provides irrefutable, significant evidence otherwise, Wikipedia should remove every area in the article where hs is referred to as "President", as he does not meet the constitutional eligibility. -Axmann8 (Talk) 09:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Um, no. Brothejr (talk) 09:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Its pretty funny all the points you listed are complete bullshit. Hopefully, one day you can join the majority of people in the realm of reality. Until that time, may you be forced into a 51/50 to provide you with the help you need. Have a nice day! --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 05:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC) It isn't in the article because it's unsourced, untrue and unverifiable. The mountain of evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, Wikipedia doesn't just throw in every random bit of information into an article. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to make a political point, or cater to any group's agenda. The Obama article states who Obama is, where he is from, what he is known for and what he has done of note. The points you raise have all been debunked by credible organizations as smears and false rumors, and have no place in an encyclopedic article. Neutrality has nothing to do with right or left. It has to do with stating the facts and the facts of note only. (If Wikipedia was trying to please powerful people in Washington, then half of it's policies wouldn't even begin to forge a relationship there.) —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 06:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Now, that is bullshit. There is no evidence whatsoever showing he was born in the United States. His COLB was debunked as a forgery by Dr. Ron Polarik, with significant documentation that it is a fraud. FactCheck is not a credible source. It is owned by the Annenberg Foundation, with whom Obama worked on alongside domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. -Axmann8 (Talk) 09:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC) UM, still no. Also, Fact Check is considered a reliable sources, while Dr. Ron Polarik is well just a Dr. Brothejr (talk) 09:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC) I should probably mention my conflict of interest, I actually am trying to please someone in Washington, if only that hunkahunk of burnin love Barney Frank would drop the restraining order... --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 06:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC) You too? I have 11 senators that I'm trying to please, and it's time consuming :) Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC) This controversy has generated less coverage than is really necessary to include it in the article. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Also, I would remind 76 and Axmann that Wikipedia is not here to comment on the truth of a matter, we merely publish things backed up by reliable sources, so your opinions on the truth of the claims that he is not eligible to become President does not matter. Since this has not become a significant issue, it should not be included. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama , Sr. article

Barack Obama, Sr. is now being targetted with seriously POV text about Obama's citizenship "controversy" and some inappropriate external links; the stated reason for adding the content there is because it can't be added to this article. --Bonadea (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I've asked for semiprotection. Tvoz/talk 22:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Retaking of oath

I just added the fact that the oath was taken twice (well, once correctly) by Obama, and it was summarily deleted. Why? Is this not true? The fact is, he really didnt take the full and complete oath the 20th. This is important informaiton that received a good deal of news coverage that warrents mention. --Jlamro (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlamro (talk • contribs) 03:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC) --Jlamro (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It's already been covered here, but you're saying "the fact is" he didn't take the oath correctly. That needs a reliable source, and also proof of notability. Even if it were true that the oath wasn't legal (and that meant something in the grand scheme of things), you'd need to show why it is notable enough to deserve a mention in a bio this large. Dayewalker (talk) 03:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It is trivial. It is covered in the appropriate article.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Fringe theories policy inconsistent

We have a section on the conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks in the main article about the attack. This is a fringe theory. It is hypocritical to encourage one there but not allow one on here--Rsjmsb (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't. This is a biography of a living person written in summary style, but the 9/11 attacks article is about an event. The rules and guidelines differ. Furthermore, the fringe theories on Obama get their very own article to play in. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] But yeah, what Scjessey said. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict X2 - addressed to original poster) I think you're thinking of it as "inconsistent" - nobody is being hypocritical. Occasionally a fringe theory, joke, hoax, misunderstanding, etc., is so notable and well known, it becomes associated with the event itself. The Elvis Presley article probably has some mention of all the kooky things his fans do, and modern day Elvis sightings, which is pretty fringe. Whether or not that's reasonable with respect to 9/11 conspiracy theories is a matter for the 9/11 article. Sometimes a different group of editors on a different subject makes a different decision. That doesn't necessarily make one right and one wrong. Wikidemon (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture not used in article

Featured picture of Barack Obama.

