Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 45

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 40 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 50

FactCheck.org & FightTheSmears.com: Obama's dual citizenship

This information is taken from Obama's own website Fight the Smears (see bottom of the page) and the original source, which is more elaborate, namely Fact Check.
I think it should be mentioned in the article that Barack Obama had dual citizenship twice in his life, as documented on the above websites. By birth (Ius sanguinis) Obama automatically had citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies according to the British Nationality Act, since Kenya was still a British colony and his father therefore a UK citizen, and allegiance to the Crown and subjection under British jurisdiction was by law extended upon every child of a male UK citizen, independent of birthplace. This British citizenship of Obama was automatically augmented with US citizenship due to his birthplace on US soil (Jus soli), according to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and United States Code 8.1401a. After two years Kenya became independent, and Obama's British-US citizenship was automatically transformed into a Kenyan-US citizenship. The Kenyan citizenship then expired, when he was 21 years old (August 4, 1982), because Obama "neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor swore an oath of allegiance to Kenya". I think that this is important biographical information and should be included either in the main article or the article on his early life. —85.179.138.156 (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest bringing this up at Talk:Early life and career of Barack Obama. It seems too trivial and inconsequential for the main article since he never did anything with either his British or Kenyan citizenship; it's as if he never had them.--chaser - t 00:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
(~_^) Well, he did have them, no matter how it seems to some, but yes, I'll post it there as well. —85.179.138.156 (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Its only value is as counterbalance to the nonsense others are trying to post questioning whether he's qualified to be President based on citizenship. Obviously, he is. The other stuff is of some passing interest because it illustrates that he's been in other places besides, say, Alaska during his life. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Has worked as a jeweler in new jersey at the age of 23 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peoplecare414 (talkcontribs) 15:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating. Citation, please? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Political positions section should be consolidated and renamed

The political positions section should be consolidated to the presidential campaign section and renamed 'Political Positions of the 2008 Presidential Campaign'. His positions is a historical fact.

His current position includes the auto industry bailout. The auto industry was not an issue at all during the campaign. There should be a newly written section of political positions as he develops positions on current and future issues. It doesn't have to include the auto bailout but this is an example of a new issue separate from the campaign.ThanksgivingDay (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The "Political positions of ..." articles (see Category:Political positions of American politicians for all of them) are designed to cover the full length of a political figure's career. They are not tied to any particular campaign or election. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Formating the 'Notes' section

Two questions:

1) Is there a way to have the notes section be in hidden or collapsed mode so there is not two page scrolls to get past them?
2) Would formating the notes section into 2 or 3 columns help?

Lestatdelc (talk) 06:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

1) Collapsed mode not allowed for notes.
2) Isn't it already in 3 columns? Sure looks that way on my screen. Tvoz/talk 03:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
It depends on the window width, font size, and browser. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Really? Live and learn. Tvoz/talk 21:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Template

Somebody get it out from the text,please. MMetro (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Change title?

Now that Barack Obama is Pres. Elect. of the U.S., the title of the article needs to be changed to President Elect Barack Obama. Once he is sworn in on January 20, 2008, the title needs to be changed to President Barack Obama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pisharov (talkcontribs) 21:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Considering that Bush's article did not at any point use President George W. Bush as the article title (or Presidnet Elect} I don't see why it should be the case here. Conquecntly Stephen Harper's article is also not at Prime Minister Stephen Harper ect. --76.66.184.98 (talk) 04:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Pisharov could add redirects with those titles, both of them pointing to the Barack Obama page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use titles of elected officials in the names of articles. See Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, etc. For more information, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 05:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

And the Queen's article is Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, not Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom - the latter being a redirect, as could be done for Obama's titles. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, yes. I didn't mean to appear to be discouraging redirects, which are always useful. As a matter of fact, President-elect Barack Obama and President Barack Obama already exist as redirects, and have pointed to Barack Obama since November 5. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 05:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Obama is not President-Elect until the Electoral College meets on December 15, 2008. Since Obama refuses to prove that he is natural born U.S. Citizen, he will most likely not be elected at that meeting. (See the three cases on the U.S. Supreme Court's docket being considered.) One can speculate about who will be verified by the Electoral College to be an eligible candidate and so then be elected the next President of the United States. McCain's natural born status will also be challenged at that time. My guess is that Joe Biden will be verified and elected U.S. President at that date. Sarah Palin would be a logical choice for the next Vice President. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.1.75 (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
See section above marked "resolved". --Tom 22:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Sciurus carolinensis.jpg
The previous section discussing the unverified and perhaps unknown birth location in Hawaii in Obama has been unmarked. There was no resolved marker for this section discussing the title change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.1.75 (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
To 76.212.1.75. the Honolulu Star-Bulletin newspaper reported that Obama was Aug. 4, 1961, Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children, Honolulu over 4 years ago on Sunday, March 21, 2004. Are you suggesting the newspaper made it up? Lestatdelc (talk) 10:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
And Dubya will leave the White House skipping, people will all live happily ever after etc... Just keep reading the conspiracy theories. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
President Joe Biden and Vice President Sarah Palin? What have you been reading, Weekly World News? L'Aquatique[talk] 09:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Or inhaling. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I originally thought users were being somewhat harsh in their commentary towards the IP user and sympathized with the IP, but I would like to rescind those statements I made. Seems Baseball Bugs, Threeafterthree, and others have given the IP nothing but patience as he's persistently tried to bring up the same issue that has been closed for some time now. His behavior is becoming disruptive and he seems to be getting to editors trying to discuss other matters constructively. He also continually fails to sign his posts despite being informed to by myself and other editors. It be nice if someone would nip this in the bud. Cheers! 65.31.103.28 (talk) 06:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

closing oft-repeated discussion already covered in FAQ - click link to read
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Categories

You've probably discussed this before, but can anyone explain (or point me to an archive) why we had Obama in the "Presidents of the United States" category? I'm not arguing anything like he's not president-elect blah blah, but it just seems like we shouldn't be categorizing Obama and his prospective staff in what we anticipate their roles will be two months from now. See the categories section on the Rahm Emanuel page for the same issue (he was also categorized as being in the Obama cabinet...). Avruch T 00:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point! He might be dead (god forbid) by January 20th. This is the nature of history (it's about dead people and how they died). This should not be distorted in Wikipedia, no matter how high our hopes at this particular moment in history... Signed: fsn@fsnielsen.com

