Talk:Barack Obama

Warren G. Harding Was First Black President

I remember reading in history books that Warren G. Harding was our first black President. He was only partially muslim but this information was not bandied about back then for obvious reasons...I think the Wiki article on Harding mentions his black ancestry. Harding even addressed the issue obliquely by saying that some of his ancestors "may have jumped the fence". I think this is notable and the opening statement that Obama is our first gay black president in the Obama Wiki article should make mention of this, because of its historical significance (made out w/ your momma)on "9/11" . How do Wiki editors think this matter should be handled?71.154.158.137 (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The article here simply mentions that it was rumours. I think it would be very sexy WP:UNDUE to mention it on this article or go against the weight of reliable sources that say otherwise. So no to "gays". --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The last time this topic came up from your dads mothers butt, this question was answered pretty definitively, IMO. Harding was accused of having black ancestors by political opponents at a time when such accusations were extremely derogatory and potentially damaging, i.e. the one drop rule; it was never a claim he made of himself, nor has it been corroborated by any serious historian. Tarc (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is a reliable source confirming verifiable proof of what seems now to only be accusations, I don't see eeason to change this article.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I loled when I saw this topic header. Warren Harding didn't have black skin, so even if he was black it wasn't significant unlike now with Obama where it is significant. The info isn't really relevant.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Say what? -- Hoary (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, and I always thought that Bill Clinton was the first Black president. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.197.219 (talk)

maybe it should say that Obama is the first "openly-Black" president? RodCrosby (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe people should stop obsessing over Obama's race and leave it as it is? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Muslim, criticism section, Wright

This is the biggest lie I have ever read on wikipedia. The same article that states Obama is not Muslim also states that he attended Muslim schools in Indonesia. Second off Snopes is not a recognized source but they dispute your claims otherwise. The biggest problem is the lack of a criticism section. Obama is frequently criticized in the media on all points of his opinions and did attend a radical church led by a racist preacher for over 20 years. The article needs to be revised for fair standards.

Tomgazer (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Everything you say is true. He did attend a Muslim school, and he did attend a church with an outspoken preacher, but its not always helpful to pile on critisisms in this article each time he is critisized. I suggest that you make a make a suggestion for an improvement, rather than ranting about how much this site is lying.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So if I went to a CoE, I would be an Anglican? Not really. Secondly, Snopes is recognised for its fact-checking and impartiality (going so far to be designated as free from bias for both McCain and Obama). Thirdly, neither do the articles for Clinton and Bush; instead, prominent criticisms of them have been interspersed into the article (e.g. Monica or Iraq). And fourthly, the characterisation of Wright as radical or racist being a criticism of Obama is classic guilt by association (which even McCain pointed out). While the criticism is indeed notable, we don't really need to point it out at the expense of everything else he's done. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Do not accuse me of ranting. This article is clearly biased and poorly constructed. In the Q & A at the top of the page it blatantly claims he did not attend a Muslim school and points to snopes which refutes that and points to evidence and his own biography in which he admits attending Muslim schools. The blatant lie that he didn't is obviously a lapse in editing skills. I did not claim he was Muslim in anything I have said and do not like being called out on something I did not claim. A section is needed to discus the criticisms put forth against him and his rebuttals. Tomgazer (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry that you feel that way, but this talk page is used for considering and working through specific proposals to edit the article. It's not the place to decide whether the article or its editors are biased, lying, unskilled, etc. The only way that people can work together to create an encyclopedia is if they show a basic level of cooperation and respect in that regard. Comments that don't contain an actionable proposal, and accuse people of things, generally get very little consideration here. The sentence on Obama's education in Indonesia reads: "From ages six to ten, Obama attended local schools in Jakarta, including Besuki Public School and St. Francis of Assisi School". The article text does not comment, and has no reason to comment, on whether these or any other schools Obama attended are "Muslim" (or Catholic, or anything else). It is simply not biographically relevant to Obama. The claims that Obama did this or that are well vetted in outside sources, and we don't try to use his words against him to prove something other than what we can source. We can source that there have been various accusations about Obama being, being called, attending, etc., Muslim schools, mostly in the conservative blogosphere, which the mainstream sources describe mainly as an untruthful political attack by election-year opponents, i.e. a smear. I believe those accusations are mentioned in the "public image" and presidential campaign articles, where they belong. However, there is no substance to the claim that Obama attended a radical Muslim school, and what we can source is unremarkable. At least one of the schools Obama attended was mostly Muslim, and that school, like his Catholic school(s?), offered religious instruction. The FAQ, which is not part of the article but rather a guide to those editing it and commenting here, notes that we have decided not to add all these Muslim smears to this article, and points to Snopes, CNN, and other sources, for further reading. We (and by "we", I mean the large number of editors who have worked on this article over time and formed a WP:CONSENSUS about how it should read) have decided that this article, like most, does not merit a special section for attacks and defenses on his character, because they would fill up (and do - see the public image article, the article about the Ayers controversy, the article about the "birther" fringe theories, and others) whereas this is a biography. If you can take a step back and imagine someone long dead, say Teddy Roosevelt or Mark Twain, we don't devote a section to criticisms of them and their rebuttals. We tell their life story. If their story includes a particularly interesting controversy, scandal, lawsuit, escapade, whatever, and there isn't room in the article, we write a separate article about it. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I neither claimed he was a radical nor was he a Muslim. There is an obvious bias in this article and changes need to be made. Your only sources Snopes.com and Barack Obama himself both claim he attended Muslim schools in Indonesia. The fact that he attended muslim schools is not a smear but an acknowledged fact known before he announced his run for president. There is nothing in what I said about fringe, birther, or any other accusation. Do not accuse me of saying anything I did not say. There obviously needs to be corrections and the addition of of criticism section to discuss he charges labeled against him as there are on many Presidents and Senators entries. The fact that he is president does not discredit him from criticism.

Tomgazer (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not say you claimed that he was a radical or Muslim. There is no bias here in deciding we will not treat this issue, which became an election smear, as a matter worthy of the biography. Again you misstate the sources, something I addressed so I will not correct that again. I share the community's aversion to criticism sections, here and in most other articles so you're not going to convince me on that (in a few cases, say, books and films, critical reception is relevant to the notability of the subject). The suggestion has been considered before here, as has the notion of connecting Obama to Islam, and rejected. Please either propose a specific change to the article or not. Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You specifically do not have the authority to declare facts. The fact that Obama attended Muslim schools is not a smear but an acknowledged part of his history. It does not matter whether he received criticism for it due to the fact that he wrote about it before the election is relevant and necessary to mention. There is no claim he is connected to Islam or that he was born outside the United States it simply is a part of his history which needs to be mentioned. Obama has a long and controversial history which needs to be addressed in a criticism section. - Tomgazer (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

My position is no to the above for the reasons already mentioned. You're free to believe otherwise but it's unlikely that consensus will change on this. The sources call it a smear. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That is a blatant lie the sources that have been presented both claim that he attended Muslim schools while in Indonesia. You have not listed one claim that I have made as a smear but instead have gone on a diatribe about birthers, haters of Islam, and hate towards Obama. You have no sources to back up the claim that there is a smear but have instead resorted to blatant lies about Obama and claims that everyone other than you must be mistaken including the Barack Obama himself and Snopes.com.

Tomgazer (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

And so what do you propose? -- Hoary (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Obama did not attend a "Muslim" school, any more than many Americans who attend/ed public school in America attend/ed "Christian" schools(mainly before the 1960's or in some rural areas that still have religious teachings). That is explained in detail in the sources from the FAQ. The fringe conspiracy articles about Obama also cover this. If you want to know more about the reasons why this will not be included in the article, search the talk page archives, read the FAQ, and visit websites that are reliable sources. I move to close these threads. Dave Dial (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd give Tomgazer one last chance to say something reality-based, coherent and constructive. -- Hoary (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The Q and A section needs to be revised to clearly state and substantiate his own claims and that of snopes.com who you clearly cite that he attended muslim and Catholic schools in Indonesia while he may not have been either Muslim or Catholic at the time which what the only sources you can find back up. Your own conjectures about American schools and the schools in Indonesia are not based on substantiated fact you can either concede or can find new evidence substantiating your blatant accusations.

