Talk:Barack Obama

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Picture

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). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaanatakan (talk • contribs)

I agree. There must be a better free picture than this one.--Kaanatakan (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Religion

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Of course. Currently he seems to be a religious practicer of the gym. PhGustaf (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Led by that well-known preacher, the Reverend Basketball Jones. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yes, absolutely. why do you ask? --Tom 21:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[[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)

[[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)

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.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It's a good start. Thanks for your efforts. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Like so: Christianity (formerly TUCC) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

I put "prev." as it's shorter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[[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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The citation says he's no longer a member of the UCC denomination. This will be become moot once the family joins a church in DC. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I have pretty serious reservations about that citation -- the reporter seems to be making an offhand assertion rather than documenting a fact. But I agree the best thing to do is wait a few weeks and see what church Obama shows up at. I'm not gonna change the infobox again, PhGustaf (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I also have reservations about it, but as far as I know it's the only citation we have. What we have otherwise is everyone giving their opinions on that matter, none of which are citable in the article. I did change the wording to "most recently", which sounds weaselly, but it's a true statement. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

No complaints from me. Pardon me while I go eat, drink, and be merry. PhGustaf (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

...for tomorrow we diet. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure we have to like the cite. There is no cite that claims he is still in the UCC fold since his public break with Trinity. I would just recommend, if not what we agreed on earlier, removing all refrence to UCC there and leaving christianity.Die4Dixie (talk) 06:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I like "most recently" seems to me like that could have more than one meaning. I could probably find some more sources if the two above are not enough. It doesn't matter if it's an opinion piece, the majority of sources are opinion pieces that is why they must be reliable, third-party, and known for fact checking and accuracy. Wouldn't something like "Christian, former UCC member" match the sources better? Is there a need to mention the UCC at all? Could we simply put Christian? Former UCC member doesn't suggest he's a former Christian, only that he is a former member of the UCC. Landon1980 (talk) 11:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how "most recently" could be taken more than one way. In any case, it is a true fact, and it pre-empts debates (i.e. the constant edit skirmish, which arose again after the compromise) over whether he really is or is not a current member of that denomination. I, for one, am still not convinced; nor am I convinced the editorial writer knows what he's talking about. But there is no question that his most recent denomination was UCC. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Most recent could mean he is still with the denomination. Do you have a source that says he is still with the UCC? I can see readers taking most recent as that is his latest denomination, former is exactly what the source cited says, not that is was his most recent. Landon1980 (talk) 12:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way I'm not really convinced either but we don't have to be convinced, remember, verifiability not truth. Would you not agree that the two sources are reliable? I'll look for more in a minute. Landon1980 (talk) 12:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Besides the Sun-Times column, what's the second source you're referring to? And if we say "prev. UCC", what do we do about those decide to delete it? Maybe just revert with "see talk page consensus"? That would obviate 3RR if it comes to that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

"Most recently" to me means "last known". We could say it that way if it would be clearer, since we don't currently know what denomination he's affiliated with, if any. It's just that "last known" sounds like something from a "Wanted" poster. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Would an email response from the denomination headquarters be accetable to all parties to clarify this?(and how would I go about sharing it?) Die4Dixie (talk) 12:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be valid as a source for the article, but we already have a source. It would serve as documentation within the talk page, as "corroborating evidence". I'm fine with that. If they have anything posted on the internet that explains their membership rules, as corroborating evidence or further elaboration on what the citable source already says, I'd be fine with that also. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Most recently means last known to me as well, but that doesn't let the reader know he has left the denomination, just that it's the last update we had. The other source I'm referring to is this source I posted above. I may be wrong, you are more experienced than I with editing so you may be right. I don't really have any strong feelings about it. Landon1980 (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I missed it somehow. I'm also not seeing anywhere in the article that says he left the denomination, only that he left the specific congregation, which is a widely known and undisputed fact. For us to infer that that means he is no longer in the denomination, regardless of how much we supposedly know about the topic, still amounts to original research. So the Sun-Times item is the only citable documentation we have on the matter just now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought that was the only church in the UCC he ever attended. I've not seen anything that says he has attended another church in the denomination since resigning. Leaving that church would be leaving the denomination since he did not simply switch to another wouldn't it? Regardless we could put 'formerly TUCC' linked to the exact article on the church he last attended couldn't we? Landon1980 (talk) 13:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