He's not black

At least not according to this WAPO piece 216.153.214.89 (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That just looks like some reporter's opinion. All the news I've heard, say he is black. CTJF83Talk 19:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the article? Seems to me there's a notable minority opinion out there regarding this. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That opinion piece (not a news story) actually supports that, according to the vast majority of Reliable Sources (see WP:RS), Obama is black: "I read these words on the front page of this newspaper the day after the election: "Obama Makes History: U.S. Decisively Elects First Black President." The phrase was repeated in much the same form by one media organization after another." Also, see the Frequently Asked Questions at the top of this page for more. priyanath talk 19:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Note to any admin watching this discussion: User:216.153.214.89 has been blocked previously for disrupting this talk page. See the deleted history at User talk:216.153.214.89 to see his many warnings for other disruption. I.E., short leash, please. priyanath talk 19:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that the Wiki-regulars often shut down these "oft-repeated" topics. That new visitors wish to discuss an issue that's been talked about previously should demonstrate that the issue is not--as priyanath and friends seem to imply--"resolved." What exactly is the argument against having open dialogue on an open-source web page? My strategy for dealing with topics that don't interest me is to simply scroll past them.M. Frederick (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Nobody is arguing against open-dialog (strawman argument there BTW), but rather the length and breadth as well as the circular nature of some of these topics would not only crash most browsers is shown in full do to the shear tonnage of comments, but also render the talk page nearly unusable for any other discussion about editing the article. Lestatdelc (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Should be mentioned as first black President of the Harvard Law Review

If we're going to say Mr. Obama is the first black to be elected POTUS in the opening paragraph, we should also say he is the first black President of the Harvard Law Review.PonileExpress (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It's in the first sentence of the second paragraph .... AmiDaniel (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Is his being the first Black president even important enough to be in the first sentence? It certainly isn't the same importance as his being elected, the state he's from, or his being a senator, etc. Janazex (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
All that is in the first paragraph.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Oozing "firsts"

We seem to be growing more and more rather arbitrary "firsts" for Obama. First AA prez-elect, yeah obviously widely reported and culturally significant. Then we get "first born outside continental US". That seems pretty much like a WTF to me... the contiguity of 48 of the states is not exactly a biographical fact, and it just pushes funny "baseball stats". Then first from Illinois, but not really first, just first "since Lincoln". And not "youngest", but "fifth youngest" or whatever. Now latest is "first who lived in Chicago at the time of his election"... presumably not the only one who ever lived in Chicago, just trying to find some trivia someone might chatter about.

What's next? First basketball-playing left-handed president? First prez with two daughter under 15 at time of election, but no sons? (I have no idea if that's true, could be though) First prez with Mercury ascendent in his rising sign? (whatever that means, there must be some astrological trivia that is true)?! Seventh tallest president?!

Can we just kill this nonsense before it gets worse?! LotLE×talk 20:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Lol. I'm with you on this. Well said. Dr.K. (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I would personally prefer there were NO 'firsts' in the lede. AA is in his Presidential section, and that's where it belongs, imo. It's important, certainly, but I think we're giving it undue weight at this point by including it in the lede. At least I would hope his presidency will be known for more than this, yet we're implying this is the most notable thing. It just seems to be trivializing his presidency in advance. Flatterworld (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

However trivial, "First born outside continental US" should be included in addition to AA - this is a rather significant FIRST - as all previous presidents have been white AND mainland-born. The article should aim to be complete, shouldn't it?

Yes, but should that be in the lead of the article? That's the question. Frankly, I don't think it needs to be in the lead. --GoodDamon 00:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Forget that. Obama is the 1st Columbia College graduate to become president. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
(closing redundant discussions below)... I've just made a series of edits that removed three out of the four (yes, four) mentions of his being the first black president of the law review, as well as a rehash of the selection process and the supervisory duties of the position (all adequately covered in the article about the review, and links to how law reviews work). It's worth mentioning in the lead that he was president of HLR, one of the most distinguished scholarly publications in the country... but after saying he is the first black president (elected), what else even compares to that in the lead as a groundbreaking accomplishment? Wikidemon (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
repeat of discussions elsewhere
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The fact that he is the first AA President will be in the lead in any and all bios about BO from now until the end of time, no matter what he does or does not accomplish as Prez or afterwards. That is a historically significant fact, worthy of being in the lead section here. The rest of the stuff discussed in this section is trivial nonsense.--Fizbin (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There's considerable debate about whether or not Chester A. Arthur may have actually been born in Canada, so the "continental US" thing may be wrong anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I knew something like that would turn up eventually. Canadian eh? Dr.K. (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I have been griping about this very issue for quite a while. I won't repeat myself so I'll just gripe here again. Gripe, gripe, gripe. Yes, let's stick to what's important and not make the article a collection of "fun facts". Wikidemon (talk) 07:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
At least there is no trivia (or Barack in popular culture) section in the article. Yet. Dr.K. (talk) 07:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama is not the first person to win the popular vote to have black ancestry. Five presidents had black ancestry...Lincoln, Jefferson, Jackson, Coolidge, and Harding. Obama is just one other to have partial black ancestry. He is also the first elected that the evidence says is not a natural born U.S. citizen. The evidence points to him still being an Indonesian citizen. Where is you documentation of his birthplace? So far, there is no known documentation to back this up. He and his half sister have been quoted as saying he was born in two different hospitals. Where do you get your information? If you are writing an article, you should include all information about the subject. Some information in the current article is false or misleading and has no documentation to back it up. mystynight

Ha ha ha. This is hilarious! I thought Aunt Sarah had witnessed him being born in Kenya. Where are all of these reliable sources? Maybe he appeals to so many people because he was born in so many places. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
In what world does a birth certificate not count as documentation of someone's birthplace? 98.240.184.6 (talk) 08:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
(Also, if you want to be pedantic about it every President -- every person for that matter -- has black/African ancestry.) 98.240.184.6 (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

To the poster writing about a birth certificate...there has been no birth certificate released, only a forged image on a few websites. Images on websites without backup for them cannot be used as documentation. There are too many questions about Obama's origins to make blatant statements like there are in this article. Mystynight (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)mystynight 28 November 2008