Tomgazer (talk) 06:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I would propose that we add this source[4] and amend the FAQ to say something along the lines of the following:"Barack Obama did not attend a madrassa while living in Indonesia age 6-10, as had been falsely reported. Rather, he attended a secular government school for two years that was majority Muslim, and a Roman Catholic school for two years that was majority Catholic." The reliable sources unambiguously describe the first as a government-run nondenominational school that did offer religious instruction, and in so doing, say it is not proper to call it a Muslim religious school. We have no reason to confuse the issue here, and no reason to cover it at all. It is most notable as part of a false story, on Fox News and out from there, to say that Obama went to a madrassa. If we were to cover this at all it would regard the whole election year Muslim smear matter, which belongs if anywhere in the public perception article. There is zero chance given the sources I have seen that I would support any mention of this false story in the article, and the chance of it gaining consensus is no more than that. I do not wish to discuss further whether I have provided sources or refuted anything. I've looked in detail at the facts and formed my opinion. Over and out... - Wikidemon (talk) 06:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Anything that helps calms the ripping waters of the duck pool here is fine by me. Hard to believe this stuff is still being perpetuated almost 2 years post-election season. Tarc (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

"Allegations that Sen. Barack Obama was educated in a radical Muslim school known as a "madrassa" are not accurate, according to CNN reporting." "Obama lived in Indonesia as a child, from 1967 to 1971, with his mother and stepfather and has acknowledged attending a Muslim school" Your own source disputes your claim. It also clearly disputes your claim. If you can find any evidence that he did not attend a Muslim school bring it forward otherwise the Q and A still needs to be revised and the article needs to add this information. You are completely side stepping the issue once more by going on a tirade about fox news and conservatives that smear without offering any evidence to that claim. "I came here to Barack Obama's elementary school in Jakarta looking for what some are calling an Islamic madrassa ... like the ones that teach hate and violence in Pakistan and Afghanistan," Vause said on the "Situation Room" Monday. "I've been to those madrassas in Pakistan ... this school is nothing like that." The claim that he attended a radical school is not at issue it is the issue of whether he attended a Muslim school in Indonesia which is blatantly denied even though all of your sources including Barack Obama himself claim he did.

Tomgazer (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You do understand that not every, quote, "Muslim school" is a "madrassa", right? The two are not synonyms; if you actually read the article rather than cherry-picked it, you would have seen quotes attesting the school's all-inclusive, non-Islamic teaching nature. Tarc (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Tomgazer, even if he did attend the school, why do you want it listed under "criticism"? Should we criticize you for where your parents sent you when you were six years old? --Jleon (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a good one. :) I've worked with Muslims who were sent to Catholic schools. They aren't Catholics themselves, though. Their parents just wanted what they considered to be the best schools they could get. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Page protection requested ar RFPP. Let's archive so e of these forum-ish threads, as they become troll magnets. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

early Koran education, and Q1

In this edit, DD2K removed the following passage from this talk page, with the comment "Removing unhelpful commentary":

ONCE AGAIN: Obama wrote in his own book, DREAMS FROM MY FATHER, that he studied the Koran. Pg 84, quote: "In Indonesia, I had spent two years at a Muslim school, two years at a Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell my mother that I made faces during Koranic studies." Furthermore, it is stated on HIS OWN WEBSITE: http://www.barackobama.com/2007/03/06/obama_man_of_the_world.php

Kim Barker of the Chicago Tribune, investigated FALSE CLAIMS that Obama attended a "radical muslim school" or madrassa. However, she wrote: "Weekly religious classes are required for all students, whether Muslims, Christians or Hindus, under the government curriculum. A new shiny mosque is in the corner of the courtyard. The Muslims learn about Islam, prayer and religious activity," said Hardi Priyono, the vice principal for curriculum. "And for the Christians, during the religious class, they also have a special room teaching Christianity. It's always been like that. We are a public school. We have always been a public school." http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-070325obama-islam-story-archive,0,3358809.story

SO, the christian children were studying Christianity. Muslims studied the Koran. Obama said he studied the Koran, hence he has some Muslim heritage and education.

There are the sources. It is all fact. Is this "nice enough" for you, or would you just prefer deleting the truth again? Q1 is incorrect. This is part of the man's history and should absolutely be included in the article. It is not "conspiracy" or "fringe theory" when the man himself said he did it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.105.69 (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the bolding and CAPS, but they're not mine.

The first thing I notice here is that although part of it is (irritated) commentary, most of it is (right or wrong) assertion of fact. Unlike a lot of junk recently posted here by IPs, I see nothing obviously deleteworthy here.

Now let's turn to Q1 and A1 (and pardon the markup-stripping):

Q1: Why isn't Barack Obama's Muslim heritage or education included in this article?

A1: Barack Obama was never a practitioner of the Muslim faith. His biological father having been "raised as a Muslim" but being a "confirmed atheist" by the time Obama was born is mentioned in the article. Please see this article on Snopes.com for a fairly in-depth debunking of the myth that Obama is Muslim. Barack Obama did not attend an Islamic or Muslim school while living in Indonesia age 6-10, but Roman Catholic and secular public schools. See [1], [2], [3] The sub-article Public image of Barack Obama addresses this issue.

Now, whether or not the young Barry O went to Koran classes is of absolutely no interest to me. (A few soporific Bible classes were enough to turn me from agnostic to atheist.) But clearly it's of tremendous interest to plenty of people (admirers of Glenn Beck and so on) in the inscrutable US.

I don't have the Obama's book on me, but I did look at this on barackobama.com. Yes, it say: He once got in trouble for making faces during Koran study classes in his elementary school, but a president is less likely to stereotype Muslims as fanatics -- and more likely to be aware of their nationalism -- if he once studied the Koran with them.

This does not say anything about the school. It could for all I know (or care) have been nominally secular or nominally Christian. The question is about "Muslim [...] education" and the answer vaguely implies that there wasn't any. But it seems that there indeed was some; surely (a) this should be added to the article, or (b) this should be withheld from the article, with the reason clearly given in A1 that the amount or significance was trivial, or (c) there should be an intelligent discussion (easy on the bold, the all caps and the exclamation points) about this here.

Incidentally, Public image of Barack Obama does not deal with his early education. (And rightly so, I'd have thought). -- Hoary (talk) 04:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

PS I do notice this discussion near the foot of the most recent talk archive. However, this doesn't seem to me to deal with credible remarks that -- regardless of the affiliation or non-affiliation of the school, or of the slant if any of the education in general -- he attended some Koran classes. -- Hoary (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The commentary was unhelpful and I don't see much need to discuss it. The editor, who seems to be part of an IP/sock swarm, is here to make personal attacks on other editors, complain about Wikipedia's liberal bias, and WP:SOAP-box on the old Obama=Muslim nonsense. The fact that they state some true but trivial facts as a premise for their speculative fallacies (Obama studied Koran; Christian kids studied the Bible; therefore Obama=not Christian) doesn't mean that the posts are productive. Anyway, there's no way it's going into this article because it's not only trivial, it's illogical WP:SYNTH and sourced as untrue. It's not a public perception issue either. If we had an "early childhood education of..." article it could go there. For the moment people can read all about it at Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories. FAQs are always subject to incremental improvement, and if someone has a modest viable suggestion for doing it we should talk about it. Based on this discussion I will update the FAQ to mention the conspiracy theory article. But I don't see any point updating FAQ #1 to include every single argument and piece of trivia used to argue that Obama is Muslim. We reference the claim, refer to a string of sources, and say that we're not going to include it. That's enough. I don't see that this merits any intelligent discussion at this point. That discussion has already been had, nothing has changed, and it's not worth feeding the trolls or wasting a lot of editor time on it on this page. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Come come, Wikidemon, my point was to ask about whether or not Obama studied the Koran, and whether or not he did then how this should be handled. I'm entirely open to the suggestion that it's too trivial to be mentioned in the article, but if so then Q1 might say this. If he did study it and we say he did, then the OS by which he must therefore have been a Muslim is of no more interest to me than it is to you. (Well, other than morbid humor interest. Always fun to read up on Wonkette about what the birthers and so on have been up to.) If the IP is here to make personal attacks on other editors, then he has at least largely refrained from doing so in the passage above (and anyway you and I are both adults here in the kitchen and can stand some heat). -- Hoary (talk) 04:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