Occasionally it happens that well-meaning editors accidentally remove a featured picture from a relevant article, not realizing that it's among the site's best images. Normally I'd just replace it with an edit summary, but since this is such a high traffic page it seems better to post here. Is there any reason Wikipedia's best portrait of Obama isn't used in the main Obama article? Durova^Charge! 18:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that it is a good image, however, the image currently displayed is the official presidential portrait taken of the president right before taking office. World (talk • contributions) 20:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't mean you can't use the 2006 image somewhere in the article. It doesn't need to be the infobox image. Put it after or maybe replace File:Flickr Obama Springfield 01.jpg (since it's a somewhat low-quality image). I'll also note that while there's probably a preference for using official presidential portraits for US President articles' infoboxes, it's certainly not set in stone (I don't see a style guide for Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Presidents anyway). The 2006 image might be appropriate for the infobox yet, while moving the official portrait down to the "Presidency" section. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The official portrait of a president is by far the most recognisable picture of them that will ever be produced. It would be counterintuitive at best to use a different picture. The trouble is all of the other pictures show Obama doing something. Unless it is added – and I don't really see where – then there's not really a case for the picture. I seem to remember reading once somewhere about featured pictures and how the criteria for things like flowers are really high because so many people take good pictures of them. Well Obama may come under that category too. I think this picture is featured in terms of encyclopedicity because it shows a facet to his oratory style, and that's a detail too fine for his main article to be covered in pictures of it. Bigbluefish (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your analysis of why the image is an FP, nor how it's only relevant in the context of a discussion of Obama's oratory style. While I agree, an official presidential portrait is likely to be the best-recognized portrait of said person, and thus it's probably not appropriate to replace the infobox image under normal circumstances, I don't think it's at all unreasonable to consider it; both considering the extremely high quality of the 2006 portrait (see its FPC for some good arguments) and the high level of media coverage of this last election. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No one is suggesting replacing the lead image. The question is why, with a featured picture as an informal portrait, this remains unused while several inferior snapshots are on the page. Is there a particular reason a featured picture is not used anywhere on the main biography of the current United States president? Durova^Charge! 05:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, on second thoughts, the picture of Obama with the presidents at the end doesn't really illustrate anything except a barely notable photocall. Perhaps the featured picture would better describe his cultural and political image here? Bigbluefish (talk) 10:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

While this may be a featured picture, I'd rather not have a picture where he looks pissed as the main image. Just because an image is featured does not mean it needs to be used in this article. Plus, besides the main image, where could this image really be used? Pictures have to also augment the article, illustrating a point. How would this image better augment the article? What point would this image illustrate? What can the readers learn from it? Brothejr (talk) 11:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh... did you actually read the post immediately above yours? Bigbluefish (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Campaign Finance

Under the CAMPAIGN heading the article mentions that President Obama did not accept public financing of his General Election Campaign. Wouldn't it be appropriate to mention that he made a pledge during the Primary Campaign that (gave the appearance) of agreeing to accept Public Financing? Before this is dismissed as a "trivial" issue, it is just this and other "trivial" issues that informed the vote of a good number of citizens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yerusalyim (talk • contribs) 23:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You'd have a point if he made a pledge, he did not.--DemocraplypseNow (talk) 23:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I've defended Barack Obama against some ridiculously spurious claims and puerile vandalism at Wiki and elsewhere, but I have to admit I remember this, during the primaries, and his being called on it from several quarters. From The New York Times[7]: "Asked in a questionnaire whether he would take part (in public financing) if his opponents did the same, Mr. Obama wrote yes. But he added, 'If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.'" To me, it sounded like this addition was emphasis to his "yes," but others have interpreted this as de-emphasis. Yes means yes, no?