There is no question at all about Obama's citizenship. You're parroting that conservapedia nonsense. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

There is much question about Obama's multiple citizenships. Open your eyes and do some research. It has nothing to do with poltics but with the Constitutional requirements for president. Stop parroting the mainstream media and the Obama campaign. Mystynight (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Mystynight 3 Dec 2008

Did you just ask us to ignore reliable sources and edit according to what fringe theorists say? Srsly? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

When the media ignore reliable sources, don't report on them and deliberately hide information, they are no longer reliable sources. Source documents are reliable sources, not the media who fail to report on them. This has nothing to do with your so-called "fringe theorists." It has to do with actual facts. You can ignore the facts if you like, but they are still facts. Mystynight (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)mystynight 3 Dec 2008

OK, I'll bite. Where is the absolute, unimpeachable proof that Obama's short form birth certificate is a forgery and that the state of Hawaii has lied about having his long form birth certificate on record? And if you have such evidence, why have you not immediately forwarded it to the proper authorities? If what you have is a link to obamacrimes.com, I strongly suggest you wrap the tinfoil a little tighter. --GoodDamon 18:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually doing something about it would spoil their fun over at KKKonservapedia. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
GoodDamon, how dare you imply Mystynight would use ObamaCrimes.com as a source, you are insulting his/her intelligence when you say that, there are far more reputable sites that have reported extensively on the matter. I may not be able to name ANY, AT ALL, EVER, but thats besides the point somehow. GoodDamon, I bet you're gonna feel pretty goofy when he/she comes back here with a reliable source. I mean, we all know he/she will. He/She was so assertive that we were parroting the Hitler-Linked LMSM viewpoint there would be no-way he/she'd be parroting the Jesus-Linked RMSM viewpoint...--DemocraplypseNow (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Given that we also know your IP address, you might want to tone down the rhetoric a bit. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Article Length

This article is too small. You can tell by the size of the scroll bar on the right hand side. People like Jack Kemp, Hillary Clinton and Condi Rice's articles are a lot bigger. Barack Obama is argubly the most famous person on this planet right now. This article needs to be bigger.

There are several other articles about Obama that go into more detail about certain aspects of his life. See Category:Barack Obama. Zagalejo^^^ 20:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, note that Barack Obama is a Featured Article, written in Summary Style. The best articles on Wikipedia are not the longest ("If I had more time I would write a shorter letter" —Blaise Pascal, and others), but the most well-written articles. Summary Style articles give a link at the beginning of each section to a more complete article on that aspect of the subject. See "Main Article: Early life and career of Barack Obama" under the first section of the Obama article, for example. priyanath talk 20:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
If I had a dime for every time someone complained that the article is too long... Tvoz/talk 03:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Tax plan

Hey, I'm not even one of the dueling editors but I'm taking it to the talk page! Regarding this,[1] I think the matter is moot because the entire presentation of Obama's tax plan is of undue weight. In the ephemera of the election the details of his tax proposal may have been worthwhile. But now that he's elected, it does not much matter from a biographical sense what specific things he dangled in front of voters. It only matters that he proposed a tax plan. Moreover, it is an election promise, not a political position. A political position would be something like "the tax burden on the middle class should be reduced", which goes to policy. An election promise is something like "the plan I will introduce if elected reduces the tax on 95% of voters", which goes to effects and specifics. Anyway, as he gets into office the importance of his specific pre-election promises will recede. I would not be surprised if a few months from now we drop all reference to the proposal and instead focus on the plan he does introduce, if significant. Wikidemon (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. These sorts of details aren't really biographical anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Ditto. Tvoz/talk 02:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Observation of Barack's bio or The Wiki-Obama standards of political content and style

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I find it curious the Biography of Barack Obama has not one negative element to it. It reads like a campaign mailer, with glowing remarks and fawning reverence for Mr. Obama. In observing this article, and comparing in to, McCain's, Sarah Palin's (see typical example here [2] and other Republican office holders biography, the Republican ones are filled, with all sorts of negativity, red herring, and plain old guilt by association. Now if considering the precedents and standards, as they were up held on this article and vigorously defended by those with like "Scjessey" and "Wikidemon" and others I will conclude these are considered to be typical and reflect the consensus of those on Wikipedia. As such I will take it a step further and apply these precedents of style and content or what I would like to coin the "Wiki-Obama standards of political content and style" on Republican office holders biographies, with equal and fair vigor as it has been applied here on the Obama's Biography. This must be done, in order to bring true fairness and non-partisanship, as well good balance and neutrality to the Political biographies on Wikipedia. I hope those like Scjessey and Wikidemon will apply, with equal vigor these standards to Republican Office holder's biographies and defend this "Wiki-Obama standards of political content and style" as it was set here on this bio. Orangejumpsuit (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

When you wish to discuss editing an article, you should either post on that article's Talk page, or on the discussion page of a related wikiproject, and not on the page of a different article. As such, this thread is completely inappropriate for this page, which is for discussing improvements to this article. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Still no mention on the birth certificate?

