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
m →‎Occidental College: Clarify the wording, but not the substance, of my second comment; did Sinebot's job
Line 258: Line 258:
::::::::::Technically, an ''alma mater'' is anywhere you attended. Graduation is irrelevant. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 15:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::Technically, an ''alma mater'' is anywhere you attended. Graduation is irrelevant. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 15:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.73.111.52|69.73.111.52]] ([[User talk:69.73.111.52|talk]]) 20:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP -->
:::::::::::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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.73.111.52|69.73.111.52]] ([[User talk:69.73.111.52|talk]]) 20:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP -->
:::::::::::I Agree [[Special:Contributions/72.207.65.76|72.207.65.76]] ([[User talk:72.207.65.76|talk]]) 07:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:14, 8 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 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)[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]

Change of info boxes at the top of the talk page

Um, can anyone explain why the info boxes at the top of the page were changed, what policy covers it, and if there is no policy that covers it, then where is the consensus for it? I ask because it looks far worse then before, the font is much smaller and it still does not really shorten the page. Brothejr (talk) 10:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy for it, except that they ideally shouldn't be changed without consensus. I'd support setting them back as they were, not least because expanding the FAQ now leads to a ridiculously tall column. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone in and reverted all the changes. The editor who changed it is encouraged to seek community consensus before attempting to change the top of this talk page again. Brothejr (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)t[reply]
I changed them. There's no policy. Discussion isn't required. All I did was switch on the "small" parameter for templates that are capable of that feature, which don't end up pushing the discussions down on the page. They rather sit at the right side of the page, allowing text to wrap to their left. It's meant for talk pages like this one, where a lot of header templates take up space and mean forcing people to scroll through them before getting to the actual "talking" part of the "talk page". I don't care myself all that much, but for people who use this talk page, the change would be beneficial, especially for those with lower resolution monitors. I myself have a high-res, and even I get a full page of header templates before seeing the discussion. I hate to think what the low-res people have to deal with.
If you have some actual reason for wanting the header templates the way they are now, that's fine, and it can be discussed. But If you reverted for the sole reason that the changes weren't discussed first, that wasn't necessary. Demonstrated consensus isn't a requirement for something like this. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:40, 27 Feb 2009 (UTC)
I've tweaked the headers in an effort to compromise. I removed a duplicate talkheader and BLP notice. I made the article history, press, and auto-archive notices small. I left the BLP and FAQ large. I left the skiptotoc template. Let me know if that looks okay. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:49, 27 Feb 2009 (UTC)
The right and left columns overlap on my (small) screen. It doesn't look OK at all. It looked fine before. PhGustaf (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried one more time, having the small boxes start below the large templates rather than appearing beside them. Let me know if any of them still appear to overlap in your browser. PS There's a problem with the code in the version you guys keep reverting to, and it causes half the headers to not show up at all. It's better to just wait for the outcome of this discussion. I'll revert the code correctly myself if that's what everyone ends up wanting. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:35, 28 Feb 2009 (UTC)
The "compacted to right" definitely looks better in my browser (FF3/OSX/~1000px width/etc). LotLE×talk 00:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
de gustibus. I liked it better before. But at least it doesn't overlap. PhGustaf (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also using a hi-res monitor so its a matter of how small the font it. But the biggest reason for the way it was is the lab tops and their smaller screens. It still seems clumsy and does not look right. Plus, the reason I mentioned consensus is that something like that is a little more then just changing the wording or two of a sentence. It comes across as a personal thing and not a needed change. Brothejr (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While all of this is a little spontaneous and unscientific, when a viewable height of 702px isn't enough to see the start of the TOC without scrolling, something had to be done. The current setup seems pretty neat. We have to balance the need to get all the information across clearly with the fact that the more information we bombard the user with the more likely they are to ignore it all and make another thread about Obama's race. Bigbluefish (talk) 11:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True on some points, however I don't see this new setup reducing the repeat of certain threads. Even with this new set up, people are still going to ignore what's written there. Brothejr (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A question of race

question dealt with many times - see FAQ
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I am curious why Obama is listed as the "first African American" president. Should that be changed to "first half-African American" president, since he his half white (his mother and grandmother, who raised him, were white)? Thanks, Stusan (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed countless times. Check the archives. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
African-American is a heritage. Anyone with lineage (like a father) from African is African-American. And like Bugs said, check the archive index search feature. Grsz11 03:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, news casters are technically wrong when they call him the first Black president, because in fact he isn't all black. The United States hasn't had a black president yet. (ie. Tiger Woods, Derek Jeter). 69.121.221.237 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

That's silly. Almost no one in the United States is "all black." The vast majority of African Americans have mixed ancestry. If Obama isn't black, then neither is Wesley Snipes, Oprah Winfrey, Condi Rice, Michael Jordan, Martin Luther King, Al Sharpton, etc., etc. marbeh raglaim (talk) 09:32, 1 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&oldid=275765140"