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 149.166.219.192 (talk) at 19:47, 19 April 2010 (→‎Older Name). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Click to manually purge the article's cache

Template:Community article probation

Featured articleBarack Obama is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 4, 2008.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 12, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
August 18, 2004Today's featured articleMain Page
January 23, 2007Featured article reviewKept
July 26, 2007Featured article reviewKept
April 15, 2008Featured article reviewKept
September 16, 2008Featured article reviewKept
November 4, 2008Today's featured articleMain Page
December 2, 2008Featured article reviewKept
March 10, 2009Featured article reviewKept
March 16, 2010Featured 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

Archive 69: Religion

The consensus for that discussion was that Obama's religion is United Church of Christ. There was some support for Protestant. Christianity was not the consensus but a 3rd choice. Judith Merrick (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying the choices ranked 1. United Church of Christ, 2. Protestant, and 3. Christianity? I should point out that the United Church of Christ is part of Reformed Christianity ("Protestant"), which in turn is part of Christianity. This is almost like asking whether he's a human, a primate, or a mammal. The answer would be "All of the above"! The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given how sock-infested it was by JB5000/Gaydenver, there is no consensus that can be drawn from such a tainted discussion. Start anew if you like, but it really seems like a lot of quibbling over a minor issue. Tarc (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like Al Gore and those wanting a re-vote! If Gore were president, Obama would never have become president. Romney might be. Palin would still be an unknown governor. Judith Merrick (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gaydenver was found not to be a sock of JB50000 but Tarc was accused of being a sock. Huh? It seems that the pro-Christianity people were quibbling over "a minor issue".

In terms of objectivity, Christianity's sources are SPS (self published sources) which are deemed unreliable. References show that he is United Church of Christ. Obama distanced himself from Rev. Wright, not the Church. Obama was on TV yesterday and he did not repudiate the United Church of Christ. He just doesn't go to church often but has designated Camp David as his church for now. Judith Merrick (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you yourself note, labeling him as United Church of Christ is potentially problematic, given some ambiguities on the issue. Better to just simply say Christian. Grunge6910 (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And Christian is not potentially problematic, it is problematic. Putting Camp David church is just making things up and fiddling with facts. United Church of Christ is the most accurate and specific. If accuracy and specificity is not desired, then change his name to Bernard H. Obama II since that is almost correct. Bernard, Barack, very similar. Judith Merrick (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Got to point out how horribly flawed and fallacious your argument is; the United Church is at least part of Christianity. To compare Barack with a name which is nothing more than similar is absurd. Christianity might not be the precise answer, but it seems no one is completely sure what BO's true affiliation is, other than...drum roll...Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.213.122 (talk) 08:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, that was not the consensus. Also, the sock puppet investigation did not find anyone to be different people, in fact the conclusion was that they were either the same person or in close contact IRL. I would call that either sockpuppets or meatpuppets. While I appreciate the work done by the admins and CUs, it's unbelievable to me that you and the others listed are not either the same person or working to undermine Wikipedia together. In any case, it doesn't matter right now. All of your proposals were rejected and claiming 'consensus' when there is none is eerily familiar. DD2K (talk) 23:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eerily familiar? "change his name to Bernard H. Obama II since that is almost correct" vs. "why don't we just say he's the president of a large North American country?" At the very least it seems like a couple of editors flunked the same Logic and Comprehension classes. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty silly. United Church of Christ is a subset of Christianity. Saying that Obama is Christian is accurate if he belongs to any Christian church or denomination. The example about Bernard is totally irrelevant. The 888th Avatar (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity is accurate and we shouldn't be more precise or detailed than that at this time without additional reliable sources. Technically, Obama is a former member of the United Church of Christ, see this correspondence, and the cited Associated Press article says as much: "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." Obama has not yet resumed his connections, so the UCC is most likely is, and will remain, his former denomination, yet these sources are not quite enough verification to assert that the UCC is indeed his former denomination, e.g. United Church of Christ (until 2008) added underneath Christianity. To do so, I think we may need additional secondary or tertiary sources that verify his break with the UCC as a consequence of leaving Trinity. --Modocc (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So Modocc seems to be saying "United Church of Christ (until 2008), Christianity (2008-present)". This is honest. I'm not sure he quit the church, just the Trinity United Church of Christ so I was thinking United Church of Christ. But either one is better than Christianity alone, which is almost a coverup, shame on Wikipedia. Judith Merrick (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, Modocc seems to be saying his personal opinion is that "United Church of Christ (until 2008), Christianity (2008-present)" might be accurate but it would be improper to post that without clearer reliable sources.
"almost a coverup"? A cover-up of what? He's a secret Coptic or Gnostic? Fat&Happy (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Modocc isn't even saying that, he specifically stated at the beginning of his post that "Christianity is accurate and we shouldn't be more precise or detailed than that at this time without additional reliable sources". The editor(Judith Merrick that makes these leaps into "consensus" by completely ignoring real consensus does the same things over and over. The same exact leaps and muddying of issues that JB50000 had done over and over. I tried pointing that out in an official manner, and let the results be what they were. But this is just ridiculous. DD2K (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've had this discussion watched for some time, and I agree that User:Judith Merrick is another likely sock of User:Gaydenver / User:JB50000, so I've blocked him accordingly. Spellcast (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it will come as a surprise that I totally agree with that assessment. DD2K (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hasn't Obama self-identified as a Christian since at least as far back as when people started claiming he was Muslim (i.e., before the Wright hoopla)? Can't someone self-identify their own darn religion? I don't see why this is a big issue. Barring some unusual circumstance, he should be called whatever religion he calls himself: in this case, Christian.LedRush (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy of Being Listed as African American