And I say that it would not necessarily mean he left the denomination. That's why we need at least one citation that explicitly says he left the denomination, and we have that. And for the skeptical (like me) some corroborating evidence would be helpful. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

When he resigned his membership he left the denomination, that will be true until he picks a new church within the denomination. Does this even matter? Why can't we just put former TUCC, there are several sources for that. Obama's membership with the UCC was within the Trinity church, therefore technically he's left the denomination. I've spent the last hour and a half researching this, and when questioned Obama has made no statements suggesting he is staying within the UCC, only that his family will find a new church home and that there are lots of choices. Landon1980 (talk) 13:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

TUCC is not a denomination, it's just a congregation. And I don't agree that it's clear he has left the denomination just by leaving a specific congregation. If Die4 finds something specific to convince me, then fine. Obama has apparently made no statement at all about his future church plans, so we can't infer anything. The safest fact to post in the infobox is that his most recent denomincation was UCC, for anyone who cares about that kind of thing, which I frankly don't, but the other Presidential infoboxes state a denomination, as far as I know. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't need one, since he is unique in having publically repudiated membership in a church. He is without a church and a denomination. We only need one source that says he is not in the denomination, which we have, and not one that says he still is. This should not be so complicated. Other stuff exists is no reason to fewel his box is naked.Die4Dixie (talk) 13:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It gets complicated because the agreed upon (?) compromise was violated. Presumably it's in the infobox because someone wants to know at a glance what his denomination is and/or was. Earlier I said that Presidents typically have a denomination there. One strong exception is Abraham Lincoln, whose religious views are very difficult to pin down. Facts About the Presidents simply stated "No specific denomination". That doesn't exactly apply here, because as far as I know, Lincoln never belonged to any specific denomination. However, there may be another way to handle this. In the Lincoln article, it simply links to an article that discusses the matter. How about, in this case, simply stating "Christian", but with a link to the section in the article that explains his current situation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

He may very well pick a new church within the denomination, we don't know that. As of now he doesn't have a membership with the UCC, he resigned from the only church he attended within the denomination. Saying he may not have left the denomination altogether is original research. Presently we have no idea if he will pick another church in the denomination, but we do know he resigned the only membership he ever had with the UCC. the probability he may choose to pick another church within the denomination is one thing, saying he is still with the denomination is another. To be within the denomination you must have a membership with a church in the denomination. This is like a car owner selling his ford car and has not yet purchased a new car. The guy may have loved his ford car and choose to buy a new one, but that doesn't make him a ford owner while he is searching for a new car. Landon1980 (talk) 13:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The main thing is to arrive at a stable situation in the article. I don't agree with your argument, and I am not convinced the editorial writer knows what he's talking about. But if it just says "Christian" and links to the explanation in the article, that should cover all the bases, shouldn't it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that would work. This seems very clear cut to me. The only way he will have not left the denomination is if he picks another church in the denomination, and he has not done that. So explain to me how he has not left the denomination if he is not attending a church within the denomination? He may go back to the UCC, but right now Obama is churchless. I simply don't understand how he can be in the denomination without attending a church in the denomination. Landon1980 (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

not based on attendence, but membership. differnt horses.Die4Dixie (talk) 13:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'm getting at. So, how about my recommended (and temporary) solution? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the one we ironed out earlier is best. If it gets reverted against consensus with the article probation and lack of discussion, take them to ANI like you did me. If they had an opinion, they should have participated, not lurked around reverting are hard work using summaries to do what should be done here.Die4Dixie (talk) 14:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