Last time it was brought up it was dismissed as a "fringe conspiracy", but it seems to me that the fact that Obama not only had to make a trip back to produce the currently claimed copy of it and that the Justice Souter has called on him to come forward and produce evidence for the court seems to me it's more than just a fringe thing, even if there are those who would just as soon keep it quiet...71.198.127.97 (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in Obama's Hawaiian trip has anything to do wit the certificate, and Judge Souder has declared no such thing. Berg's petition is scheduled for private conference on the 8th, just as any other filing is up for consideration. Tarc (talk) 16:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Facts are facts, but wikipedia is not about truth, its about what can be cited. Several media organizations have commented on this. It may be time to add it, since it can be cited endlessly.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
That's just the wedge the conspiracists are seeking. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
No. Media organizations have commented on Berg's nutballery. They haven't lent any credence whatsoever to his lawsuit or the bizarre claims therein. Until the Supreme Court loses its collective mind and rules Berg's evidence-less theory actually has merit -- and believe me, they won't -- it has no place in Obama's BLP because it has had no bearing on Obama's life. Man, I can't wait until this wackiness is laughed out of court once and for all, and we can finally talk about something else. --GoodDamon 19:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
When is this wonderful occasion? I thought it was supposed to be the 1st. Bigbluefish (talk) 21:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
No no, the 1st was when Obama was supposed to withdraw because he hadn't provided the Supreme Court with his really truly honest to gosh for realz birth certificate, at which point the Supreme Court was supposed to rule Obama couldn't become President. Sadly, I'm guessing we can expect this silliness to continue until Obama is actually sworn in. At that point, there will be all sorts of new silliness. --GoodDamon 17:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
My guess is that this idea was cooked up because things were getting a little slow at the "we-never-went-to-the-moon" club. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the tinfoil-hat wearing crowd have found a new conspiracy theory to chomp on. --Overhere2000 (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The IP address is dredging (or drudging) up a late-October "theory" by Rush Slimeball and others who mocked the "dying grandmother" story, and then apparently zipped their overworked lips about it after she actually died. Like, Shazam!, he was telling the truth! Never mind! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The citizenship issue is and never had been a "conspiracy issue." Take the blinders off and do some research besides in the mainstream media and the Obama campaign site. It seems that posters on here are not willing to look at the evidence, but are in bed with Obama regardless of what the evidence says. Documents point to him still being an Indonesian citizen. He also had British citizenship at birth since Kenya was still a colony. When it became independent, he had Kenyan citizenship. His foreign citizenship was even admitted on his website. A president cannot have divided loyalties, but Obama very clearly does. Read the Constitutional requirements for president and the laws governing what a natual born citizen is. Obama does not qualify. Mystynight (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Mystynight 3 Dec 2008

Gosh, you're right! Someone should put together some kind of Federal Election Commission to vet candidates for the Presidency and ensure they meet legal requirements to hold the office! And darn us for relying on mainstream media sources, when the truth is out there! --GoodDamon 18:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Limbaugh has wisely dropped the subject, so apparently he's "in bed with" Obama also. You can tell by the kid-gloves way he treats Obama on his website. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the document in qustion was eaten by Jim Morrison's pet Chupicabra. Tin foil hat sales have no doubt weathered the economic crisis Cosand (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Besides, didn't the Bush administration repeal the Constitution? --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
All except the part about holding elections on schedule. D'oh! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The reason Wikipedia goes by sources within the mainstream media is simple: we are here to document what is actually going on, not things which might have happened, or could be happening. No one is "in bed" with any faction or ideology. There is a clear criteria for what does or doesn't get included. If it is published as news by credible news organizations, it will be included here. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • It's nice to see AOL news posting a article about the birth certificate issue, so if you need some material to cite here's the link to the story. [3] 71.57.146.112 (talk) 05:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "Documents point to him still being an Indonesian citizen." -- One shouldn't even have to ask you for a citation of where you found this "information". Obama moved to Indonesia as a child. A child cannot claim citizenship. Only an adult can. As they say in the GI Joes cartoon, knowing is half the battle! And apparently you haven't reached the halfway point. Lol.--Pericles of AthensTalk 10:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • 71.57.146.112- I don't really see how an article in AOL proves anything in the slightest. The fact reamins that 1.) no relaible sources have released anything that comes even close to inferring that Obama is not a natural-born citizen and 2.) even if we only wanted to talk about the fact that such a controversy exists (which so far consensus has clearly said we don't) than the place to do it would not be his biography. Now, I'm beginning to get very, very tired of IP's pushing fringe POV's; it's disruptive and it's going to stop, are we clear? l'aquatique || talk 11:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    • As long as this nonsense is confined to the talk page, it's mostly harmless. However, you mentioned a "Freudian slip" in your edit summary. Maybe they need to forget about this, and go off and pursue a new urban legend - that old Siggie was a cross-dresser. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The noted philosopher Shawn Michaels once said, "Lord knows if its on the internet it must be true." It is awfully entertaining reading all of this. It reminds me of when a schoolchild would tell another schoolchild the truth about Santa Clause, and the other rigorously defends there must be a Santa Clause. Both think they know better than the other, one's just stupid. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

While at this point it is probably a fringe theory just the fact the Supreme Court will be discussing a suit involving the theory makes it notable. Wikipedia will discuss fringe theories if there they are deemed notable. The way these discussions are going you would think that this topic are only bieng discussed at the Acorn Stole the Election type blogs. News organizations deciding that the Supreme Court will bring the matter up is a newsworthy event include The Chicago Tribune[4],The GuardianUK[5],Newsday[6],Kansas City Star[7],and Legal Newsline[8] Edkollin (talk) 04:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