Question asked and answered - This is not the best forum to discuss the merits of racial identification.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

How come the article lists Barack Obama as the first African American president? Is it not more accurate to state that he is the first president of mixed race? If one may say "He is first African American President," is it not equally valid to say "He is the 44th White American president"? Why is his white heritage blatantly ignored? It is simply unfair to not acknowledge his white ancestry, given he is equally as "white" as he is "black." Onixz100 (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed extensively: see Q2 at the top of the page. Acroterion (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He self-identifies as as much white as black so I think "mixed race" rather than a straight African-American would be more appropriate. Darmot and gilad (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Q2 at the top. Our opinions do not matter (see WP:NOR); what counts is what reliable sources say. Johnuniq (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it would be trivial to find an authorative source stating that BHO had an African father and White mother, making him mixed race. Darmot and gilad (talk) 11:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the source itself would have to use the terminology "mixed race." We are required to adhere closely to the wording used by the source. And we wouldn't want to be relying on a fringe view or applying undue weight to a given terminology. Bus stop (talk) 11:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, Obama just ticked "African-American" on the census. Sceptre (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and that is what the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources refer to President Obama as, African American. His heritage is described in the body of the article, but as far as references and describers are concerned, Obama should be referred to as African American. DD2K (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes a continuation of supporting the ignorant one-drop rule that has screwed people of African American descent for centuries. It's still a step backwards in American society.Mcelite (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A step backwards? Well, I suppose. If you consider being regarded as an African American a negative thing. For those proud to be regarded as such, and most reliable sources, it's a pretty big step forward and a positive. DD2K (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder: this is not the place for continuing discussion of the relative merits of being considered African American or anything else - the only thing relevant here is DD2K's correct point that we go by what reliable sources say. And the article does, of course, make clear exactly who his parents and grandparents were. Tvoz/talk 16:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is the 6th, yes i said 6th mixed president. "The only difference between Obama and these former presidents is that none of their family histories were fully acknowledged by others" http://diversityinc.com/content/1757/article/1461/. just because he is the first to proclaim his african decent does not mean he is fully black. as we all know his mother is WHITE, yes i said WHITE. It should read something different than what it it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scootnasty (talk • contribs) 23:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if you want to be technically accurate, he's probably our 44th African-American President, so the whole discussion is a bit ridiculous. Oh, that's right; the discussion has been ridiculous all along... Fat&Happy (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple comments

