Jump to content

Talk:Barack Obama

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 90.192.223.153 (talk) at 01:25, 25 December 2008 (→Emmy wins: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Pbneutral

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 19, 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


Please get a better picture of Barack for the article. Krj3550 (talk)krj3550 —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]


Redundant discussions

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]

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

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[reply]

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

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. —GodhevalT C W 19:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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.—GodhevalT C W 20:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming the fat.

I know you all love Obama. But this page is crashing my PIII 700. Keep it lean. There was no valuable info lost after fat trimming. Just a lot of lard. Thanks -Spotsbooks342 (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with loving or hating Obama. This is a featured article that is carefully edited by a large group of editors, and it is not appropriate to unilaterally make large edits in the way that you did without discussing them here first. If you want to present arguments for the edits you think will improve the article, please do so here. But note that the length of the article is within guidelines and given the significance of the subject, we think it is warranted. Tvoz/talk 04:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the time you've all taken to consider my changes to the page. Frankly, I can no longer continue working with you on this particular page, because it literally will not load on my machine: WinXP PIII 700 ~390 MBytes RAM. I leave you with my existing edits. I appreciate your attention. -Spotsbooks342 (talk) 05:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this talk page will not load on your computer I believe it's time to get a new one. Landon1980 (talk) 06:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I has an extra computer if u need 1. I am in PA so let me know on my talk page if you are near me. It is P4-2.4 Northwood with 1gb ram. The Obamanator probably can get a better one for free, but this is all I got. Testmasterflex (talk) 07:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If your PC is crashing, you definitely should not be editing large Wikipedia articles. You're more likely to do harm than good. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like compacting the notes section. Can we keep that, please? Much of the article length comes from that, and the only downside is not being able to see the note section all at once (but one has to scroll anyway). Conveniently, with notes compacted, clicking on a note still takes you directly to it even in the collapsed note section. No downside, plenty of upside.--chaser - t 19:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but there most certainly is a downside - it has serious accessibility problems. See WP:SCROLL. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and I also think it doesn't print, for people wedded to paper. Tvoz/talk 20:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

So, which denomination are the Obamas currently affiliated with, if any? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless they switched without telling me, they're members of the United Church of Christ, but not affiliated with any particular congregation. PhGustaf (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It used to say that, and someone removed it on the grounds that they had resigned from their most recent congregation, which stands to reason as they are moving soon. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a source for the characterization "Mainline Protestant"? I see that UCC is considered such, but I wonder if we're not teetering on OR with this unless there's a source connecting Obama with the term. Tvoz/talk 20:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UCC is considered Mainline Protestant, and he was in the UCC. That seems like the backwards approach, though. Maybe someone could find out what is the actual denomination he considers himself to belong to at present, if any. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the template back to UCC. Barring a reference saying that Obama has repudiated the denomination as well as the congregation, I think that's correct. Of course somebody who can't tell a belief system from a building is going to change it tomorrow. PhGustaf (talk)
I think putting UCC back was correct, and that its removal was based on a misunderstanding of the concept, as you're suggesting. Now, if he joins a different denomination when he moves to DC, that would compel a revision, presumably. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absllutely not.He is not a member of any church or denomination, as this occurs on a local level. Please remove this .Die4Dixie (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Currently he seems to be a religious practicer of the gym. PhGustaf (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Led by that well-known preacher, the Reverend Basketball Jones. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll Google this. Yes, Mainline Protestant at present would teeter on original research, e.g.,

"...Since Barack's policy postions tend to be socially liberal one could surmise that Barack continues within the Mainline and traditionally Calvinist, "Evangelical" tradition and related sects (read: some branch or another of liberal Protestant Christianity) and hasn't given much indication he'd recently verged into his being a generic Movement "Evangelical" or an adherent of related, conservative sects such as Charismatic Evangelicalism (read: some branch of conservative Protestant Christianity)!"