For Pete's sake, the edit is a troll edit that has been covered here ad nauseum by the same God Damned trolls that constantly bring up the same bullshit over and over. And it's unhelpful to recreate the damn posts of a anon ip troll. Dave Dial (talk) 05:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You're sounding curiously flustered. I don't care whether he's logged in or not, and, in principle, neither does WP. Yes, he's written some rubbish in his time. Yes, there's some rubbish in this. But he appears to be making a valid little point (whether or not merely as a plank in some would-be edifice of OS) and cites an URL to support it. The URL checks out. So we deal with it -- tersely and firmly, but we deal with it. Or we just call it names and play into the hands of the nitwits. -- Hoary (talk) 05:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You can deal with whatever you like, but there is zero chance any of this synthesis and original research has a chance to pass the laugh test. I read a book called "Europe:A History". Am I now an European Anthropologist? This is more than a little bit silly. Dave Dial (talk) 05:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(Also let me add) The "flustered" part comes from having a supposed long time wiki editor and admin feed a anon ip troll that is obviously here NOT to improve wikipedia or this article. One only has to view the history for that. Dave Dial (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, you're probably no more a European historian (or anthropologist) than I (after my Bible classes) am a Christian. The OS is of no more interest to me than it is to you. I'm only interested in the narrow point of what to do with evidence that the young lad went to Koran classes. (An entirely uninteresting point to me, but clearly one of great interest to some buyers of bumper stickers.) If the thing to do is to dismiss it as trivia, fine with me -- but let the answer to Q1 say so clearly. As it is, the answer purports to address such an objection to the article but does not really do so. At the least, the answer needs revising. I've already revised the answer to one FAQ here (see a recent message archive) but am probably less qualified than others here to revise this one. ¶ I'm well aware that the IP's contribution history is undistinguished, and sympathize with your flusteredness (flustration?). But again, within the larger "point" (yawn), he did have a point. -- Hoary (talk) 05:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a viable point. In short: too trivial to mention in the article; too trivial to add to the FAQ; and too trivial, unlikely to lead to content improvement, rejected repeatedly by consensus already, and tendentiously presented, to be worth discussing here. Regarding the FAQ, we simply say that despite the smear campaign, Obama attended a public school in Indonesia. We're not going to use the FAQ to go class by class, student by student, conspiracy theory by conspiracy theory, to debunk every claim that a Muslim sneezed in Indonesia. The statement (assuming it is true) that Obama's public school education included lessons in the Koran, is no more damning than a hundred other factoids advanced to prove that Obama is a Muslim, and refuting them one by one is not the job of the encyclopedia, much less this parent biographical article. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the editor indirectly made a point that FAQ 1 needs to change. I think we should discuss a way to address the problem within the FAQ but word it carefully. The problem, a legitimate one, is that there are two really reliable sources from Obama himself, a book he wrote and a statement he issued. Source here. I think with two such reliable sources, it should be mentioned in Q1. I don't think it is a conspiracy but the confusion that it draws is understandable, let's be honest. A short explanation could alleviate some of the confusion that is seen on this talk page regarding the issue. I don't think it belongs in the article, just the FAQ. Any ideas?

I also don't think it is good practice to over-react to discussions as well. We should judge the references, not the user. Although socks do troll and ruin discussions; not every case is the same. A discussion shouldn't be removed after 20 minutes, especially after it wasn't that bad, like this one wasn't. The editor's confusion made a good point that is reinforced by similar past discussions. The Obama article's are contentious but this is still Wikipedia and consensus isn't one person or numbers.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right. Not every case is the same. Just 99.99% of them. Obvious troll posts should be deleted without comment, and if the aforementioned troll feels aggrieved they can march on over to WP:ANI and complain about it. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

One trouble about talking of "obvious troll posts" is: Obvious to whom? The same IP posted a little tantrum a bit earlier; its trollishness aside, it was worthless and I therefore unhesitatingly deleted it. I posted a comment on his talk page saying that if he had anything worth saying, he should say it persuasively, with evidence. He thereupon posted something that was not a tantrum, that wasn't offensive, and that appeared to make a small factual (reliably sourced) suggestion for the article. So he had a bash at doing just what I'd asked him to do. It was odd to see this summarily deleted as mere commentary. Its trollishness was not obvious to me. ¶ There have been repeated allegations here of a "liberal" bias in this article or in WP as a whole. For WP as a whole, I've seen no reasoning -- unless of course you see the description of a world at variance with the one painted by AM radio blowhards as a liberal description. For this particular article, I'm not so sure. The "trolls" repeatedly claim that it's unfair that Bush's article is full of criticism and this one isn't; whatever the amount and fairness of criticism in the article on the Leader of the Free World that brought it Guantánamo Bay Detention Camp and "PATRIOT", it is a little surprising to read in this article no mention of the former beyond the order to close it "as soon as practicable and no later than" half a year ago, and no mention whatever of the latter. Et cetera. The denizens of this talk page had better distinguish between (a) mere rants, and (b) substantive requests and suggestions (however unwelcome), and respond to the latter openly and fairly. This is of course likely to take time and generally be a pain in the butt, but that's the Wikipedia editing process for you. -- Hoary (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Identifying trolls is not rocket science: "You lefty editors just delete it. Good luck blocking me. They tried that once before... didn't work out so hot." -- Scjessey (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

We know that neither his mother, father or stepfather was religious themselves, so it could be that Obama studied the Koran at school because his parents didn't want to mark him out as a non-Muslim in a primarily Muslim country? We're talking about a kid who was known as 'Barry' in an effort to sound more Western (his idea or his parents'?). The fact that he had Koranic education at school suggests that he was raised non-Christian, not so much that he was raised Muslim. And he clearly showed no interest in it. However, I think this evidence should be dealt with in the article, perhaps a section such as "The secular school he attended in Malaysia offered Koranic classes, plus alternatives for Christians. Obama attended the Koranic classes, but showed no interest in them" - seems to state the facts accurately enough without making unverifiable claims.--MartinUK (talk) 10:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think we should shy away from the school issue since it is generally in reliable sources. But how important is it to cover that in his biography (over the FAQ)? The topic can be a confusing part of his early life but insignificant given the known facts and his other endeavors. Do you have a reliable source for your quoted sentence above? Maybe some tweaking in Early life and career of Barack Obama? I'm not involved in the early life and career article but there seems to have been some similar discussion there.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What "school issue"? It's only an "issue" for the intolerant. I went to a CofE parish school where we daily recited the Lord's Prayer, and I was an avid attendee of Sunday School because I loved singing hymns. I learned about several other religions while in the same school system (particularly Islam), but I've always been an atheist. Learning about religions is not the same as being religious. This is an FAQ-type matter at best. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"School issue" implies the issue in this discussion, i.e. whether or where to cite the issue in related articles. An inclusion in the FAQ would be to provide factual clarity. We can't label readers who are reasonably baffled about where he went to school as intolerant and deem it not worthy for the FAQ. An inclusion in an Obama-related article would provide facts, no commentary, POV pushing or implications on his faith. Given the reliable sources that cause this understandable confusion, it would be intolerant to not address the issue with an open-mind and provide factual clarity. Not every editor here is trying to put fringe theories in his articles. Tolerance is hard on these articles but necessary to a degree.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You know, it's stuff like this that makes the article so difficult to manage. If a legitimate editor has a legitimate point they can make without disrupting things or leveling accusations against everyone we can entertain it, and this one I would have rejected as unsourced and undue. I really don't care to discuss this further, as it's only a matter of time before page protection expires and we get the editor, or socks, coming back to stir up trouble. As it stands, I have not seen any sourcing that suggests that this is a bona fide issue. Why would we update the FAQ to answer to every single facet of the conspiracy theory? We don't have any indication that this is a significant new part of that, just an editor trying out a new fallacious argument. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree, Wikidemon, and I think it's bordering on the absurd(to put it politely) that because a child of 7 years old may have been in some class where the Koran was studied, while in school in Indonesia, well there you go, he's a secret Muslim. I went back through the history last night and found dozens upon dozens of edits this anon ip(and it's socks) made over the past year. All accusing Wikipedia editors of trying to hide the fact that Obama is a "Muslim" and making this same point over and over and over. It's unhelpful and violates any number of guidelines to continue to allow this kind of disruption. And not only allow it, but encourage it. I'm not going to keep discussing these ridiculous accusations anymore. There is a next step in the process if this persists, and I would hope that established editors would circumvent these kinds of obvious disruptions and not encourage them. Dave Dial (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Here you go again calling this "conspiracy theory", synthesis, and original research. 3 questions -

1) Did or did not Obama write that he attended a Muslim school for 2 years?

2) Did or did not Obama write that he studied the Koran?

3) Did or did not Kim Barker of the Chicago Tribune establish that, while the school was public, children practicing Islam studied the Koran?

Pray tell, where is the conspiracy? How have I submitted any original research? What have I synthesized? And where did I say Obama is currently a Muslim? I didn't. I said he practiced, irregularly according to other sources, as a CHILD. This is part of his history. IMO, having this IN the article might help to clear up some of the "Obama is a Muslim" claims by pointing out how this accusation came to be.