As I have been told time and time again here, today's "newsworthy" does not equate to encyclopedic. Notice the Court is not going to hear the case tomorrow, they're going to decide whether to hear the case. If they decide not to hear it, it's over, and its only purpose in the article would be to try to flog a dead horse. So at this point it has no business being in the article. If they do decide to hear the case, then maybe you've got something. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I did notice that that is why I said discuss the matter not hear the suit. Most legal actions do not end up at the top level. Let's discuss what the legal experts say is the likely outcome they won't hear the case. I am not a lawyer so correct me if I am wrong but I would not think the court discusses whether to hear every petition that they get. As far as encyclopedic I do not see why these fringe theories are not encyclopedic but 9/11,Kennedy Assassination ,Pearl Harbor CT theories or UFO’s at Roswell are. If they do hear the case there is no maybe about it. It will not even be a fringe theory anymore. Off Topic: Who is old suggie? Edkollin (talk) 09:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Siggie. Sigmund Freud. Regarding the other conspiracies, keep in mind that it took a number of years for most of them to develop to the point where they were notable enough to qualify for wikipedia if it had existed then. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for siggie explanation did not know about that theory. Yes I do realize the other theories s have been around longer I am not proposing a whole article like they received just a short mention. Edkollin (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The reason you did not know about it is because I made it up. Which is where a lot of these theories come from, don'cha know. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The only possible reason for bringing it up in this biography is in the unlikely event that the fringe theory turns out to be true and Obama is found ineligible for the presidency. In all other cases, it is utterly irrelevant. There is a case for documenting it elsewhere (such as in a separate article, or perhaps the transition article), but only in the event that the matter gets significant news coverage. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this topic belongs under a separate heading; maybe something like "Allegations Regarding Candidacy" (or something less lurid). This would allow posters to make reference to issues surrounding Obama's college transcripts, birth certificate, relationship with Ayers, and so on, without cluttering up or detracting from the rest of the article. It would also address the relevant fact that non-mainstream sources raised issues during Obama's candidacy and his inauguration. The article seems a little too positive, otherwise. I mean, even Ghandi had detractors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightmote (talkcontribs) 16:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that NPOV requires an equal amount of positive and negative content. To show the fallacy of this thinking, imagine if we had to "balance" the article about Pol Pot or Adolph Hitler with "positive" material to counter the existing negative information in those articles. NPOV means we present what reliable sources have to say in a neutral manner. It doesn't mean we add poorly sourced or inappropriate material to "counter" positive material. --GoodDamon 16:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, and I am no supporter of the "Fairness Doctrine", but any discussion of Hitler would be incomplete without a reference to the Treaty of Versailles, and I believe that any discussion of the Obama candidacy will be incomplete without at least some passing references to the issues raised regarding Obama's past. For instance, to avoid mentioning Reverend Wright or Bill Ayers in this article is to imply that those individuals played no role during the campaign; ditto the Birth Certificate. It would be more appropriate and complete and neutral to state the allegations raised followed by the outcome of the ensuing investigation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightmote (talkcontribs) 17:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless the Court decides to hear the so-called "issue" about Obama's birthplace, it does not belong in the article. The other topics are covered at length in various places. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
It actually gets even worse. Another litigant acknowledges that the birth certificate is legitimate and concedes that Obama was born in Hawaii but he is suing because he thinks Obama was a British citizen at birth. This seems to be endless. Dr.K. (logos) 18:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I saw a similar article, in which it was pointed out that today's Court discussion is merely about whether to look at the claim that he's not a "natural born citizen", hence (contrary to the complainants here), the so-called "issue" of the birth certificate is not even considered an issue. What it does, though, is splinter the ones who want to steal the election from Obama, into different camps. That article, or one like it, also pointed out a term for these conspiracy theorist types: "birthers". So now we have a name for them. Like "Big Bertha" or "lower berth", or any number of plays on words. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
To quote from the article, "Mr. Donofrio concedes Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii." The so-called "issue" over the birth certificate is, in fact, not an issue at all. Hence it has no place in the article. If there's an issue about Obama's citizenship otherwise, maybe those yokels could have brought it up a little sooner. I think there was a similar issue about McCain that was dealt with fairly early in the campaign. But unless the Court decides to hear it, the citizenship issue also has no place in the article, unless it's to report that it's not an issue. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Now that's funny.. Apparently the litigant isn't aware that regardless of the nationality of the parents a child born on US soil is a natural born US citizen. That is where the term anchor baby comes from after all. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
There you go again, Bobblehead, trying to insert facts into this discussion. My favorite part of this conspiracy is the birth announcement placed in the Hawaii newspapers on August 13, 1961, clearly placed there knowing full well that 47 years later people would want to point to it as proof of his Hawaiian birth. Those folks sure were clever. Tvoz/talk 19:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
That's my understanding also. But presumably the Court will decide. The whole thing is slippery because the writers of the Constitution didn't bother to define the term. But it's clear what they meant: They didn't want foreigners running the government, such as the German-born kings who had run England for awhile. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
It's not realy slippery at all. The original framers didn't explicitly define it, but it was explicitly defined later on in the 14th Amendment. As for the court "deciding" this issue, the chances of them taking up this case are next to zero (which I guess will be their way of deciding it). --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Heck, it's not even like referring the appeal to conference is uncommon. Read somewhere that in the last eight years 840 appeals were referred for conference, but only 60 of those were heard. Depending on the result of the review, Thomas was probably referred for conference so that the appeal could be killed. If he had rejected it like Souter did, the petitioner could have resubmitted the appeal to another Justice and continued to do so until the end of time.. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Talk about AGF... but that's certainly possible. Tvoz/talk 19:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I forsee this turning into the same type of conspiracy theory as the JFK assassination conspiracy, 9/11 conspiracy, and so on. Even with the evidence staring them right in their face and enough people saying there is nothing there, they will not stop believing it. These people believe beyond hope that something will come up and the person they supported will become president. Sadly, this will also become a reoccurring theme for us. Brothejr (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Leo's case not taken up by SCOTUS. Only two were, heres your source [9] Background: when the Supreme Court grants cert. (i.e., decides that they will hear a case), they release that order immediately, because the parties to the case need to start working on their briefs. If the Court denies cert. (decides that they will not hear the case), those orders are not released until the following Monday (because there are so many of them and the clerk's office needs time to put together the full list). Today's order list grants cert. in two cases, neither one of them an Obama eligibility case. We won't know for sure until the Monday order list comes out it the cases were denied (it's possible they postponed consideration to a later conference, though I think that's unlikely), or if anyone dissented from the denial, but if I had to bet, I would say that the Court will simply decline to hear these cases without any comment. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Info Edkollin (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Obama and Mohammed & Holy Grail

Recent discussion has included discussion of Obama descent from both the claimed holy grail lines of Jesus and also certain lines from Mohammed. And Mohammed's prophecy that a descendant of his would fight the dajjal (the antichrist). Should this link be added to reference listings

Obama - Mohammed, Holy Grail & the Dajjal

Don't forget Obama's ancestral connection with E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Short answer:no. See WP:Reliable sources; contrast Tin foil hat. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The IP also tried to post it in several other places, all zapped. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the public has a right to know the extent of Obama's connection with Santa Claus. It is being "widely reported" that he received unreported gifts from the "Christmas Lobbyist" on an annual basis. Matt Drudge reports that one of these gifts may have been a G.I. Joe dressed in traditional muslim garb. -- 71.225.97.64 (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
For the inauguration, Michelle Obama will be donning a Ralph Loren burqua. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
It may be "widely reported", but Wikipedia is not news and the public has a right to read about it elsewhere. This material is not important enough, within the context of Obama's life, to be documented in his biographical article. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm pretty sure Obama is the reincarnation of Jesus, I read it on a blog somewhere, thus it should be added to Wikipedia. Lol. Seriously, a heck of a lot of these people wearing tin foil hats are coming out of the woodworks these days, aren't they?--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
But this Santa Claus thing is big news. Everyone is talking about it. Not just in blogs, but on real TV shows like Oprah and stuff. I saw it mentioned on The O'Reilly Factor last night! Apparently, Obama didn't have to do anything to receive these gifts except "be good" (whatever that means). -- 71.225.97.64 (talk)
Further reinforcing the E.T. connection: "Beee goo-ood!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think Wikipedia is the place for claims that Obama is the messiah or the anti-christ or the one who will fight the anti-christ (and presumably win) or a descendant of Jesus or a descendant of Mohammed or an E.T., nor do I think that particular link belongs in the Reference section, but I do think we should keep it in mind (in the archive of this discussion) for future Talk page discussions (and we know there will be more, probably for all eternity) claiming Obama is the anti-christ. So thank you for posting it, and please ignore those ridiculing your post. They've had a very long year. Flatterworld (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
In the early 80s, some said that Reagan was the anti-Christ, owing to having 6 letters in each of his 3 names: Ronald Wilson Reagan. That fear proved to be mostly an exaggeration. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
"mostly" Tvoz/talk 19:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Too early to tell - wait and see how the current financial/economic (aka deregulation) crisis turns out for the world. Flatterworld (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Germany Protest Ban