Be right back. Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply … 20:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If he's still in the UCC, then by definition he's Mainline Protestant. However, if he's still in the UCC, then he can simply be listed as UCC. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If someone quits going to St. Francis Xavier because he doesn't like the priest, does he stop being a Catholic? Unless Obama says he's no longer UCC, we have no business saying anything else. PhGustaf (talk) 21:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If someone starts going to church solely to use such attendence as a vehicle for social or political power, do they become a christian?Die4Dixie (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, absolutely. why do you ask? --Tom 21:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Back.) Bugs, you are correct, the media's use of Mainline seems to coordinate with mention of the UCC. (Sure, he's also classed in general as "liberal Christian" but such a label is too nebulous for our encyclopedic classification of Obama's religious subgroup, IMO.) Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply … 21:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are thousands of sources that state that Barack Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ. There are plenty of sources that state that he quit Trinity, but I can find no sources that indicate he has switched denomination. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, he is still a member of UCC and it should say as much in his infobox. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Die4Dixie is trying to make a political point of some kind. He's also wrong about denomination being at the "local level". In line with what PhGustaf said above, JFK presumably switched from one congregation to another when he moved from Boston to D.C. He did not cease being a Catholic in the interim. UCC is a national church, so unless Obama has made an announcement of some kind to the contrary, his denomination remains UCC. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's reasonable to note that this isn't just about moving. But if JFK had been involved in a tiff with Cardinal Cushing, his Catholicism wouldn't have lapsed either. PhGustaf (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about a tiff, it is about renouncing his membership. Since we seem to want to discuss Catholics, it is simply the same as excommunication, except originating from the other end of the stick. This was not done in anticipation of a move. If you do that , you remain a member of the first congregation until your membership is transfered. I rather expect I have bben in church and transfered my membership more times than the editors who want this now unsourced claim inserted. In fact, I'd bet money I've been in church more times in the last wo months than they've( other edidtors, not the Obamas) been in the last five years. Provide a source since his renouncement of his membership that he is still in the UCC fold before putting it in. It is certainly not a UCC minister doing the swearing in.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Show us the link that says he has "renounced" his membership in the denomination. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice semantics. Communion with a denomination flows from membership. Please provide link that says that membership renunciation allows someone to be a member in a denomination, and how one acquires "membership" in a denomination.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you violated article probation by changing it twice in one day without providing any evidence to support your argument. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're a religious adherent of a particular denomination, and you leave your congregation because your preacher is saying and doing embarrassing, hurtful things, you don't stop being a religious adherent of your denomination. Imagine if you found out your own church minister was involved in something you didn't want to be associated with. Would you suddenly somehow lose your denomination if you left that particular church? That's just plain silly. --GoodDamon 22:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[[4]]. Please understand the structure of the UCC and understand the importance of lovcal membership. If I rnounced my membership, then yes I would cease to be say a Wee Wee Free, but not a Knoxist or a Calvinist.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[[5]]. Now don't be WP:DENSE. Please provide a source before reinsertion. Why in the world would you make me jump through hoops about this?Die4Dixie (talk) 22:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, with so many mentions , we need to include this [[6]], incorporating it into his personal life section. In the BLP, the renunciation and repudiation of the church in which one was baptized is a significant life event, and is conspicuous by its absence.