D4D, by attendance I meant joining another church in the denomination. He resigned his membership with Trinity, and that is where his membership with the UCC was within. No matter how you spin it he is currently not with the UCC. We have no sources saying he is still with them, only that he resigned his membership and a well known fact that he left TUCC. Landon1980 (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

we agree then . I know members who cannot attend a church(homebound, etc, out of country) but they remain members unless they repudiate that membership.Die4Dixie (talk) 14:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, he did not transfer his membership he resigned plain and simple. Like I said above, he may rejoin within the denomination but as of now he cannot possible be in the UCC. I'll be perfectly happy with Bugs' latest suggestion though. Landon1980 (talk) 14:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I do feel that the section needs to be expanded to deal with the Rwev. Wright issue in a neutral way. Make it happen. But with the same caveat. If people come in and start mucking about with it, they go to ANI after one revert. We have to treat all alike even if they agree/disagree with us on political issues.Die4Dixie (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Pontius Palin. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

←To me it is confusing to use both the 'profession' and 'occupation' infobox fields. It now reads like he was professionally trained as an attorney and politician, but works as a community organizer and attorney - and that's just not correct. If consensus is to separate profession from occupation, I'd say we have to have 'profession' as attorney and 'occupation' as politician and community organizer, but I think this all is adding confusion, not bringing clarity. And I am not convinced that the 'occupation' field should be an historical record of past occupations. Tvoz/talk 20:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

No. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Pace a source connecting Obama to the scandal, I would say not. PhGustaf (talk) 08:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Well he did cause the contested seat to become vacant, if that's what you mean. That's how "TBA" ended up the article. However, while there isn't an article about how the "A" is going, it would just be confusing to infer that the scandal article is the next best thing. That article contains very little known fact about the process that is underway to choose that replacement. Bigbluefish (talk) 11:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

That's because nobody cares about the Emmys. Now, the ESPYs, that's different. Has he won any ESPYs? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, you both made me look... Obama won two Grammy Awards for his audiobooks, as noted near the end of the article. As for any Emmys or ESPYs, if Obama is that successful and anyone does care, we will need a citation. Modocc (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

If he won a notable award, and it's citable, then it could be added. He's hot on the Top 40. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Mention Hawaii birth/upbringing in leading paragraphs

Sorry if this has been brought up previously, but it's not mentioned in the FAQ. It strikes me as a bit unusual that the state where he was born and spent all of his youth, except aged 6 - 10, is not mentioned in the lead. While I agree that Obama is more closely associated with Illinois than with Hawaii, I feel the connection with Hawaii is strong enough to justify inserting a few words about it. I would suggest this, in the second paragraph:

• A native of Hawaii, Obama is a graduate of...

or, if confusion with ethnic Hawaiians is a serious concern, this:

• Originally from Hawaii, Obama is a graduate of... or
• A native of Honolulu,... (or Honolulu, Hawaii).

I note for example that the article on Hillary Clinton identifies her as "a native of suburban Chicago" in the second paragraph. 67.150.246.171 (talk) 12:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The intro's already pretty long. Or it might have been omitted in the intro because of the looney birds who want to think he was born elsewhere. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think we need to think about the loonies. I'm suggesting adding three or four words, and this seems at least as important as the universities he went to (especially Columbia). I've just had a look at the archives and it doesn't seem to have been discussed going back to Archive 43. Maybe people can just give their opinion here about whether it's worth the added length, without worrying about what's been decided in the past. 67.150.246.171 (talk) 12:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC) [Or identify past discussion of the issue, if there's been any. 67.150.246.171 (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)]

You can wade through the archives if you want, or just wait and see what everyone says, after they've come back here from Xmas holiday. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I take it this isn't the sort of page where an addition to the lead can be improvised. 67.150.253.137 (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is needed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