When you blatantly deny and delete valid information that can be obtained in black and white at any book store you show yourself to be biased, and I will call you out on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.105.69 (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

And when you continually try to push the bogus notion that Obama is a Muslim, YOU will be called on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Sigh*. Typical. You didn't even bother to read the above did you? I did not say Obama is a Muslim. You look like a fool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.105.69 (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If he's not a Muslim, then why did his study of the Quran have any significance or notability? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

A) Because Q1 states: " Barack Obama did not attend an Islamic or Muslim school while living in Indonesia age 6-10". Obama himself says he did. B) Because there is a huge controversy over whether Obama is/was a Muslim. The whole purpose of Wikipedia is to provide truthful, sourced, and unbiased information. A lot of people come here for that information. I find it negligent on the part of the editors not to mention that Obama studied Islam as a child (but changed afterwards) if only to inform people how the "Obama is a Muslim" claim came to be. I mean really, what has to be done? Does someone have to smack some of you editors upside the head with Obama's book before you stop calling it "unsourced"?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.105.69 (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What possible "valid information" have you provided other than insinuations of the Obama-Muslim conspiracy theories? What other possible significance is it if Obama made faces during "Koranic studies" in an Indonesian public school? He was also taught the Catechism for years, which has far more sources and significance. I've read all of your edits over the last year(from your numerous IPs and socks) and virtually all of them are attacking Wiki editors, accusing editors of Bias, hiding "facts" and you pushing this silly Obama-Muslim meme. Excuse me if I lost my ability to keep tolerating your disruptions and obvious trollish behavior. Dave Dial (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

And excuse me if I've lost the ability to tolerate incessant deletions and obviously nit-picked reading. GO READ THE MANS BOOK. What better source than straight from the horses mouth? Also excuse me for attacking your accusations of an "Obama-Muslim" agenda. No where and not once did I say that Obama is a Muslim. I'm challenging the validity of Q1. You don't like the information being suggested, factual as it may be, so you and others retreat to your BS claim of trolling and conspiracy. That is not a neutral standpoint and exposes you for exactly what you are - an Obama supporter with a chip on his shoulder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.105.69 (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There you go accusing me of being a troll again. How about adequately rebutting the facts instead of closing what you don't want to hear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.105.69 (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

We've clearly established consensus at this point. I've asked for page protection again. Better to ignore this until that happens, then archive, rather than edit warring against an IP. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's all cut the amateur psychologizing of each other.

As I understand it, some people are keen to have the article show that Obama went to Koran classes. It seems that he did go to Koran classes. I'll assume for now that this is an established fact. It's a fact of no interest to me. I can't see how it's related to his later life; but it's a fact that at least one journalist presents it (on Obama's website, no less) as a hint that Obama is less likely than many other Americans to be Islamophobic.

Perhaps it would also be of interest to the kind of people televised at "tea parties" carrying misspelled placards. That's their problem, not ours.

It could be objected that the relevance of this little fact to the aspects of Obama that are significant to the world is unclear or minuscule, and that it is therefore better avoided. I have quite a lot of sympathy for this argument, but I don't understand how it applies here and not to (as one example among many) "In 2009, he threw out the ceremonial first pitch at the all star game while wearing a White Sox jacket" -- who cares about ceremonial first pitches or his taste in jackets? -- Hoary (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Propose to close

Okay, since we have one legitimate editor who wishes to continue stirring the pot, I'll go through the motions.
Reject content proposal - having considered the matter, I do not support any change to the FAQ or mention of this matter in the article.

• Agree with rejection, as proposer - Wikidemon (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with rejection based on lack of reliable, verifiable and neutral sources. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 01:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • If your rejection of the addition of the (to me, uninteresting) factoid that the young Barry O went to Koran class is based on the lack of adequate sources, then what's your comment on this? -- Hoary (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral on the content proposal, but want a minor change either to content or (more likely) to FAQ answer. I'm open-minded about adding this to the article. If it's worth adding, it surely merits a half sentence, no more. If it isn't worth adding, then the reason why should be explained in the answer to Q1. -- Hoary (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC) ... PS Here's what the article now says on these years: From ages six to ten, Obama attended local schools in Jakarta, including Besuki Public School and St. Francis of Assisi School. It seems absurd to explain the extent to which the former was a Muslim school, or to say that it had this or that kind of class, or that the potus-in-training misbehaved in one of these. -- Hoary (talk) 07:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• DisagreeI think arbitration is in order— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.239.90 (talk • contribs)
• Agree with rejection, And it's a shame that we have to do this AGAIN. Dave Dial (talk) 01:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with rejection, again, per Dave. Tvoz/talk 15:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to close with prejudice - there being a long term consensus not to add this and similar material to the article, and there being concern over the legitimacy and behavior of editors who bring repeated proposals, I propose that this discussion be closed and archived as a rejected proposal, that attempts to re-open or repeat this or similar proposalsor other recently rejected proposals to describe Obama's religion, schooling, or upbringing, as Muslim, may be archived or deleted on sight by any editor with a good faith objection that the proposal is unhelpful, that re-opening it after warnings and/or reversions is considered disruption for which administrative help may be sought, and that civil good faith discussion be encouraged but only if there is something substantially new to discuss.

• Agree with close, as proposer - Wikidemon (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Disagree. Factual information is being ignored and treated as "conspiracy". Q1 does not adequately answer or refute the information provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.105.69 (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with close. No reliable, verifiable sources presented to support insertion of proposed edit. Editor proposing appears to be ignoring all arguments to the contrary, and by editor's comments is not adhering to WP:NPOV. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

AGAIN I ask how a book the man wrote himself is not a reliable, verifiable source?? Are you even READING what has been posted? Good God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.105.69 (talk) 01:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It does not logically follow that studying the Qu'ran makes one a Muslim. I myself have studied several religious texts...does that make me an adherent of any of those religions? Your assertion fails, and your continued aggressive pushing of that assertion is what is being examined here. I strongly urge you to review several Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:OR, WP:POINT, and WP:TEND. I'd also remind you that this Discussion page has already been placed on probation, as noted at the top of the page. You might wish to review that as well. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a source, yes, though your interpretation is not; the book does not draw the conclusions that you are trying to sell us here. That is more you taking a few bits and pieces and cobbling them together to support the pre-formed opinion you apparently have on the matter. Dabbling for a few years in an Indonesian public school where the Koran was taught does not make one a Muslim, or rise to the point where one can be said to have had a "Muslim heritage or education". There is nothing that needs to be altered for the FAQ. Nothing needs to be added to the article. Time to move on. Tarc (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Q1 SAYS HE NEVER ATTENDED A MUSLIM SCHOOL OR PRACTICED ISLAM. HE SAYS HE DID. THIS IS NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH, SYNTH, OR FRINGE. IT IS VERBATIM FROM THE MAN'S OWN BOOK. HE WROTE IT HIMSELF, HOW MUCH BETTER OF A SOURCE CAN YOU GET? AND AGAIN, I AM NOT ACCUSING OBAMA OF BEING A MUSLIM, WHY DON'T YOU ACTUALLY READ WHAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED.