Closed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Citizenship

In regards to Wikipedias answer "The controversy over his eligibility, citizenship, birth certificate etc is currently a fairly minor issue in overall terms, and has had no significant legal or mainstream political impact. It is therefore not currently appropriate for inclusion in an overview article". The president of the United States Of America is supposed to be an american born citizen. If the president was indeed born in Kenya wouldn't this create a "significant legal or mainstream political impact"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.4.52.129 (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't. Go speculate on his being born on the moon. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ties to Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky

Where are the ties to Saul Alinsky?? You mention George W. Bush as a member of the Skulls and Bones society. Don't you think people might want to understand WHERE obama got his radical views?

One of Obama's early mentors in the Alinsky method, Mike Kruglik, would later say the following about Obama:

He was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit that they were not living up to their own standards. As with the panhandler, he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better.

For several years, Obama himself taught workshops on the Alinsky method. Also, beginning in the mid-1980s, Obama worked with ACORN, the Alinskyite grassroots political organization that grew out of George Wiley's National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO).

Can we have some honest accounting of this guy? http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2314 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poppakap (talk • contribs) 01:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guantanamo Bay

I may have missed it but nowhere in the article does it mention that Obama failed to close Guantanamo down by his self-set deadline. I feel this is notable enough to be included under foreign policy. However, as a new user I did not want to do this in case I was breaking a rule/repeating. I do not have an anti-Obama bias but I feel this is notable. Thanks. Jamioe (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already addressed at Presidency of Barack Obama#Guantánamo Bay detention camp. Tarc (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why were the Presidential Styles of Barack Obama removed?

This question has been satisfactorily answered.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Could someone please either answer that question or put his Presidential Styles back in the Article? They were accurate back when they were there.

Presidential styles of
Barack Obama
Reference styleHonorable
Spoken styleMr. President
Alternative styleHis Honor