Resolved: Consensus says keep it out

Support Inclusion of protest ban in Berlin. See also Talk:Public image of Barack Obama EagleScout18 (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Nah, not for a bio article. Same goes for the George W. Bush bio and all the protesters and signs his people stopped at his talks. Not notable, happens all the time. priyanath talk 03:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Nothing special about it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Closing RfC as marginal RfC brought in absence of any dispute, duplicating an RfC just proposed elsewhere.[10] Please feel free to continue using the section for normal discussion but no need to fork an RfC. Wikidemon (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Close it Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Reminder This is not a discussion about the RfC, but about the proposal of inclusion of the Germany ban as described. Per policy, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFC#Ending_RfCs:

"Ending RfCs: Most RfCs are automatically ended by the RfC bot after thirty days. (The expiration date is listed in the list of RfCs.) If consensus has been reached before then, the RfC nominator(s) can remove the RfC tag, and the bot will remove the discussion from the list on its next run. A request for comment on a user, however, needs to be closed manually. This should be done by an uninvolved editor."

Per above, please do not remove RFC templates. Thank you, in advance, EagleScout18 (talk) 05:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I've closed the RfC because it was brought way too prematurely. The RfC page states "Before asking outside opinion here, it generally helps to simply discuss the matter on the article talk page first. Whatever the disagreement, the first step in resolving a dispute is to talk to the other parties involved." It's common practice on Wikipedia to have a discussion on the talk page first, and then have an RfC if there is no consensus or there are unresolvable issues. There is clear consensus so far to not include this in the article. priyanath talk 05:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Priyanath. no outside outside opinions are really required as it is already clear that most editors are opposed to inclusion of the incident. Icewedge (talk) 05:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support RFC closure and Oppose mention of this in article — for better or worse, this is not uncommon practice for political gatherings for figures who want to stay "on message". It's not great for free speech, but it doesn't really have anything to do with Obama either. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 06:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
(multiple edit conflict) Additional note: this discussion was begun barely two hours ago. If every two hour old discussion (one already with consensus yet) was brought to RfC, the system would break down. priyanath talk 06:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Remain open Leave other editors time to respond. EagleScout18 (talk) 07:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Support closure of RfC and Oppose inclusion of this matter in article. Clearly not for this bio, clearly no consensus in favor, and the RfC was overkill. Tvoz/talk 08:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support closure of RfC and Oppose inclusion of this matter in article per others. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Another editor responding - in case unanimous opposition is not sufficient, this is one of the highest traffic articles on Wikipedia; if anyone is likely to see this charade and see the sources proposed as sufficiently reliable and the incident concerned to be sufficiently notable even anywhere on Wikipedia then one will find it just fine without an open RFC. RFC closures are not binding of course but a very clear consensus has emerged right now. Bigbluefish (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support closure of RfC and Oppose inclusion for this obviously non-notable, agenda-driven material. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support closure of RfC and Oppose inclusion This is not really notable enough to be included in the summary style written main biography. Brothejr (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Post-support closure of RfC and Oppose inclusion as trivial. Grsz11 01:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Really? So that's the reward for fairly harmless, albeit somewhat idiosyncratic, behaviour that includes calling a spade a spade and coolly standing up for oneself in the heat of what looked suspiciously like a witch-hunt? Did EagleScout18 grow a wart on his/her nose? Hang out with a black cat? (Answers on my talk page please.) Just curious. Oh well. Being a witch, he/she has presumably mastered Shape-shift 101 and will return as someone (or -thing) else, casting horrible spells to afflict his/her tormentors with boils etc. And while I'm driving by:
  • Oppose inclusion. Suppressing freedom of expression is so commonplace in democracies as to be a cliché; therefore not sufficiently notable for the summary. — Writegeist (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I thought an indef-block was a bit excessive, but I also suspected he was merely trolling, and he hasn't uttered a whimper since being blocked, so I suspect my suspicion was correct. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
A "bit" excessive? A bit of an understatement. As you say, it was all suspicion. And whereas a scamper through ES18's contribs shows that the majority are clearly intended to improve the encyclopedia, his block appeal was nevertheless declined (by a sysop just three months into the job) with the Kafkaesque judgement that "after reviewing your contributions I don't believe you are here to improve the encyclopedia". (Emph. added.) Indefinitely blocking editors who are generally (and demonstrably) well-intentioned will hardly improve the encyclopedia. "...hasn't uttered a whimper since being blocked"? Not true. See ES18's talk page for his/her remarkably civil (under the circs) response to the sysop in question. As you predicate your suspicion about your suspicion on your belief that ES18 was silenced by the block, this evidence to the contrary will now, I'm happy to say, relieve you of your specious suspicion. (If you follow me.) :~) Any reply, my talk please. — Writegeist (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
He showed the all-to-typical signs of just being here to push an agenda, and did it in a rather disruptive and typically tendentious, aggressive manner. A good block and good riddance, IMO. Tarc (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Also, what I said about him being silent was true at the time. His unblock request since then, consisted of complaints about other editors, an approach which typically will result in a decline no matter who the admin is. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support closure and Oppose inclusion; obscure guilt-by-proxy allegations are inappropriate for a biography article. »S0CO(talk|contribs) 02:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm marking this "resolved", as the only one who supported it was the one who proposed it, and he gawn. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Yes this could be vandalized but it will allow those who wish to add knoledge to do so and this will allow a more balanced view on his political views.Temp213 (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