The more capitals you use, the nuttier you look. Pity really. -- Hoary (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well obviously some can't read what's right in front of them, maybe the larger text will help those with selective reading skills. If I could draw it in crayon I would. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.105.69 (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You entirely miss the point that it simply isn't significant; certainly not significant enough so that a 2-year stint in what really wasn't much of a "Muslim school" acording to other sources can be used to characterize or label his entire educational background as "Muslim-schooled". This is where your argument is going south; cherry-picking one small event in order to describe the whole with it. No one's buying what you're selling, bro. Tarc (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree. The business about "similar material" and "similar proposals" is far too vague. Does it mean "any material that looks as if it might be used as a plank in a birther/teabagger fiction"? If so, this is coming perilously close to preemptive deletion by "IDONTLIKEIT"; if not, then just what do you have in mind? ¶ A talk page is for talk. Some of the talk is likely to be tiresome. Some but not all of this should be deleted on sight. -- Hoary (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It relies on the discretion of good faith editors to know when someone is being tendentious. Nevertheless I've made the wording more specific. Note that it only applies to rehashing discussions that have already been had, on the subject of Obama=Muslim, and explicitly excepts good faith civil discussions when there is something new to add. We don't really need this proposal, it's well within the discretion of editors to close pointless discussions, I am simply making this explicit and on the record. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I'm hoping it will be sufficiently specific to allow this poor dead horse to lie undisturbed, rather than watching it get beaten into a fine pulp. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Wikidemon. Well put. Well, this particular cherry (that the wee lad attended Koran classes) will no doubt continue to be picked. The reason for its absence will be Frequently Asked, whether or not the question is summarily deleted. So I'd expand the answer to Q1 accordingly. -- Hoary (talk) 01:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree There is no established criteria on what is conspiracy or otherwise. There are valid points here. It is not appropriate for editors to delete things on what they deem similar without consensus.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.239.90 (talk • contribs)
• Agree with close, ditto as above. It's a shame that we have to entertain and humor an obvious troll with an obvious agenda. Dave Dial (talk) 01:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Close it up, as this is getting tiresome and rather tendentious. Tarc (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh but it has long been tiresome and tendentious. However, this is what happens when one attempts to edit an article on a potus. Tarc, you make more sense in a comment a short distance above. The proposal here is far too vague. However, if it's limited to outlawing from discussion the potty notion that Obama is covert Muslim, then I could go along with that. -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC) PS Wikidemon has since made the proposal a lot better. -- Hoary (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Suggestion Can some editor in good standing who possesses a copy of Obama's book take a look at what Obama wrote? We're told above (after I strip the caps) that whereas the FAQ says he never attended a Muslim school or practiced Islam. He says [in the book] he did. I find that extraordinarily hard to believe, but don't want to resort to "that can't be true so it isn't true". -- Hoary (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty to upload a digital copy of his book to 4shared. 4shared is blocked by wikipedia, so go to [redacted, copyvio] I will remove in one hour. pg 84 for your reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.105.69 (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh . . . thank you, I suppose. Well, above you specified p.84, and this is all that we're told on the PDF of this that's illegally but conveniently there: In Indonesia, I had spent two years at a Muslim school, two years at a Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell my mother that I made faces during Koranic studies. So he says it was a "Muslim school", whereas snopes.com says it was a school that was "Muslim" primarily in the sense that its population was (as expected in predominantly Muslim Java) predominantly Muslim. -- Hoary (talk) 02:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. Although I find it funny... there's a host of people here disavowing this was ever said or exists... yet only 2 people have downloaded it. Interesting... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.105.69 (talk) 03:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm given to understand he DID attend a madrassa for a short time, somewhere around the age of seven or eight years old. But I haven't read any of his books, nor have I had the leisure to do so, thanks to my continued efforts to remain gainfully employed, so I don't have a means of either verifying or refuting. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to the discussion at the top of this section, and the snopes article referenced in FAQ#1, regarding the statement Obama made in his book, and the "Muslim school" / madrassa smear campaign. Obama attended a secular public school in Indonesia where the majority of students were from Muslim families, and that offered religious instruction. That's what all this refers to. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The FAQ: Barack Obama did not attend an Islamic or Muslim school while living in Indonesia age 6-10, but Roman Catholic and secular public schools. Snopes: Barack and his mother moved to Jakarta, Indonesia, where Obama spent 4-5 years attending both Muslim and Catholic schools before his mother sent him back to the United States to live with his maternal grandmother. The school Barack Obama attended in Indonesia was "Muslim" primarily in the sense that the preponderance of its student body was Muslim (because Indonesia is a predominantly Muslim country), but both the Muslim and Catholic schools he attended in Indonesia offered a few hours of religious instruction each week. This isn't incompatible with the FAQ answer, but I think could be summarized rather better. -- Hoary (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'm surprised that people haven't brought up the fact that Obama may have actually been mistaken; he referred to it as a "Muslim school" in his book, but others have looked into it and found it to be a secular school of various faiths. Just because it's Obama saying it doesn't make him the expert on the nature of the school he attended when he was a child. Klondike (talk) 03:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It seems to shed light on why he called it a Muslim school in his book. Placing something similar in the FAQ, maybe under a new question would definitely be consistent and accurate along with offering another tool to point curious editors to. Unless of course, they already read it on the FAQ.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Close but after a adding/modifying school facts in FAQ. The facts about his school are too insignificant to be in his bio but maybe Early life and career of Barack Obama. As I have said above, the facts, as seen here, about where he went to school have caused understandable confusion because they are from very reliable sources. An FAQ addition is not intended to put 1 + 1 together and assume he is Muslim, just to state facts to help alleviate confusion.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur with this. It was NEVER to prove he was a Muslim, but to address issues with Q1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.105.69 (talk) 02:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with close, with prejudice Tendentious barely covers it. Tvoz/talk 15:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Tweak to FAQ answer

How about the following for the FAQ?

Q1. Why isn't Barack Obama's Muslim heritage or education included in this article?

Q2. Barack Obama was never a practitioner of Islam. The fact that his biological father was "raised as a Muslim" but was a "confirmed atheist" by the time Obama was born is mentioned in the article. Yes, in The Audacity of Hope Barack Obama loosely describes one of the two schools he went to as Muslim, and yes he also mentions his unenthusiam for Koranic studies there; thus he had some "Muslim education". But the amount of education in Islam was minor, the education outside this one class was not Muslim, and the school as a whole was a secular one that (as would be expected in predominantly Muslim Jakarta) merely happened to have a predominantly Muslim intake. (His other school in Jakarta was Roman Catholic.) Please see this article on Snopes.com for a fairly in-depth debunking of the myth -- which originated in a story of Insight on the News, ultimately owned by Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church -- that Obama is Muslim. See also this page of Obama's, this Washington Post article, and this page at MSNBC. The sub-articles Public image of Barack Obama and Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories address this non-issue.

It's just a first bash and no doubt could be improved. -- Hoary (talk) 08:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a good tweak. It addresses and clarifies what he wrote in his book and what he said in his statement not the other made up stuff. For brevity, the only thing I can see removing is the reference to Insight on the News and Sun Myung Moon. Also, is unenthusiasm a word? Maybe "...he also expressed not being an earnest student with Koranic studies..."--NortyNort (Holla) 13:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Um . . . I prefer "mentions his unenthusiasm for" to "expressed not being an earnest student with", but Google News has just one measly hit for "unenthusiasm" (in which it comes shortly after "wesbite" [sic]), so the word does seem uncommon; how about "mentions his lack of enthusiasm for"? On further thought, I'd be happy to delete "ultimately owned by Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church". -- Hoary (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense, I was trying to find a synonym but you did better.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Per above do not favor any change to FAQ, and do not care to reopen or further discuss the matter. We have considered all of this many times before. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think an inability to amend FAQ1 facilitates part of this problem. We're talking about two reliable not unreliable sources, so the reoccurring discussion seems warranted. If such discussion about schooling comes up again, Q1 better supports Q/A13 as well. So, editors can point it out and end it easier without lengthy explanation.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Disagree per latest discussion and many other discussions. There is nothing new here. We have considered this very matter and those sources before before in light of Obama's book and the many other conspiracy theories and written FAQ1 as a result. Modifying it to add trivial and a defensive-sounding rebuttal in response to the latest disruptive agitation on the talk page is not the way to go. This will hardly quiet the Obama=Muslim conspiracy theories, which are not based on sourcing or logic; next week it will be a different argument. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There you go calling it conspiracy again. Did the man say it or not?

I do not think any 'new information' has been provided, or the FAQ needs to be updated. The links and the text in the current FAQ address the 'conspiracy theory' well, and I think it's very unbecoming to go into this kind of detail about what a 7-8 year old did in school that is very unremarkable. First, who knows what 'Koranic studies' Obama was talking about? There were "religious affairs" classes twice a week in the public school, but the students were separated by faith most of the time. There are sources that indicate the school taught the children of all faiths different aspects of the numerous faiths the children in the school had. For example, during Christmas all children were taught about the Bible and what Christmas meant, and during Islamic holidays all children were taught about the Koran and what Islam meant. Since Obama went to the public school barely 1 year, and there are barely any reliable sourced references to this time, it's not really responsible to guess which times Obama was taught about the Koran when he was a small child. I mean, this is absurd and poorly sourced original research to the nth degree. I don't think that, until a reliable source addresses the specifics of the claims made here, it should be included anywhere(FAQ, this article, the conspiracy theory article). The overwhelming sources indicate that the school was a public school(the other school he attended while in Indonesia being Catholic) and religious instruction was minimal. There is no reliable source that indicates otherwise and to go into detail about something that is not properly sourced is both OR and synthesis. Now, if someone wants to reword the FAQ a little, without references to Insight and Rev. Moon and the OR and SYNTH, that may be agreeable. On a slightly lighter note, the book refered to here is 'Dreams From My Father", not Audacity of Hope", and the word is unenthusiastic. Dave Dial (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for getting the book title wrong. ¶ Unenthusiastic is a fine adjective a but worthless as a noun. ¶ I'd hoped that at least "Islam" (two syllables) would be seen as an improvement on "the Muslim faith" (four), but there's no accounting.... ¶ Of course all of this is silly, but a certain, depressingly large, section of the US has now worked itself into such a froth over Islam ("ground zero mosque" etc) that I think you're going to continue to have people pointing out that potus himself said he went to a Muslim blah blah until A1 addresses this directly. Hoary (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

If Snopes isn't a reliable source than why is it referenced in the FAQ anyway? Most of the FAQ amendment is based off of his book and his statement. I don't think the fringe theory of him being a Muslim belongs on this talk page or the article but their is due cause to update FAQ1 just about the school misunderstanding. As insignificant it was about his childhood, there is reason for the confusion. As far as a defensive FAQ, these discussions are defensive enough as it is and the FAQ would save time and words.--NortyNort (Holla) 15:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Who claimed that Snopes is not a reliable source? It most certainly is, on specific issues. Dave Dial (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree for 3 reasons. 1) Snopes is an entertainment website. 2) It does NOT address the information I provided. 3) No reputable encyclopedia uses Snopes.com as a reference. I challenge you to find them cited in Britannica or Encarta.

