Jump to content

Talk:Barack Obama

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.62.243.48 (talk) at 23:27, 22 October 2012 (→‎Religion type: Rodchen, you've been blocked before for edit warring. I suggest you stop). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Community article probation

Featured articleBarack Obama is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 4, 2008.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 12, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
August 18, 2004Today's featured articleMain Page
January 23, 2007Featured article reviewKept
July 26, 2007Featured article reviewKept
April 15, 2008Featured article reviewKept
September 16, 2008Featured article reviewKept
November 4, 2008Today's featured articleMain Page
December 2, 2008Featured article reviewKept
March 10, 2009Featured article reviewKept
March 16, 2010Featured article reviewKept
June 17, 2012Featured article reviewKept
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on November 5, 2008.
Current status: Featured article

Template:Stable version

Can fix template-error by hand-coded cites

Another option, although very tedious, is to gain consensus, per WP:CITEVAR, to remove the citation templates and begin replacing with hand-coded citations of authors, italic titles, dates, etc. The initial effort probably requires the hand-coding of about 100 citations, as a first step, to fit within the post-expand include-size limit of 2,048,000 bytes of template data, and not crash the bottom 14 templates (3 navboxes, {Persondata}, Authority control, and FA/GA links). I guess, the next step is to !vote, further below. However, other concerns can be discussed at "#General discussion" rather than in the Support/Oppose/Neutral sub-threads. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

The following editors support removal of cite templates in "Barack Obama".

  1. Support. Too much hostility and fear about cite templates, and whether the future Lua script modules will work (without their own new problems), and anyway, hand-coded citations are 30x times faster than {cite_news} or {cite_web}, etc. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

The following editors oppose removal of cite templates in "Barack Obama".

  1. Oppose. Are you kidding? Handcoding citations is crazy talk. There are over 300 references, many of which apply multiple times. Switching over to handcoded references would require an enormous effort. And isn't that a retrograde step? The goal is generally to have more automation to make the life of the editor easier, not less. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    See below #General discussion note "Semi-automated hand-coding". -Wikid77 00:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose anything that is lossy. Hand-coded cites can't easily be restored to templated ones, can they? They'd have to be redone from scratch. The inverse isn't true, one could create hard-coded cites from templates. It's also unacceptable that we have a page that crashes the server's parser. Isn't there a simple procedural / technical solution to this one, such as creating an intermediary version? - Wikidemon (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    See below #General discussion note "Smaller page text". Restoring hand-coded cites to templates, after 6-8 months (for use of Lua script cites), is likely to be tedious. -Wikid77 00:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose under the very specific understanding that this article must otherwise use cite quick. --Nouniquenames 03:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

The following editors are neutral about cite templates in "Barack Obama".

  1. Neutral. (comment)

General discussion

Discuss here with other comments about the use of the cite templates, {cite_news}, {cite_web}, {cite_quick}, etc. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Semi-automated hand-coding: It would be easy to have a template to generate the "hand-coded" simple wikitext, by using a variation as {Cite_quick/subst} to run as a wp:Subst'ed template, once the reftags are changed from "<ref>" to "<xxref>" in an Obama/sandbox to allow subst'ing outside the reftags. Then insert all {Cite_quick/subst} and save to store simple wikitext cites. Finally, re-edit to reverse "<xxref>" back to "<ref>" and adjust any format glitches. Once the Obama/sandbox has been skimmed for approval, then copy all text to the live article. -Wikid77 00:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smaller page text: Another option is to shrink the article by some minor cites, and removing the fancy template parameters such as the "archiveurl=" which is excessive because the major "url=" webpages are still current, and the archive-sites are "too much information" to cause the cite-templates to exceed their parameter data limit (the post-expand include-size limit). Perhaps next year, the DASHBot could be re-run to re-add the "archiveurl=" data back into 120 cites, but for now, it would reduce the article enough to fit, but re-raise the edit-preview from 11 seconds back to 40 seconds. -Wikid77 00:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lua-cites for Obama need work: Some editors have imagined that the wp:CS1 cite templates "have been rewritten" completely, on test2.wiki, using a Lua script module, as if "perfect" fast versions. However, for months, those partial versions, although fast, have had severe bugs, such as double dots ".." between some parameters, missing spaces, or unformatted links to archive URLs. To check progress, I have copied the Obama article to test2.wiki, so that other editors can see the rate of progress, in changing cite templates to use Lua modules. See test2.wiki:
http://test2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama   - version of Obama page on test2.wiki
In general, any page on test2.wiki has the same URL format as enwiki, with the leading "en." changed (to be "test2."), but only a tiny fraction of the millions of templates and article pages have been copied there for early testing. More later. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the Lua templates aren't ready for prime time but they will be. It took me a few hours to port a mildly complex template {{Zh}} from scratch. I know the template well enough from using it but knew nothing of its coding, and it only took me so long as I was learning Lua at the same time. There's no deadline for porting templates to Lua but the citation templates should be the first ones done as the ones with the most immediate impact.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lua cite templates fixed to match format: I have edited the test2.wiki Lua script Module:Citation to fix many of the format problems, and now, the Lua-based citations are almost identical to the wp:CS1 templates. Feel free to improve any other format differences, among the numerous parameters. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

grammar

It reads: "....first 'african' american to hold office." Black would be a better word because it includes those from Haiti, etc.Slushy9 (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