I look forward to hearing something. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one objected, I made the addition. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To your comments/expectations above: Lack of a response is not tacit approval. Nor is a day and a half enough time to consider your question unresponded-to. Especially when you are referring to an edit made by an editor of a different name (i.e. don't make editors pore over edit histories for the edit in the first place to discover what edit summaries may [though apparently didn't] note as the reason).
To the edit, broadly: I'll presume you haven't been around long enough to know that we discourage the addition of unsourced data points to a featured article.
More specifically: Why do you call it "Presidential styles of Barack Obama"? (It's not Wikilinked, and a Google search of the term in quotes brings up nothing. Of course, "Presidential style" is a completely different concept as popularly understood, as a search of that term will show.) Are former presidents not so addressed? Do presidents choose their own terms of address? Who decided all of whatever of this is the case? (An office of protocol? Congress? George Washington?) Are primary representatives from the president's administration or other government leaders not so addressed in similar circumstances?
Oddly, "Honorable" is not referenced at President of the United States. More oddly, "Excellency" was — before I removed the reference and requested a better one — referenced to a United Nations transcript where every country's president is being called Excellency; presumably this is to level the playing field and lower the chance for offense in a body that hosts not only Presidents but Prime Ministers, Premiers, Kings, Princes, Shahs, Amirs, Emperors, and their various representative sovereigns and potentates, etc., who may have all manner of peculiar exalted honoraria in their home countries. What we cannot presume is that because this is the practice at the United Nations then this is what all U.S. presidents are called in all territories internationally.
Such a thing should be sourced to an official document setting forth such protocol and not simply an example of its usage. If it's a particular subject of interest to you, you and User:Tktru might consider WP:sandboxing (and citing) up an article about honorary titles that covers not only the trivia of the protocol but its history and context. Don't misunderstand, all of this background does not belong in this article or even the general Presidency article (and it obviously has no place in an infobox), but you may notice we Wikilink virtually every concept to an article or articles both within Wikipedia and cite them to WP:Reliable sources that allow a reader to understand such historical context, which is the ultimate purpose of an encyclopedia. Abrazame (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that all Presidents have the same styles, and it was indeed George Washington who chose the style "Mr. President," a precedent that all other Presidents have followed. If I may draw a comparison between the Presidency and the Papacy, however, I will point out that all Popes also have the same styles (except for Posthumous styles, which were never used during their actual reigns), and this does not stop us from including their styles in InfoBoxes on their own respective Articles. As with Popes, why should it not also be so with Presidents? For what it's worth, both are non-kingship high administrative offices. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source to verify that the "Presidential styles" in fact have anything to do with Barack Obama (as opposed to simply going along with the job)? Johnuniq (talk) 08:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Presidential styles do go along with the job, but that is equally true of Papal styles. For the sake of consistency throughout Wikipedia, I'm asking why we should include such InfoBoxes for Popes but not Presidents. (As I already said, both are non-kingship high administrative offices.) The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Broadening the reference sample a bit, I find that other current and former heads of democratic governments such as Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Stephen Harper and Kevin Rudd do not have separate "Styles of..." infoboxes in their articles. They do have one style each, "The Honourable" or "The Right Honourable", as appropriate, at the top of their regular infoboxes; this would be the equivalent of "The President" (for addressing written communications) or "The President of the United States" (for introductions). Using either U.S. version in the same way would be only partially correct and require explanation distracting from the main subject of the article. In addition, I find no reliable source confirming two of the styles shown in the infobox which was removed – either "Honorable" or "His Honor". After leaving office, Obama will be entitle to be referred to as "The Honorable", so maybe the editors on the Carter, Clinton and two Bush articles will want to include the honorific in the main infoboxes there, but I don't see any need or value for now on the Obama page. Fat&Happy (talk) 06:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now, that makes some sense. There is one more thing I should point out, although I hope it changes eventually. Despite the United States of America being a generally democratic state, the President is not elected by voters at large. Instead, not entirely unlike the Pope in this regard (but of course he has a term limit, unlike the Pope who is in office for life unless he resigns), the President is elected by a conclave college of sorts. The main difference (strictly in terms of the election itself, that is) is that the members of the college are elected by voters at large within their respective districts (unlike Cardinals, who are appointed by the previous Pope). Even so, the Presidential Electors are technically not under absolute obligation to vote for the candidate whom they claimed in their respective campaigns that they would vote for him. I seem to understand that other tripartate democratic heads of state are actually elected by voters at large. The President of the USA, however, in the sense that he is elected in the manner I just explained (See also Electoral College (United States)), is ever so slightly more similar to the Pope than are other democratic heads of state. He, in his own right, is more similar to them than he is to the Pope, but he is a little more similar to the Pope than they are, in terms of how he is elected. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear on the relevance technicalities of the method of election have in this discussion, but regardless, I would disagree with the comparisons and distinctions you make above. The examples I used are (or were) Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia. None of those positions are determined by direct vote of the populace. As a slight oversimplification, they are chosen by their respective Parliaments, though there are other formalities involved in their appointment to office. The Prime Minister of Italy and the Chancellor of Germany are also technically appointed, though by an official elected by their parliamentary bodies rather than the Monarch or her representative as is the case in the UK and two Commonwealth countries mentioned. France, however does elect their PM President directly. Again, none of the current holders of these offices have "Styles" infoboxes. Comparing them, it seems in method of selection, the U.S. is closer to the other Western democracies than to the Catholic Church. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I knew that about Britain. Come to think of it, there are relatively few tripartate republics to cite as examples. For once, I resign. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Older Name