A Former Church Member

Understandably, Die4Dixie is questioning whether or not Obama's current affiliation (or perhaps religious adherence) is still with the United Church of Christ. I've no doubt that Obama's future church attendances will help clarify (or complicate) this issue. Until then, perhaps simply specifying Obama's former Trinity membership would be the proper, encyclopedic and verifiable information to include here: Religion: Christianity (former member of Trinity United Church of Christ). Modocc (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original / personal research. What's needed is evidence that he is no longer a member of the UCC denomination. Maybe he isn't. But no one has provided any evidence of that, only personal opinions. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What? Obama did leave Trinity and not necessarily the UCC. Please reread my suggestion, cause I think you missed my curve ball. Modocc (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he left a specific congregation. I have yet to see any evidence that he left the denomination. So the prefix "former" is, at present, not applicable. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would depend on what that denomination's tradition considers its rules to be. But even if someone looks it up and finds out the rules, that's an original synthesis. It is not Wikipedia's place to speculate on what his relationship is with the denomination. "Formerly with a UCC church" or some such text is probably most appropriate as this does not make a judgment one way or the other on his relationship with the denomination ... although since this is the infobox, that's really too long and just saying UCC should suffice - guess Obama's religion is not within Wikipedia's scope. --B (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bingo. That's the problem - original research / original synthesis. What's needed is a reliable source explicitly stating that Obama has left the UCC denomination. Arguments about how the UCC supposedly does things in general, are not valid. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflicts)Again, Obama resigned from Trinity United Church of Christ (which is not to be confused with the UCC denomination; see links). That makes him a former member of the congregation; a former member of Trinity... Just thought I put forth a reasonable suggestion and not personal research or opinion. --Modocc (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and thanks for addressing one of my concerns (the excessive length) we can include a links to the specifics. Modocc (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the issue of putting "former" in the infobox is that it's confusing. It only states the denominaiton, not the specific congregation. The body of the article can explain the minutia of the situation. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. Landon1980 (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, something resembling a reliable source. The writer might have jumped to conclusions himself, but it's an AP wire service story, so I think it would qualify as a valid source. So under religion it could be just plain "Christian", or it could be UCC "former", or it could still be left at UCC since that was his last known denomination. But with the citable source available, perhaps there's a possibility of reaching consensus on the matter. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is the most reliable source I've found so far but I'm going to look for a couple more here in a minute. Landon1980 (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good start. Thanks for your efforts. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Senator Barack Obama has resigned his membership in Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ, which he attended for nearly two decades, following months of controversy about pastors and their political views. Landon1980 (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about Christian (Formerly TUCC)? My last edit to the mainspace might have been ambiguous and there should have been a comma between christianity and the formerly so that it was clear that formerly modified UCC. In all fairness, his breaking with TUCC should be mentioned, as it is a significant life event. I am open to any neutral dealings with the facts, but this is a nettle that musts be grasped with both hands.Die4Dixie (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're reading way too much into this. However, the syntax you propose looks good. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except you need to disambiguate, as there is more than one entity called TUCC. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like so: Christianity (formerly TUCC) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you would make the edit, I'd be gratified wirh the redirect to TUCC directly. Before I make an edit about the TUCC situation, I'll make the proposal here.Die4Dixie (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I put "prev." as it's shorter. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That edit works for me. I think it clarifies matters to associate Obama (or maybe disassociate him) with TUCC rather than UCC in general. PhGustaf (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The edit satisfies me. It is not important that you agree with me on this, but for what its worth: today most people in this secular world do not under stand the individuals role within the church. He placed himself outside of the jurisdicion of the church hierachy by resigning his church membership without transfering it. This concept is alien to most people because they do't feel bound by any power greater than themselves. Membership in reformed churches stem from baptist as children, and then a public declaration of faith before the congregation. Communion with the denomination and the church hierachy stems from this. A rupture of this relationship severs the bond of invidual and denomination. Transfers of membershp do not do this. This fine distinction is not as important as it once was, when the church was the center of social life and shunning was a real issue. Of course we do not live in a theocracy now, so most would not give much thought to the spiritual implications within a denomination. Now a adays, people do pretty much what ever they want, without fear of accountability to the church hierachy, and there are no consecquences for conversions or separations. But anyway, the edit is fine.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm understanding you right, he basically excommunicated himself. However, that's not necessarily a permanent thing, as he could join a UCC church in DC, assuming there is one, which there probably is, given that it's a large denomination. Choosing a church, a school for any young'uns, etc., are among the many rituals a new President goes through. This entry is essentially a placeholder until his family selects a new church. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No,notapermanentthing.If you look at the constitution, he would ahve to make another declaration of faith to rejoin, since he doesn't have a membership that he could transfer (having resigned/renounced it).Actually, excommunicated in the catholic sense is too strong, as he could still take communion in the reformed churches, where the basis of elegibility for the sacraments is a belief in the Jesus as one's savior and the other stylized beliefs.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[[7]] In fact, a thourough reading of article V of the constitution and bylaws of the United Church of Christ should make this apparent to the most sckeptical editor.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but that would be original research or original synthesis, and would not be allowed. That's why the Sun-Times reference was so important to the discussion. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Note that UCC is quite literally a "congregational" church in that each congregation makes its own rules. There is a hierarchy and there are synods, but they provide suggestions rather than dicta to the congregations. TUCC is hardly a typical UCC congregation, and it's useful to associate Obama with it rather than UCC in general. PhGustaf (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, so it's a rather loose confederation, with a lot of local latitude, as opposed to denominations that maintain a more strictly authoritarian structure. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The First Congregational Church of Waverley, MA (UCC), where I was raised, has for example been taken over by Koreans. This probably leads to more interesting church suppers than those served in my day by Swedes. PhGustaf (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meatballs? I was thinking lutefisk. I guess that would be more like Norwegian. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Community Organizer" a profession?