A quick comparison: Bush 43 and Clinton do not mention place of birth in lead; Bush 41 does, Reagan does; Carter and Ford do not; Nixon does. Seems like a pretty mixed bag to me. I would generally lean slightly against including the extra information in the lead; what it adds does not strike me as overwhelmingly notable (obviously it should occur early in the body of the article, as it does). On the other hand, I lean against the addition only weakly, it would not be horrible to include either. LotLE×talk 07:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course, his birthplace is a little more relevant that those of many other presidents since it's the first one outside the contiguous states. That said, I went through the lead statement by statement and this fact would be the least important by a good margin. Every other aspect sets up the subject of significant parts of the article (i.e. summarises and introduces, as a lead should), whereas his birthplace doesn't really get many column inches; it's just one of the details. So I'd stick with the shorter, sweeter version. Bigbluefish (talk) 11:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. the infobox is the best place to get vital statistics about a subject, not the lead. And guess what?! ;-) Bigbluefish (talk) 11:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think his birth place is important enough for the lead. I doubt very many people buy into the ridiculous allegations about his birth place, I may be wrong but I don't know anyone that does anyways. Landon1980 (talk) 11:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

What is the weird fetish about the "contiguous states" about? This pops up from time to time on this talk page. Any prez who from a state that hadn't been the birthplace of previous ones would have some "first-ness" about it, but the fact Hawaii is an island (well, a bunch of islands) doesn't seem to have any inherent moral or political signficance. LotLE×talk 19:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

At least from my experience, there is something culturally distinctive about Hawaii that differs from the mainland USA. People are interested in what "kind of person" can become President. If it weren't for America's history, I'd say his Hawaiianness would be a more important facet to who he is than his blackness. Sure, it's anecdotal and not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. Though, and this is pure speculation, I daresay that some people feel it validates Hawaii's Americanness. Bigbluefish (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I certainly think Hawaii is every bit as American as any other state. Its relatively recent addition as a state seems more interesting than its non-contiguity in my own mind. Hawaii is certainly not distinct in having its citizens imagine a distinction. Pretty much every state has natives who proclaim and believe in the special culture and values of that state. I guess one difference is that Obama and those around him seem to have played on the "special values" of Hawaii much less than Bush43 and associates have played on the "special values" of Texas. P.S. I'm not sure what to make of "if not for American history"... without that history, Hawaii (or any state) wouldn't be a state, or anything might have been different in any arbitrary way. But history is what it is. LotLE×talk 20:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I would also think Obama's place of birth wasn't particularly significant if it hadn't also been the place he spent most of his youth.

Bigbluefish says that not much of the article is devoted to this, but I would say there's more about it than about Columbia University. An entire sentence is devoted in the lead to the fact that he taught consitutional law, while there are two sentences about this in the body. On the other hand, I count six sentences in the section on his early life that mention locations in Hawaii, and I am not even suggesting the inclusion of an entire sentence about it in the lead.

I also think that while, as Bigbluefish says, one function of the lead is to summarize later parts of the article, another function is to present what is considered the most basic information about the person. For example, the lead mentions his full name (and its pronunciation) and date of birth, though this is hardly elaborated on in the article. So everything depends very much on our appreciation of how basic this information is. I feel that in any biography, place of origin is a fundamental element.

LotLe mentions other pages that do not include information about place of birth. In fact, the articles George W. Bush, Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, which are given as counterexamples, all mention the states where they held political office, and these happen to coincide with the state in which they grew up. It is plausible that in these cases information about the state of origin was omitted because, to take the example of Bush, it would have been felt repetitive to mention both that Bush was raised in Texas and that he was governor of the state.

In Obama's case, like Hillary Clinton's, the state where he grew up is different from the one where he held office. I am not suggesting adding an entire statement; I am simply suggesting the addition of three or four words to the beginning of a sentence. 67.150.252.90 (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It is a little jarring that the lead jumps straight into his law studies. He's a world traveler, having lived in places that the previous President only (maybe) heard of at some point in his career. I don't know how to summarize all of his residences in one or two sentences. Maybe, born in Hawaii, spent time in other nations, came back to the U.S. to pursue higher education, and at that point it picks up. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

←I think 67.150 raises a good point - it has been commented on many times that Obama was born in (and identifies himself with) Hawaii, just a couple of years after it achieved statehood which is notable, as it emphasizes his youth among other things. In my opinion adding a (very) few words to the lead would be appropriate because it is an unusual part of his bio. And Baseball B's point is well taken. The intro can and should mention this stuff. Tvoz/talk 20:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Most admired