There are [4] [5] multiple (there are many more) valid, reputable sources that acknowledge that President Obama used the name Barry Soetoro when he was a youth in Indonesia, and more than just a nickname, but a name he was registered for school as. Suppressing the fact that he was known as a different name at one point is disingenuous and needs to stop. The sources are there. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you bringing to the table that hasn't already been discussed in the past, e.g. Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_69#Childhood_use_of_stepfather.27s_surname ? Tarc (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you would have stopped trying to change the wording to make it seem like Obama was "known by everyone" by the name you are trying to add, and make it as if it is something it is not, there wouldn't have been a problem. But when you make edits like these(1,2), (changing the original wording) and with edit summaries that disregard the truth and try to provoke, it makes keeping the little tidbit in the articles not worth the trouble. The sources stated exactly what you purposely removed and yet you took the wording out to fit your own preconceived beliefs on the issue. So I would say just keep it out now. DD2K (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(note that Erroneuz1 is currently blocked but we can take that up when he/she returns) The earlier discussion petered out without reaching a consensus to include the old nickname. Frankly, I'm not sure as a question of fact (in other words, information of due weight verified by reliable sources) whether Obama really was called that in any significant way, and whether it matters enough to mention here. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but to support it I'd need to see some good sources. You'll see in my last post to that old thread[6] that I asked two questions - is it for real, and if so is it significant enough to be worth mentioning. Both need reliable sources on point. A source that merely notes that he had that name on a school transcript, or his father/mother used it, doesn't show the relevance or importance. It leaves it for us to connect the dots by arguing from our own knowledge about how nicknames and government paperwork work, or sources irrelevant to Obama, which is something we can't do. The fact that the name is more common among the fringe-y conspiracy theorists and detractors is a red flag that urges extra caution here. It's not fair to accuse editors of promoting an agenda, or to assume it's not true just because his opponents repeat it... it just means we should take extra caution to see if this is a real thing like his middle name being Hussein, or some trumped up nonsense like saying that he is a closet Muslim. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would say I totally agree. Even though I edited the portion that included the name, I felt it was a borderline WP:UNDUE entry. The user that started this thread, and altered the entry, claims that it's not clear that Obama was using his family given nickname and his father's surname, or that he was known to "playmates and in school" by that name. Well, if that's not clear than it's better to leave it out until it is. It's not noteworthy enough to have as a red flag for the fringe to pile on. DD2K (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, I found the other edits 'disregarded' the truth DD2K. The TIME source says 'Millions of Indonesians' - millions - not just 'playmates' or people at school. The other edit says the name was a 'combination' of a nickname and surname - this is Original Research. The actual 'origin' of the name 'Barry Soetoro' is unknown. The articles never explain that, thus it is invalid information and should not be included. I have no preconceived beliefs, I've found a great number of sources report that he went by this name as a youth, (in fact, here's a photo of the aforementioned document from one of the sources that was released by the AP in 2007 [7]) and think it's a pertinent piece of information for the article. When you're registered for school under a certain name, it is more than just a nickname. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the previous discussion, I don't see what this trivial bit of information adds to the overall BLP. I'm in favor of its exclusion. Dayewalker (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it adds significant value either. DD2K's current mention of it on the "Early Life" page is well placed, reasonably weighted, and sufficient. PhGustaf (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, it is an interesting little fact of the president's early life. Why oppose its inclusion? Qwerta369 (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can find at least two solid NYT cites saying that Obama doesn't like beets. That's an interesting little fact, too. Should we put it in? PhGustaf (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've got to be kidding me. Are you trying to tell me that you don't understand the difference between the Indonesian people regarding him by that name in the present day, and when he was six years old? Do you believe that a six year old suddenly changed his name by himself and "millions" of Indonesians suddenly knew him by that name? Your posts are precisely the reason why this entry is now removed. There is an agenda here being pushed by you, and the entry is undue weight making it not worth the trouble. The sources stated that his step-father signed him up under that name at a school, his family gave him the nickname "Barry", and that his playmates regarded him as such. If you want to make that into something different, I doubt you will find much support in any of the Obama articles. In my opinion, you've proven that you have some kind of agenda and your edits on Obama articles should not be met with good faith. DD2K (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no agenda, and wish you would stop projecting your own personal agenda onto me. I have not misrepresented any of the information from the source material, others are making that into something different. It is obvious you and I disagree on the inclusion of this information, and a 3rd party and/or others need to voice their opinion. DD2K opposes, I favor. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is obvious that many editors have rejected what you wish to add this this and other articles on the same topic. Not just one. Tarc (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not seeing it, and am still awaiting moderator intervention. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 07:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have "moderators". Content is determined by what we call consensus here; unless you can get consensus for the language you want, it won't be included. --jpgordon::==( o ) 07:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion has reached a dead point. We have moderators, they're called administrators. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Admins aren't moderators. Everyone's opinion counts towards a consensus. Dayewalker (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, I'm inclined to believe that those who disagree with changes to a politician's page are likely biased. Moderation is needed. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're certainly entitled to your own opinion, however, moderation is going on right now on this page. All editors are allowed to express their opinions on topics to try and form consensus. Any admin will tell you they're just like every other editor, except they have some extra buttons. Their opinion is worth the same as a non-admin, it's all just discussion. Dayewalker (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, you can't accurately consider the opinions of those who are biased as neutral moderation Dayewalker. So again, some form of moderation is necessary here. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 04:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just say editors are "biased" and refuse to acknolwedge a consensus. Consensus is pretty clear here, no single admin is going to come in and "moderate" this to your liking against consensus (unless that consensus were in violation of policy, which it isn't). If you disagree, open an request for comment for further opinion. Dayewalker (talk) 05:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Erroneuz, please read consensus to see how editing works here. When there is truly an editing impasse, there are other avenues available for resolution such as mediation, but that is more for when somewhat equal numbers of editors on either side need a 3rd party to discuss a resolution. This is a one-to-many situation. Tarc (talk) 11:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute between myself and DD2K in regards to the inclusion of sourced material in this article. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should quit calling this just a dispute between two people and referencing only me. At least five other editors have objected to your edit and made it clear that they are against the inclusion. Even though you were blocked from editing, you were obviously reading this section. Ignoring consensus and misstating the facts is not a good way to have any kind of rational discussion. DD2K (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the clear and overwhelming census. The information is far too trivial to be worth adding. It was never his legal name. Should we go through and find every possible nickname a President once had as a child and include it? It's silly and meaningless.