African American is by far the more commonly used term by reliable sources regarding Obama and is what Obama identifies himself as. Due to those reasons African American is the better choice.--174.93.171.10 (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The OP may also benefit from clicking [show] beside the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) at the top of this page. Question 2 apples here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Religion type

Instead of just saying Obama is a 'Christian', something that I think every US president, Vice President would say they were, I have included his 'brand' of Christianity, making it consistent with every other article about a US president. Rodchen (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the talk page archives, you'll see that this has actually been extensively discussed. The issue is that Obama left the United Church of Christ and that, in the time since, no RS specifying a current denomination has been presented. Thus, "Christian" is as precise as we can currently get. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So why doesn't it say that? It does for Reagan and Bush II. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, seeing no objection, that is what I will do. Rodchen (talk) 04:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't figure out how to do it without making it 'red' in color. When I figure it out, I will make the change. Saying 'United Church of Christ, later Unaffiliate Christian' seems the most accurate. Other comments? Rodchen (talk) 04:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's original research (WP:OR), aka an editor's opinion. Wikipedia normally uses reliable sources, particularly for things like a person's religion. Johnuniq (talk) 06:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How is that OR? There's source for United Church of Christ (no?) and there's a source for now Christianity (no?). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, because it's delving into the mind of Obama without an actual statement from the subject. This has been discussed before, on several occasions. The decision has been to list his religion as "Christian" until he makes some sort of statement on his beliefs after leaving the UCC. Rodchen continually changing it is disruptive. Feigning consensus is familiar. In any case, I don't know if the UCC is a "religion", per se. Aren't they a "Protestant" church? Dave Dial (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're talking past the point: was he a member of UCC? Yes. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a long-established consensus (see archive, multiple discussions) to just leave it as "Christian". Obama has been seen attending the churches of many different flavors of Christianity (sources are available for these), so there is no specific denomination anymore. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point as well: If it only matters what one is now, why do other presidents have past denominations in the infobox? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who gives a fuck what goes on in other articles? We follow policies, guidelines, references and consensus here, not what goes on in other articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Scjessey, other stuff does exist. Frankly, if there is one or more really good reference(s) saying he is "unaffiliated", I don't see the harm in saying something like "UCC later Unaffiliated". On the other hand, these religious categorization arguments get so ridiculous and muddy. Sticking with generic "Christian" to avoid debate might be wise.
Guess that opinion makes me sorta neutral...... NickCT (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what Wikipedia says about other recent Presidents. I haven't tried to copy the formatting; just the content:
George W Bush: Religion Episcopal (Before 1977) United Methodism (1977–present)
Bill Clinton: Religion Baptist
George H. W. Bush: Religion Episcopal
Ronald Reagan: Religion Disciples of Christ later Presbyterian
Jimmy Carter: Religion Baptist William Jockusch (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how any of that means anything. Articles are independent, William. Obama describes himself as a "Christian". It says that in the text and it is well sourced. Those other articles clearly misuse the "religion" infobox field by showing denominations instead. "Baptist" isn't a religion, for example. It's a denomination. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe precedent is helpful in determining what is the NPOV way to handle an issue. William Jockusch (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What has NPOV got to do with it? Are you saying that "Christian" isn't neutral? I'm suddenly extremely suspicious of the motives for changing this. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I haven't really followed this. Consistency in dealing with a category or descriptor is important, that's why we have a style guideline. A mistake in 4 non-featured articles doesn't justify making the same mistake in a featured article. But then again, local consensus shouldn't turn each article into a complete data silo. Off the top of my head, Christianity is a religion, but being a member of a given church denomination isn't a deep religious issue for most, particularly in America where membership is fluid and there aren't usually significant doctrinal differences - it reminds me of the old joke: "Church preference? Red brick with white steeple". I understand ScJessey's point, that the UC o' C thing relates to the whole Jeremiah Wright mess. That's why he quit for sure. Plus, if someone used to be a member of UCC and now declines to state their denomination, I think we're stretching things to use their last church. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rodchen, you've been blocked before for edit warring. I suggest you stop, especially since this article is under single-edit probation. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Obama's teachers and mentors?

Did I miss something, or does the article make no mention of Obama's association with Frank Marshall Davis, Edward Said, Roberto Unger, and Bill Ayers? I think it ought to include such.

John Link (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&oldid=519292160"