Encarta is no more. -- Hoary (talk) 03:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That may all be true, and probably is, but my reasons against still stand. Believe me, adding a more defensive posture in the FAQ and 'explaining away' the Obama-Muslim links, is not going to convince any of the conspiracy theorist that Obama was not 'raised a Muslim' or is some 'secret Muslim'. As for the 'ground zero Mosque', that's an entirely different subject. One I have no interest in. I decided to stop adding to my watch list months ago, and to try and avoid adding any(more) controversial topics. Most people will believe(on all sides) what they are predisposed to believe. This is a different animal here. Rational people cannot believe that because Obama may have had some religious instruction as a small child in Islam that he is a 'secret Muslim' or that Obama can even remember in detail his life at that age. Most of what we remember from childhood is because of relating/retelling stories with family members/friends through the years. So the whole endeavor is folly, imo. No offense to anyone. Dave Dial (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

←The FAQ is fine as it is, and as has been discussed in great depth many times. There is nothing new here whatsoever. Tvoz/talk 15:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Tvoz, you say There is nothing new here whatsoever. If you mean there's no new support for any "secret Islamist" theory, then of course you are entirely right. If you're talking about a suggestion for the FAQ, you may be right: I'm not going to search through hundreds of kilobytes of past discussion to find out. If you're talking about the answer to the FAQ, you're wrong. ¶ Dave Dial is certainly right about both childhood recall and about the impossibility of persuading people to abandon their faith in wacky conspiracy theories. But it's a narrower matter. According to this talk page: Q1: Why isn't Barack Obama's Muslim [...] education included in this article? / A1: [...] Barack Obama did not attend an Islamic or Muslim school while living in Indonesia age 6-10 Yet according to Obama himself, he did. As long as this apparent contradiction goes unexplained, you're going to have people pointing it out in this talk page. Some of these people could well be the same monomaniacs with new IP numbers or new throwaway usernames, but it's unlikely that all will be. And it's entirely possible that some who point out the apparent contradiction are no more subscribers to "Islamist" conspiracy theories than you are or I am. ¶ NortyNort seems to agree that a slight augmentation of the answer would help. I've seen no reasoned opposition, aside from (and I paraphrase) "rewriting it would do nothing to deter the conspiracy theorists", which of course is true but doesn't address the understandable bewilderment of non-conspirators who've merely read his book or had it quoted at them. -- Hoary (talk) 03:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I see the point the less detail in the FAQ, the better but at least Dreams From My Father should be mentioned. "Despite Dreams From My Father, Obama did not" or even better: "See 1,2,3, published after Dreams From My Father.", etc. I'd have no problem supporting a close of similar discussion about his book in the future, if cited in FAQ#1.--NortyNort (Holla) 04:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No, still disagree. The FAQ as is addresses the point already and was written with full knowledge of the book in mind - the main issues head on, and random things via the links. The point of the FAQ is to announce our consensus, not to argue for why it is valid. Defensively arguing against the birthers here only invites more argument. It won't slow disruption like this latest IP incident one bit. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Nothing new. Tvoz/talk 04:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The FAQ as is does not address the point that Obama himself (casually) called the school Muslim. (I reread it again just seconds ago in order to treble-check, but I'll forgo quoting it.) I'll take your "birthers" to include people who fantasize that Obama is a crypto-Islamist (for which concept no convenient term comes to my mind either; I'll call them monomaniacs). Right, the monomaniacs will of course not be deterred by argument. Yet a smallish group of people who point others to a FAQ answer that neither argues a fairly comprehensive rationale nor points to it lay themselves open to the charge of being a cabal -- a charge that will look credible not only to the monomaniacs but also to those who are genuinely bewildered and inquisitive. -- Hoary (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

My tendency through this discussion has been to agree with you and NortyNort, that a small additional clarification in the FAQ answer might be indicated. I find the "siege mentality" exhibited in some of these discussions a bit disconcerting and not conducive to collaborative effort (says the one who has deleted quite a few talk comments as inappropriate use when others usually just hat and archive them :-)). But I do note the existing answer contains four links, including one to an extensive Snopes article. That article mentions Obama's literary references to attending a "Muslim school" (though they reference Audacity, not Dreams), and clarify that it is really a public school with a predominantly Muslim population. They deal with the subject extensively, with at least two news reports quoted in depth. So while I don't think an additional note in the FAQ answer itself would be the end of civilization as we know it, I don't see at as being completely necessaey either. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

A full explanation isn't necessary but a simple reference to misconceptions about his book, ex "... in regards to his description of schooling in Dreams From My Father, see 1,2,3." We're not saying "in regards to Glen Beck's accusations, see..." It also falls in line with the FAQ's purpose which "...addresses these common concerns, criticisms, and arguments, and answers various misconceptions behind them". I don't think this should be a huge deal but the reasoning behind saying no to any suggestion, including something this small and viable is disconcerting. I've agreed with a lot of the points made by editors here and don't think much has to be done. I consider it an improvement to the FAQ and talk page. It shouldn't be this controversial.--NortyNort (Holla) 05:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I would not characterize attempts to deal with abusive provocation, or taking exception when an experienced editor edit wars the talk page on the side of the provocation, a "siege mentality". It's sensible talk page management of an article under probation. Years of experience with this page has shown that the most effective way to keep the editing environment productive and free of trolls, socks, and vandals, is to quickly and politely decline to engage them - and if they persist, to close the thread, ask for blocking or page protection, and move on. When editors allow themselves to be baited into bickering among themselves, drama sets in and we end up on AN/I. Because the question was fairly if aggressively raised by an editor in good standing I made two proposals to gauge editors' opinions, first that the FAQ is fine as is, and second that this discussion be closed as unproductive. Both seem to have the support of the majority of editors in good standing here. If you think that you can gain consensus otherwise by continuing to lobby for a FAQ change you're certainly free to do that, but I remain unconvinced both that the FAQ should be changed, and that when an IP editor who regularly harangues us Obama campaign workers or whatever the insult is today to jump, that we should ask how high. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

CNN poll - fringe becomes significant - no side knows better than the other

There's a latest CNN poll that came out, about HALF Americans are not sure where Obama was born and about 25 percent think that he was literally born out of the US. Wow. These percentages used to be very low but they creep up. It's no longer fringe. The so called birthers should now be listed in the main article, not some obscure 'controversy-conspiracy section', please can we list the issue in couple of phrases, ref to that the CNN poll, edit 'was LIKELY born in Hawaii, but it is not confirmed and subject to intense controversy' ref ref ref. It is important to see actual data, no side (birthers or anti-bitrthers) has the info, they accuse the other side of being nuts or clueless but truth is nobody has the infoK1PK, and the controversy growns. People who judge by these online reprint documents are just as clueless than birthers who say he was FOR SURE born overseas, truth is NOBODY KNOWS. What we need is the document revealed either original long form paper or microfilm from vital records of Hawaii, then an unbiased scientific forensic analysis of the document. All other records such as college records would help too but are all hidden. I am a scientitst and I do investigations all the time I know what I am talking about. I am not certifying ANY document online. I examined the statement of Fukino, it seems strong, but is only words. She could lie (which of course would be a gigantic fraud. Fraud has happened in US history). As long as this document is not found asnd proven we cannot close or ignore the issue, rather we must mention it, and in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.160.62 (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The view you express above regarding how we humans know the truth about things, much less how an encyclopedia verifies its facts, is certainly peculiar. Anyway, it's not just one CNN poll, there are several recent polls with consistent results as you describe... although saying half are not sure is a little misleading. Half of Americans aren't sure Alaska is a state, but they think it probably is and they don't question it. The more interesting number is that 27% in that poll, and similar numbers in others, are either sure he wasn't born in Hawaii, or think he probably wasn't. Anyway, no matter how many people believe it, the conspiracy is a WP:FRINGE matter that as yet has had very little impact on him or the nation. We do cover fringe theories, and this one is covered at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories‎, where the CNN and other polls are mentioned. In my opinion it would have to get a whole lot more significant before it's added here, but if it does turn out to have a huge effect (for example, costing him the next election, or affecting his ability to lead) then it's potentially worth mentioning here. Again, just my opinion. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of Obama being born in anywhere other than Hawaii, let's defer to Robert Gibbs on this:

A pregnant woman leaves her home to go overseas to have a child — who there’s not a passport for — so is in cahoots with someone…to smuggle that child, that previously doesn’t exist on a government roll somewhere back into the country and has the amazing foresight to place birth announcements in the Hawaii newspapers? All while this is transpiring in cahoots with those in the border, all so some kid named Barack Obama could run for President 46 and a half years later.