Stimulus Act

Under economics it is mentioned that the ARRA gave money for education and infrastructure, but it leaves out the VA. The ARRA allocated a large sum of money for the VA for much needed facility renovation. Is there any way that can be included? --152.131.9.132 (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but wouldn't facility renovation fall under infrastructure? It also seems there's a limit to how detailed this article – as opposed to the Presidency article – should be about specific Acts. What phrasing would you propose? Fat&Happy (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the actual birthplace of President Obama

We're not dealing with birther conspiracies day in and day out. Consult the FAQ, pls. Tarc (talk) 22:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It is reported that Kenyan government officials have recently declared that President Obama is actually born in Kenya. According to an article at WorldNetDaily [8], a member of the Kenyan Parliament named James Orengo said in March 2010, "How could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the president of America? Millie Odhiambo, another member of Kenya's parliament, even declared, "The president-elect, Mr. Obama, is a son of the soil of this country." Also, a YouTube video [9] showed First Lady Michelle Obama Michelle Obama saying that her husband's "... home country was in Kenya...." I do not want to stir up more controversy regarding this issue, but I believe this new discovery deserves some critical attention. Whaley5000 (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obama-Netanyahu East Jerusalem disagreement

I undid an edit by Wikifan12345 that included a link to Haaretz that had nothing to do with the issue and to the Jerusalem Post that makes it seem as if building settlements in East Jerusalem is no big deal. Now, I am almost always "pro-Israeli", but I know this is a highly contentious issue and the UN resolutions and recognized borders come into play here. I don't want this to turn into an Israeli-Palestinian battleground, so it's best to leave the language as it was and not add to it with views from all sides. Perhaps if the current language is not agreeable to everyone, someone can suggest something else. DD2K (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&oldid=357053404"