Obama has been named as the person Americans most admire, according to a USA Today/Gallup poll[8][9] Not sure if anyone here feels this merits inclusion, but am placing it here for your consideration. Do note that this is the first time since Eisenhower that a pres-elect has been "most" admired. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

In the sum total of his life,it's not really notable. I would defer to more sympathetic editors on the issue however. It is also transitory and recentism, todays polls are stale tommorrow.Die4Dixie (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not keen on popularity polls in general. For a whole career, maybe. Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb, for example. Lincoln and Washington, for example. The trend of Bush's popularity throughout his 8-year presidency. But not for whoever is the hot item this week. More worthy of mention might be Time's man of the year. The one poll that really matters, though, was held on November 4th. Let's check back in a year or two or three and see how his popularity is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It's good to agree with D4D on something. This factoid on "most admired" is completely silly WP:RECENTism. Moreover, it's not really a fact of Obama's biography itself... at most about the "cultural perception" thing, but in a transient and accidental way. Keep out hagiography, please. LotLE×talk 19:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there a "public perception" article on Obama? That would be the place to put it, if anywhere. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that public perception article is kind of a mess now (it's become a bit of a coatrack) but it's probably the only place that such a poll could be considered notable enough to include. It's definitely not notable enough for his biography though (at least not at this point in time, maybe a few years from now if the image sticks). --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Info needed regarding conspiracy theorists

I have inserted a paragraph acknowledging the notable existence of conspiracy theorists regarding Obama's pending presidency. Such theorists have consumed a notable amount of American media attention, and have been featured on such networks as the Fox Network.

I have noted that Wikipedia User The Magnificent Clean-keeper has attempted to delete this information with the simple comment that he felt that such information was "too much weight" (too weighty?). I have since re-inserted it and asked this user to please comment and elaborate here before making any further such deletions.

Comments welcome,

Scott P. (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not notable in the slightest, and if others hadn't lopped it already I would've cheerfully done so myself. Wholly unnecessary tinfoil nuttery. Tarc (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It is notable, hence the wide reporting. The problem for inclusion here is that there are other articles that deal with it. I wouldn't object to linking to them somewhere. It is in that article where you can give yourself free reign to explore the issue. This is not a battle that you will win. On a nother note: Instead of using ad hominems, Tarc, you might attack the argument logically and not use inflammatory languae.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not in the slightest bit notable to his biography. As for "ad hominems," you may want to look up the definition of that term, as it's not really applicable to this exchange. Tarc wasn't attacking Scottperry in his post, he simply called the conspiracy theories "tinfoil nuttery" (which they are). --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take a gander at them. It is a logical extension of his statement that those who believe or are on the fence about these claims are tinfoil hat wearing nuts. Please contact me via email or my talkpage if you need me to explain this more slowly, Loonymonkey.Die4Dixie (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no way in a million years that any of this fringe crap is getting into the BLP. The assertion that these conspiracy theories have received "wide reporting" is ridiculous. They have been reported, but only by "staff reporter" types on slow news days. There are things that have been left out of this biography that have received orders of magnitude more coverage, but still lack enough significance for coverage here. Any conceivable coverage here would be inappropriate based on any or all of these: WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT, WP:N, WP:FRINGE, WP:RECENT and WP:COMPLETE BOLLOCKS. Okay, I made that last one up. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not logical in any way, shape or form to take what I said and twist it into an attack, as what I was directing that comment towards was the conspiracy theories themselves. Someone else did the very same thing a few weeks back within these pages; trying to assert that a phrase I used ("the definition of insanity is doing the same things repeatedly, expecting a different result") was the equivalent of calling that person "insane". Simply absurd.