I added it as one in the infobox, and got reverted with the good-faith assertion that it was not a profession but a job. I don't know of any wiki standard for "profession" vis. "job", but I do think it makes good sense to place it there, because community organizing was a major element in Obama's career, and the text says "community organizer" two inches to the left anyway. So I ask for input. And yes, this is no big deal. PhGustaf (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know if it's a "job", rather sounds more like a "job description". In fact, he was "director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP), a church-based community organization", for three years. Does 3 years really qualify it as one of his "profession"s, and what would that profession be called? I think it's best left off. Priyanath talk 00:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still see it as just a job, and not really relevant enough to tick off in the infobox. A mention in the article body should suffice for something that really only gained its notoriety as a Palinite talking point. Tarc (talk) 15:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. As a Palinite talking point, it led to the quip, "Jesus was a community organizer. Pilate was a governor." In any case, I concede the issue. PhGustaf (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pontius Palin. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant infobox fields are profession and occupation. If you'd like to, you may put attorney under profession, and community organizer under occupation. Also note that 'politician' is NOT a profession either. (If you read the wiki article about profession, they're licensed after specific education such as attorney, educator, physician, professional engineer, electrician, plumber and so forth. They're all jobs, but they're generally licensed because they can put someone at serious risk if not done properly.) Flatterworld (talk) 22:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I've entered CO in an occupation field, let's see what happens. PhGustaf (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mulatto, the term is Mullato

Barack Obama is not black. Barack Obama is not white. He is Mulatto. Damn did I really have to just type that. I thought people knew this stuff already. (DR1208) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.138.3.169 (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's considered an offensive term anymore, and the subject has been discussed to death here in any case. The sources dictate how we characterize his race. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

President-elect

Hope someone plans to change that soon in article! Well done to all who contributed. Isnotwen (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should get changed from "President-elect" to "President" around noon eastern on January 20th. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone who has access to this page write the following under the President Elect section: " After Obama was announced as the President-Elect of the United States, at least one lawsuit was raised that falsely stated that Obama was not born in the USA, and therefore was not eligible to become the President-Elect (or the President). Obama, however, was born in the US (in Hawaii), and therefore is eligible to become the President of the US. Kb3mlmsk (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed before and the thought is that it is better not to include any mention of tinfoil hat conspiracies in the BLP.LedRush (talk) 20:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US Senate successor

I know everything regarding a replacement is up in the air right now with the Blagojevich scandal. Should the "TBD" link to the Rod Blagojevich corruption scandal? atarcom (talk) 07:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pace a source connecting Obama to the scandal, I would say not. PhGustaf (talk) 08:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emmy wins

Surely this article should mention his two Emmy wins? There are no mentions of this achievement and the categories he's in at the bottom don't mention Emmy Spoken Word Winner... 90.192.223.153 (talk) 01:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&oldid=259990590"