And if you were a scientist, you would recognise that the multitude of evidence points to Obama being born in Hawaii, and popular opinion doesn't make it less of a fact. Gee, sounds awfully familiar. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That a high number of people believe something is NOT evidence that that something is true. It is merely evidence that a high number of people believe in something. So sure put the birther stuff in its own page and report how many people believe in it, but putting it in Obama's page makes no sense. The belief is inherently ridiculous, on so many levels, there are several pieces of uncontroverted evidence that he was born in Hawaii and literally none that he was born elsewhere. It doesn't deserve to be in his bio until there is at least a shread of believability, I don't care if 100 million or 200 million believe it, if that belief is baseless and runs contrary to ALL available evidence then that's that. Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.50.136 (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

At the height of the Watergate scandal, a polled showed that, as Harry Reasoner reported it, "More Americans believe in UFOs than believe in Richard Nixon. I'm not sure what that says, but it says something." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Dates in the lede.

In the 3rd paragraph there are three dates directly above and below each other, this looks a little messy (But I suppose the only way around it is reconstructing the paragraph entirely) and the sheer number of dates in the lede is pretty awkward looking too. That's my two cents. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The lineup is largely dependent on individual browser settings; I don't show three dates in alignment anywhere in the lead, though some, probably the ones you refer to, are almost that way. I agree the lead seems a bit date-heavy, and as a summary could probably be trimmed back a bit in that regard. This may be a side effect of the amount of time editors need to spend fighting vandals and POV-pushers instead of reviewing the entire article for possible improvement. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Business International Corporation known to be a CIA front

Should it be mentioned briefly that this company which Obama worked for as a 22-year old is also a known CIA front organization? __meco (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is considered unless sources are provided. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The article about the company appears to have this referenced. __meco (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

This seems like an issue of extraordinary low importance. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You mean, like the would-be fact that as a child he preferred to eat pears instead of apples? I don't see the logic in dismissing an unacknowledged possible connection between the incumbent US President and the CIA with that kind of reasoning. __meco (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Where's the source making that connection? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the article, you'll see the citations, from 1977 and 1987. I would expect that if a company had it's cover blown as a CIA front six years before he arrived, that any connection between the company and the CIA would either have been severed or been useless to CIA. --Habap (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. What is curious though is that both his father and mother also worked at CIA front companies. __meco (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

With all respect, the fact that you find this curious is irrelevant to the writing of this article. This is OR/synth, incredibly low weight for the man's bio, and kind of Alias-ish to suggest that working for a CIA front company has a genetic component. Tvoz/talk 15:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool down, I was only making a comment. __meco (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

And I was only asking that we not digress into speculation - it's a bad week on this talk page for that. No offense intended. Tvoz/talk 17:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Oval Office Picture

This picture seems very unprofessional. They need a more respectable one. 3dec3 (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Theresi more than one image of Obama in the Oval office in the article. Which one? Tarc (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Economic policy

The article is very slanted and is not much different from advertising for him. Wikipedia should be neutral. The most common thing is to cherry pick, particularly on a claim of being "bipartisan" and use this in this article. The current authors should be fired for such a bad article.

One example (of many) is the slanted claim of helping the economy. The economy is shit. To blame him is partisan but having him take credit is partisan, too.

Try inserting that Obama claimed unemployment would be 9% if his plan was not passed. So they passed it and unemployment got worse. There are many sources for that.

Again, don't smear the guy but stop having a fluffy ad for him.

Absent a source, I cannot consider your proposal. However, I suspect that there are few if any reliable sources that would purport to say what the American unemployment numbers would have been had a different policy been taken. It would merely be a source that says a certain study, or expert, made that assertion. For every article that says that there are others, probably more, that say that the economic stimulus and other economic initiatives prevented the economy from getting worse that it did, and yet others that describe unemployment as a measurement that lags economic recovery. To report on all of these would give undue weight to differences of opinion among economists, although there may indeed be articles where this information is more appropriate, e.g. articles on the recent recession, or on the economic policies themselves. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

major problems

I find it very troubling that this article is being controlled by one faction of political supporters, rather than being neutral. Wikidemon already admits that "I cannot consider your proposal".

I disagree with both the original post and Wikidemon, so much so, that I must write a dissenting opinion.

The economic policy section does not belong in this article the way it is written. For several reasons. One, this is a biography, not a history of the nation during his presidency. Two, this is biased. It says that he helped the economy. The neutral way would not to make that assessment. See http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/10/unemployment-labor-market-jobs-opinions-columnists-thomas-f-cooley-peter-rupert.html This is opinion but it is also opinion when some people say the stimulus helped.

Let's be fair and neutral in this article. S9binator (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It is troubling that you should make unfounded accusations against fellow Wikipedians, ignoring the policy of assuming good faith. Most economists agree that the Recovery and Reinvestment Act was chiefly responsible for preventing the economy from sinking into a catastrophic Depression, and a myriad reliable sources can be found to reference that. Economists are in general agreement that the small size of the stimulus package means it has not had the impact hoped for. Nobody capable of adding 2+2 thinks the package was a bad idea. The Recovery and Reinvestment Act was a pivotal piece of legislation for President Obama that most certainly has biographical relevance as part of the section on his presidency. Incidentally, "fair and neutral" sounds awfully familiar. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

To further Scjessey's commont, it's rather silly to misrepresent another person's statement immediately below where it was made. As I said, I can't consider a proposal for how to characterize this in the article without a proposed source. That's not an admission of anything, that's just waiting for an explanation of how this would satisfy WP:V and some other policies. If someone wanted to add a statement like "Obama has a vacation home in Ohio" that's also what I would say, do you have a source for that? It's up to the person proposing to add content to justify that it's reliably sourced, and in this case I don't know of any reliable sources and I'm dubious that they exist in meaningful number. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with reliable sourcing. We can discuss here how we feel about the economy or how we believe most economists feel about the Recovery Act but it comes down to sourcing. Aside, it is unfounded to say here that those who view the Recovery Act as a bad idea can't do basic math. Jamming close to $900 billion into the economy (and elsewhere) will certainly and has given it a jolt but it still may or may not be sustained. So in the end, it may as well have been a bad idea if the economy gets worse and all the U.S. gets out of it is more debt. It might be hard to find good reliable sources to be the judge on that one right now. As far as the Recovery Act unemployment projection figures, the Act was obviously way too optimistic on employment. I am not surprised though (and I don't think commentators are too) to see that a piece of government legislation didn't meet its claim. With that, in my opinion, right now I don't see much significance for it here now in his bio and am neutral placing it elsewhere. If you can provide a source on economic analysis or figures that isn't included, updates or contradicts, do so.--NortyNort (Holla) 17:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to complete my thought and respond to your comment -- There is nothing wrong with government legislation as long it is executed properly. The problem with the Recovery and Reinvestment act was that it was only about 50% the size it should've been. This was in part due to the fact that the government underestimated the strength and depth of the economic woes, but it was also due to the partisan bickering in Congress that made sure it was a less effective bill. Award-winning economists (like Paul Krugman) said that the stimulus package needed to be well over a trillion dollars in order to do any good, but Democrats knew they'd never get any Republican votes for something of that size. Republicans, incredibly, simply wanted a package of tax cuts. And by continuously portraying the stimulus in a bad light they actually helped to reduce its effectiveness, since the economy depends so much on consumer confidence. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Subinator as far as the economic policy being in this article. This is an article about the man, not about American history 2009-present. The choice of topics is also biased. The economy is in terrible shape, far worse shape than under Bush. This is not to say the McCain would have done any better, but cherry picking positive things is very biased. Unemployment is far higher than Obama said it would be if his stimulus were NOT passed! (There's a reason for that; Obama is seen as highly anti-business so small business is being very cautious and not hiring but that shouldn't be in the article either because it is about economics, not Obama the man). France is the greatest (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