The problem with these sorts of article additions is that the pro-conspiracy people think that just because a reliable source mentions the conspiracy theory, that that automatically warrants inclusion. What these people tend to forget...either willfully or accidentally, I cannot say...is that there are several other policies that must be met and adhered to as well, as Scjessey lists above. Tarc (talk) 22:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I of course never said the argument that Tarc used was against WP policy, but pointed out the logical fallacy. I of cource said that it didn't belong in the article. Any hoo, there is an article on logical fallacies here at Wikipedia. Anyone who doesn't understand what an ad hominem fallacy is is welcome to explore it with me, and I'll explain any big/unfamiliar words on my talk page. I never suggested in any way that there was an attack, only a logical fallacy.Die4Dixie (talk) 02:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I just took a minute to look at the article on ad hominem, and it still means the same thing it did 20 years ago. I can explain the fallacy using British English spelling for our friends from across the pond too, if it will help them understand more readily.Die4Dixie (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It was neither, as I disparaged the argument that the person was making, not the person himself. Your frequent and insincere offers to "help" others "understand" what they already understand far more than you yourself do are rather uncivil, quite uncalled for, and do nothing to advance the discussion regarding the improvement of the article. Summation; quit while you're behind.

If there's nothing further that either you or Scottperry can offer to support the inclusion of this into the article, then it appears that this issue has petered out. Tarc (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I most certainly did not suggest that it should be included in the article. You do presume to know what I understand and do not. To imply that I did argue for its inclusion is a mendacious and dishonest act. As far as linking to in a "see also" section, there is not a problem. Information should not be hard to find, and it is an obvious link. Exploring it in the article is not. If you can't still understand, I could up load a video to Youtube and make monkey motions.Die4Dixie (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't go in a "See also" section. See WP:ALSO. Items are suitable for a "See also" section only if they would be suitable for the main text of a "hypothetical perfect article". Here, the better solution is to link to the article in question from a sub-article, which has already been done in this case. Incidentally, this is a very bad article talk page to be making monkey remarks.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

From the section that you linked to: "These may be useful for readers looking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question."I would tend to think that conspiracy theories about the subject of the article would be at least peripherally related to the subject. This quoted sentence epitomizes the reason for adding the links: so that readers can find information if they are looking for it. As far as the last statement you make, I would never associate monkey motions with the article, the talkpage or the subject of either to be sure.If you feel there is a connection in your mind, or that of others, I would be happy to refactor it, just say the word.Die4Dixie (talk) 03:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent).In fact, the article on JFK mention and link to conspiracy theories as soon as his assasination is mentioned. I'm not saying we need to link to conspiracy theories about his birth as soon as we mention his birth, but in a see also section is appropriate and inline with policy. A link is not an endorsement of the theory; but rather, allows readers interested find more information.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This is more an art than a science, but I think the policy suggests including something in a "See also" section only if it is excluded from the body of text due to size constraints, or is excluded from the body of text because the text hasn't been fully developed yet. Not just any old peripheral wikilink is supposed to go into a "See also" section. A less obtrusive place would be in a footnote, or in a sub-article.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I supose that both our readings are logical here. I might make a request for input/comment later and get broader community input.Other editors please note: 1) I do not say we need to mention them in the article and 2) I say based onmy reading of the policy it is appropriate although some might object on WP:DONTLIKEIT grounds. Others, like Ferrylodge might read the policy differently while acting in good faith.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories about JFK's assassination became (eventually) a cultural phenomenon, so avoid WP:FRINGE exclusion. Already debunked theories about Obama's citizenship that snagged a few moments on Fox during the election cycle do not pass WP:FRINGE by my most generous reading. Someday they might be important, on their own without WP mentioning them, but I say for now, forget about it.76.205.215.84 (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I could give more weight to your opinion if the weren't done by an anonymous Ip address with 2 edits and didn't pretend that Fox news was the only media outlet that covered the stories. I'm not suggesting the stories are true, just that they should be linked to. Please see point one and two above that I posted, and then I welcome you to hit the "About Wikipedia" link under "interaction" imediately below the search box on the left of your screen. Read a little and get back with us. You can also use the "Village Pump" for help understanding the project.Die4Dixie (talk) 07:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

None of this fringe material should be included in the article or the see also section. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding it to the article gives undue weight to this nonsense. In contrast, JFK links to conspiracy theories about the assassination, as they have been widely covered by all levels of media. Also, JFK is not a living person. BLP requires caution about posting stuff like this. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)