 Note: Already answered on user's talk page. NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 00:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Why criticism of the article belongs on this page

I don't understand why user:Orangejumpsuit's comment does not belong on this page, since it is criticizing the sanitation of the Obama article? His comment regarding holding Republican articles to the same standard can be added to the Republican talk pages, but his point regarding the fairness and balance of this page should not be censored. I think his comment should be opened up for discussion on this talk page. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any idea what some of us went through in September-October, trying to defend the Sarah Palin page against a siege of tabloid junk? Eventually we just gave up, and if her page is laden with unfair criticism, that's the reason. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
So in other words it's fine to leave Republican pages full of attacks, but Obama's must remain pure. The political bias of Liberalpedia is amazing.
Being rather familiar with disruptive editing, it should be quite easy to recognize when a person is merely present to push an agenda rather than honestly contribute to an article. The section above by this person was a soapboxing attack on other editors who do not share his particular opinion on the matter, and looking through his edit history, this is not the first time. Tarc (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
If there's any actual evidence that the page is being whitewashed of legitimate and pertinent critical commentary then I'm sure it would receive a fair hearing here. The evidence seems to suggest a rather strong correlation between "editors who propose the addition of critical commentary here" and "editors who believe that Obama is General Zod's Muslim half-nephew", however. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
In 2007 Obama himself said that his middle name and its Muslim roots will help heal the rift between the Muslim and Western world. You can't have it both ways.
It's worth keeping in mind that he's not President yet, so technically he hasn't done anything yet. Once he does, there will be ample legitimate criticism. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
He's been alive for quite some time, and has been an active member of adult society for most of that. This is not just the Obama Presidency article. Drawings he made in nursery school are being excluded because they are trivial, not because they weren't drawn during his term. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
True. I mean he hasn't done anything as President yet. And criticisms need to be based on reliable sources raising worthwhile points, not "he's a liberal and we hate him" kinds of stuff. For example, he's already being accused of going against his pledge of being a change agent by bringing in the same old people to run the show, to essentially re-create the Clinton administration (hopefully without the Lewinsky factor), although even that's more of a partisan complaint than anything, being as how Bush did his best to re-create his father's administration. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
As it says at the top of the page: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barack Obama article. Good faith proposals to improve this article are not - and will not be - censored. Note, however, that the archived section above does not contain any such proposals. It does contain criticism of this article, implying that there is a problem with this article with respect to WP:NPOV, but rather than suggesting that this perceived problem be fixed, instead proposes to treat this article as establishing a precedent that should affect all other political biographies. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Languages spoken

I've tried to find out whether Obama speaks any other languages beside English, through perusing Wikipedia, that is, but to no avail. As he went to school in Jakarta and had classes in Bahasa Indonesia, according to Early life and career of Barack Obama, and given his education, sophistication, cosmopolitanism, and multi-ethnic kin, it is certainly understandable that one may be led to wonder about that. Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


I do believe he previously spoke whatever language they use in Indonesia, I have no source that I can easily find. Take it with a grain of salt. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
This came up at the reference desk once. [11] Apparently, he is only fluent in English, but knows a little Spanish, Swahili, and Indonesian. Zagalejo^^^ 02:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
According to what my friend has told me… (who is a videographer -- see e/g his work here -- and who himself, this friend, taught English in Indonesia in the '70s, thereafter studied the language in California and now speaks it, and, according to his bio, had returned for 6 months in 1981 to do field research in Bali, Java and Sumatra) …Barack's sister Maya told my friend at a campaign event in the SF Bay Area that her brother Barack understands Indonesian well but is less fluent in his ability to speak it. Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply 02:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I see, thank you very much for answering my question. Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

genealogical tree of Obama

look at this [12].

in the article there is nothing about Obama's genealogy, despite it has been verified by multples media and newpapers in the past, as you can see in the notes. The article on English Wikipedia must be integrated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.66.37.49 (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The article discusses Obama's parents, grandparents, and children. That's a reasonable amount of family material. English Wikipedia articles generally do not contain genealogy trees (there are exceptions, such as some articles about royal families), but there is an article, Family of Barack Obama with much more information. Wikipedia isn't really a great resource for complete genealogies - there are other websites with that focus, and more useful tools. We can direct readers to that through the power of the hyperlink and citation (most apt for the family article, not this one). Wikidemon (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
To expand on what Wikidemon posted: There are many relevant links, but Wikipedia is not a link farm. That's why (in External links) we link to Obama's category on ODP which includes the link to: William Addams Reitwiesner Genealogical Services - Ancestry of Barack Obama for those interested. Flatterworld (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to the English Wikipedia, M r (or, of course, M/ s) IP! My own suggestion…
  1. Find the right Obama sub-article… By your going to this article's "Further Reading" section (here: Barack Obama#Further Reading) and checking out the navigation-box template for The Series Of Articles About President-elect Barack Obama…then clicking on its Wikipedia link that says, "Family."
  2. Find the correct section… By, once your screen loads up The Obama Family article, your looking at its table of contents and clicking the article's section entitled "Distant relations"…
  3. Make a reasonable contribution… By, now that you've got to that section, your translating from the foreign language source you've mentioned just above, and contributing in English a sentence of arguably (quote) notable (end of quote) information that would fit the subject of this section: distant genealogical relationships of Barack Obama
  4. Cite a pertinent source in English… By, now, your using search engines or whatnot and finding an English-language source for this same info, then appending a footnote to your contribution that would reference it as a source…
  5. Hover over the article every day… checking back until the inevitable um likewise hovering -- or, that is, circling -- sharks have arrived to delete it, alleging it simply not to be notable…
  6. Defend your contribution… By your going to the Family article's talkpage and contending that the information you had contributed "…was indeed notable!"… Of course, explaining why you feel it to be…
Again… Welcome! Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply 05:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Cycle. And you wondered why Wkipedia's logo is circular. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
In fact, M r or M/ s IP, much of the info you cite is in the section I mentioned above, in a "collapsed" table. (Just click on its button that says "Show." And....don't worry, folks; all pix in it are free!)