In any event, that was a pledge—the very purpose of that questionnaire was to determine the candidates' pledges. Yet after Obama's lawyers met with McCain's lawyers with regard to this issue, the two candidates never did so much as meet to discuss it themselves. Obama campaign general counsel Robert Bauer said of the failure to meet over the issue, “It became clear to me that there wasn’t any basis for future discussion.” I find little defensible about McCain's campaign, and the mistruths and missteps on his side were constant and utterly stultifying. I don't doubt that McCain was telegraphed as intractable. Yet it seems to me that "I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee" should reasonably have been expected to play out mano a mano, ultimate agreement or no. For a senator, "I" still means one person—them—and among colleagues, albeit opponents, aggressive pursuit has got to mean more than one meeting between underlings.

I'm not playing devil's advocate here; while we have a great many more important issues on the table, I am concerned about how future elections will play out as this recession abates if we can't seriously and sincerely address campaign finance reform. I think a mention in Obama's main article would probably be giving the issue undue weight, but I should think that with a few additional legitimate sources and a tightly-written paragraph, it is relevant to one or more of the articles about the primaries and general election. The shift away from public financing is, in the context of elections and campaigns, one of the major stories of the past decade and a half. Every four years the media sneers and harrumphs about it for a couple months but then completely ignores it again until the next cycle, when it's too late to move the ball down the field. This cycle the richest candidate was the one from modest means with the $5 pledges. Next time it may be an entirely different scenario. (Uh, anybody remember that ol' populist ranch hand George W. Bush?) The whole topic deserves more thorough coverage than it's currently getting in any one media source, including Wikipedia. There are citations about this going back to billionaire heir Steve Forbes; editors with the time and inclination (and free of anti-Obama rabble rousing) should set to compiling them for a better article someplace here, perhaps Campaign finance in the United States or a spinoff article. Abrazame (talk) 03:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting discourse if a little off-topic. This is not a political article, and what's more there is no editorial decision on Wikipedia that should be based on influencing political elections or the "public interest". This article is for what the world currently remembers Obama for historically, and his financing pledge didn't even get that much play at the time of the election, and that given when character assassination was clearly a big part in the campaign against him. You're welcome to expand the campaign finance article, but just because a POV about the subject is widespread does not necessarily mean there should be a POV fork of it. Bigbluefish (talk) 10:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama prays with five pastors

(according to NY Times) include Moss, Jr. (a Baptist), T.D. Jakes (non-denominational), Kirbyjon H. Caldwell (Methodist), Jim Wallis (Evangelical Free Church of America or non-denominational) and Joel C. Hunter (Methodist or non-denominational). ↜Just me, here, now … 01:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

So? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you feel this belongs in the article? If yes, why? SMP0328. (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Although it's true that not everybody around here is curious about religion in general or even Obama's in particular, some of us contributors await news of which denomination or at least branch of Christianity Obama aligns with post-Trinity (see here). So a report from the NYT that he has sought pastoral counsel from a number of Evangelical Protestants, although still not definitive, is at least interesting; but I myself think we should hold off at least for the time being on specifying Obama anything other than "Christian". ↜Just me, here, now … 01:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Why Party identification called Socialist?

Simple vandalism, now fixed, closing before it attracts more gadflies
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Obama is a democrat. However the wikipedia page under his photo says, Political Party: Socialist. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyz9902003 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Because someone vandalized it. This has been fixed, but thank you for reporting it. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict)You probably need to empty your browser's cache. — TKD::{talk} 04:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Please purge when reverting vandalism

This is a response to the above section, but it's important enough to be broken out on its own.

To put it as bluntly as possible, this is currently one of our most visible articles, and one of our most contentious articles, and is likely to be both through late January 2013 at the least. It isn't acceptable for vandalism to stick around any longer than it has to, but unfortunately it can stick around for a long while indeed. Even if the article is reverted immediately, it's possible that casual readers (that's most of them, and they number in the millions) can be served a cached version of the article with the vandalism intact. Even worse, it's possible for search engines to index the bad version (it has already happened, on this article); now tens of millions of people can see the vandalism if they happen to do a web search on the string "Barack Obama".

If you watch the article and revert vandalism on it, please also purge the article afterward. That makes it much less likely that the vandalized article will be seen by anyone. While TKD's advice above is fine, we should not have to tell anyone to clear their browser cache, because we should be taking steps to keep the bad version out of browser caches in the first place.

Thanks. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)