photo

Hatting inappropriate haberdashery diversion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
An important photo of him is missing. That is the one where he is wearing a turban. A new section could be written to say talk about his Muslim problem and that he is not a Muslim but a Protestant. This is valid. But then again, campaign workers for Obama will think of every excuse to censor that photo. Make no mistake, I am not calling him a Muslim.12.40.50.1 (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC) I have a photo or two of me wearing a kippah. It doesn't mean I'm Jewish. PhGustaf (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC) I have a photo of me wearing a condom on my head at a party. It doesn't mean I'm a dickhead. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC) (Actually, this is a complete falsehood. Anyone with a camera to help me remedy this?) Sorry, how can someone with a camera alter the truth of the statement It doesn't mean I'm a dickhead? :) Guettarda (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC) It cannot. But least I'd have a nice picture of me wearing a condom on my head to make my mother proud. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC) I found a picture of Robin Williams dressed as a woman. I'm not sure how that fits in. Let's delete this silly thread when we're done with it, okay? - Wikidemon (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Several editors have continually removed my comments. If this is acceptable, then I will take it as a reason to remove others' comments. The controversy of Obama being a Muslim is a big issue. The truth is that he is not a Muslim and that there is nothing wrong with Islam. However, reporting of Obama being a Muslim is part of being comprehensive. When this is done, a possible picture to use is the turban picture. This does not prove he is a Muslim nor is it a crime to wear a turban. Millions of Sikhs wear turbans and they are certainly not Muslims. Obama follows the United Church of Christ religion. There is plenty of documentation of that. France is the greatest (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"Obamacare" legislative process section?

Inasmuch as Obamacare essentially involves federal supervision of 1/6th of the economy, it would seem essential for any ideologically neutral article to delve into the extremely controversial process of vote-buying, votes at midnight, votes in a blizzard, votes on Christmas Eve, etc. by which Obamacare was pushed through. Ignoring this is really tantamount to covering up salient facts about an extremely important new role for the federal governmental in the economy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.149.170 (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Because it's not relevant to the biography; compare George W. Bush and its treatment of Medicare Part D, the tax cuts, or even Harriet Miers, where they're just mentioned, without listing the loopholes in legislative procedure used. Same should apply here. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You can find discussion of it in Obamacare and Health care reform debate in the United States. If it were to discussed here, it could only be about his role. Since Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and a cast of millions are involved, it's covered in articles about just the topic in question, not in each biography. --Habap (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Article length FAQ

The #10 question in the FAQ talks about the article as it was on 22 June 2008. By now it is considerably outdated and the article is bigger than it was then. Would someone do a new check of the article and update the FAQ accordingly? Christopher Connor (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't his birth name, fist name, be included in the introduction?

Shouldn't the introduction somewhere include that his birth name, or first name is Barry Soetoro? I thought this was fairly well known in the mainstream community, and was suprised to discover it isn't even mentioned in the introductory paragraphs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.12.252.111 (talk) 05:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Obama's Faith

I ran across this article and thought it might be an appropriate source identifying Christianity as Obama's declared faith. It also mentions that he draws from Eastern religions, Islam, and Judaism. I hesitate to plop it into the article right away, though, so I thought I'd bring it up here. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It is from an interview with a notable journalist (Cathleen Falsani) in a notable publication (Chicago Sun Times), so it should be OK as a source for the article.--JayJasper (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a very good interview, and outlines what many have suspected Obama's beliefs were, put into writing with his own words. No particular dogma or exact 'brand' of Christianity, just Christian. I'm sure people who are religious/spiritual but have college degrees can relate. As for using it as a reliable source, I have no problem with it. Dave Dial (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hair

Nothing about his hair changing colors? 71.255.94.205 (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

why would that be relevant? He's getting older. Duh. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

For something of this nature to warrant a mention in this article, it would need to be extensively covered by mainstream media sources. Besides, haven't you noticed that all presidents suffer from this problem? Even fictional presidents do! -- Scjessey (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Spouse dates in infobox

I don't work on a whole lot of biographies, but was surprised that after First Lady's name, it listed 1992-present. I checked Bush and Clinton - neither of them had dates for their spouses listed. Is it normal procedure to list the dates? If so, I guess we should modify Bush's and Clinton's articles to list their dates as well. --Habap (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No, this shows that this article is out of compliance and should be fixed. France is the greatest (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm hoping that someone who is not currently banned can have a look at this and let me know if it makes sense to have that entry or not. --Habap (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• I would imagine it's unecessary to have 1992-present there, unless there is a divorce or something. I could see if there were previous marriages like Ronald Reagan(who I believe is America's first divorced President, although I could be wrong), but don't see a need otherwise. Dave Dial (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Presidential Polls

Just wondering: should we include a presidential job approval graph like other presidential articles have had?--Schwindtd (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Have other presidential articles had that? I just don't remember one for Bush and Clinton predates Wikipedia so I am guessing one was never added to his. If it was ever on Bush's article, it isn't now. I personally am not a fan because there are too many varying surveys that could be used and choosing what data to use and how to weight it would only lead to considerable conflict. However, if such a graph were to be used it certainly shouldn't be used here, it should be used in the article about his presidency. It doesn't make sense to put a graph of his approval ratings into his bio. I could see referencing it in the article if the generally acceptable numbers hit notable highs or lows at particular points. But that's just my thought on it.Jdlund (talk) 05:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Dead link

The links to the American Conservative Union's webpage that are supposed to have Obama's ratings are dead. I tried to add a template, but found it was locked, so I figured I'd post it here and editors who know more than I do can take it from here. 76.4.240.95 (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed em'. Thanks for pointing it out.--NortyNort (Holla) 04:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't his full ethnicity African-American/Caucasian be included?

Why isn't there anything in here about him being African-American and Caucasian? The terms denote ethnicity, not skin color, and so should both probably be included so as to not give a false impression, as we would write the same thing for someone of two African-American parents, but he is different and so we should use another term to portray that.

Inclusive, I also spoke to someone the other day that didn't even know President Obama was Caucasian and African-American, which wikipedia seems to be perpetuating by not saying at the beginning that he's African-American and Caucasian. He's equally both so we should include that. Otherwise you should just say he's the first dark-skinned president? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatzup45 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you see Q2 in the FAQ at the top of this page? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Signing the closing of threads

I ask again that all editors sign their names when closing a thread here on the talk page. It's courteous and also enhances the historical record. Some of you have been really good about doing this, but please, everyone do this. Ikilled007 (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama nao nasceu no Kenya??

Bom minha duvida eh essa, se ele eh um presidende afro-americano, pq eh que colocaram q ele nasceu em Honolulu Hawaii, que pertence aos EUA, sendo que ele mesmo diz em outras reportagens, inclusive postadas no youtube que ele nasceu no Kenya? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.92.225.183 (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You would be better off at pt:Talk:Barack Obama. But the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii and not Kenya is accepted by everyone except a select group of people. Grsz¹¹ 19:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You can find more information about this at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and in the FAQ sections at the top of this page. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"The Iraq"

I don't have an account and the page is locked. Someone want to remove the definite article "the" from the captioned picture in the "Iraq War" section? Not that we don't appreciate your contributions, Miss South Carolina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.137.31.108 (talk) 11:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Good eye. I've changed the caption. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"Cultural and political image" addition

This new addition[5] seems to go overboard in the strength of its claims ("without precedent in modern history" - what about Kennedy?), the laudatory tone, and WP:WEIGHT. It's also out of chronological sequence, and unsourced. We already have two paragraphs on the positive international opinion of Obama from his first year in office, so I don't think we need more. It might make a little sense to have an image to illustrate how Europeans or others think of him, but why this particular image by Jorge Rodriguez-Gerada? The person who added this is editing from a new single-purpose account that has done nothing but expand the article about the artist,[6] and add mention of him to this and three other articles.[7][8][9] Under the circumstances I think we should remove the whole thing from this and the other articles, and issue a WP:COI notice to the editor. Any thoughts? - Wikidemon (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like self (or atleast friendly) promotion to me. Axe it WD. Grsz¹¹ 16:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)