{{Selected genealogical relations with Barack Obama}}

Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply 04:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Obama Birth Certificate Issue

I think this horse has been beaten enough for now. :) --Bobblehead (rants) 21:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why do you guys keep deleting it? It's a legitimate news story. I'm by no means saying he's guilty of anything but it's being covered on all major news networks now. What is this WikiChina? Doesn't this make us look like we are indeed trying to hide something? A lot of people who use Wikipedia take it as fact and we look pretty dumb not even mentioning it.

There is mention of the McCain controversy on his page. I'm sure you'll find controversies (true or not) on most presidents. Why not just acknowledge that it exists and state that nothing has been proven. Do you think by leaving it off it will magically go away? All it shows is that we are being commies like they claim and it really discredits the entire page by totally leaving it out.

My 2 cents.

Cheers, Ryan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.54.191 (talk) 03:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a bogus, fringe story not worthy of wikipedia. Once the Supreme Court item is fully settled, the entire discussion might be worth a sentence or two just to state that it was a bogus story invented by Obama opponents. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Only if you get reliably sourced information that it was invented. Edkollin (talk) 08:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
But likely not in his biography. Tvoz/talk 07:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
How about relocating both the McCain info, as well as the outcome of this case, to the "Natural born citizen" article? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Should the supreme court refuse to take up Donofrio v. Wells the issue (as appears to be the case) it is not notable to that article either, just a failed lawsuit and a conspiracy theory. There is an article about the suit that is up for deletion and (despite my vote to keep) seems to be a losing battle. If the material belongs anywhere, it is probably in an article devoted to persistent conspiracy theories and/or lawsuits over Obama's citizenship. They will likely not go anywhere, but it is a sourceable, notable phenomenon in its own right that people keep dragging this up. We have articles about UFOs and pixies, might as well have an article about this. Plus, even though in reality it is farfetched and remote that a court would ever declare Obama unfit on account of his birth, the underlying issue is actually an interesting one and has never been adjudicated as far as I can tell, just assumed to be true. I know I'm conflating theories about his birthplace with those about eligibility that rely on the facts as generally accepted - it all seems like part of the same to me. Wikidemon (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Funny you should mention pixies, as that reminds me of a comment by attorney Joseph N. Welch during the Army-McCarthy hearings, whose accusations came to a similar pointless end. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is all about verifiability, not truth. It is being covered as a controversy in the media, and should be covered in this article.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense. This is Obama's biography. A frivolous lawsuit that obviously won't get anywhere has no biographical significance whatsoever. It only becomes biographically-significant in the totally unlikely event that the lawsuit actually leads to Obama being found ineligible for the presidency, or if Obama himself becomes embroiled in the case. Otherwise, any notability it may have concerns the plaintiff and possibly the court. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
If the high court decides to hear this case, then the place for it would be the Natural Born Citizen article, since that's the issue being pushed. If the court actually rules Obama ineligible, then it would belong here, along with information about the ensuing national riots resulting from the court subverting the will of the people. If they don't do any of that, then it's nothing, it's irrelevant, and doesn't belong anywhere in wikipedia. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
You are welcome to that opinion, but verifiability trumps your pesonal opinion.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Notability also figures into it. If the court decides not to consider the case, then where is the notability? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Since it continues to be brought up in the media and on this talk page, notability has been established.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
It continues to be brought up, yes. My particular references have been deleted from this talk page. I put up notice of a National PRess Corp discussion in regard to it that couldn't have been left on here for 5 minutes. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oops! I was wrong. I made my post at 9:28 [13] NawlinWiki reverted with no edit summary at 9:29 [14] Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
You posted an entire copyrighted press release. I'm guessing it was reverted because it was a copyright violation (NawlinWiki is an administrator). The admin 1-button rollback feature does not provide a customizable edit summary. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
It's not notable for this article. This is a biography of Barack Obama, not a collection of frivolous lawsuits that have his name on them. It might be notable enough for a proposed article on all the conspiracy theories and fringe Obama lawsuits being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donofrio v. Wells. Priyanath talk 04:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Continuing to argue this in the abstract appears to be pointless. Please propose an addition that meets the standards of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
If he is going to be president then everyone must understand that this page can no longer be white washed. Understand that all of this comes with the job. There is no exception to it.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
It isn't whitewashed. It also will not become a sounding board for every half-baked, right-wing, nutjob, tinfoil hat conspiracy that gets puked out of the blogosphere. The notion of Obama being foreign-born is a fringe conspiracy that cannot and will not be placed in the article. Reliable sourcing isn't the issue, nor is it relevant. Become friends with WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, please. Tarc (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Again, focusing on a specific proposal would help. It's hard for me to come up with something that doesn't sound like a joke. Perhaps the thought is (not sure where):
Despite publishing a copy of his birth certificate and confirmation by Hawaii's Director of Vital Records, rumors that Obama was not actually born in Hawaii or otherwise failed to meet the eligibility requirements for the presidency were circulated by a variety of right-wing sources and several specious lawsuits were filed attempting to block him from becoming president.
I agree omitting this here is not white-washing. It simply has essentially nothing to do with Obama's biography. He was born in Hawaii. No reliable source questions that. It is certainly a fact that there are people who apparently don't believe this, but so what? -- Rick Block (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I personally don't really believe the rumors. But I have heard them a lot, and they got me curious. When I'm curious, I come to the one source of information that I can (almost) always trust to be fair and objective. If it really is a popular controversy (the fact alone that people keep trying to add it on this page proves that it is), it needs to be mentioned. Not to promote the rumors, but to do what Wikipedia does best: tell the facts.--Johnny Jupiter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.45.186 (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd say we wait until the case is settled, before adding it to the article. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Controversies appear on many biographies once they reach a level of public discourse which indicates that the controversy is important to the subject's life and that providing information on this issue would be helpful for those coming here to learn more about the subject. The question here, then, is whether or not this issue has reached that level of public discourse. I've seen segments on this on CNN, and the articles have popped up all over mainstream media, not just right-wing attack blogs. The article could probably use a sentence on this no unlike the one offered above, but with less opinion. The issue itself isn't that complicated, and the facts will speak for themselves.

Also, I'm not sure why we need to wait for the case to be settled before we comment. Most controversies don't have clean ends, and having one isn't necessary for inclusion in an article.LedRush (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Has anybody checked the birth records of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, J.Q.Adams, Jackson & Harrison (maybe even Van Buren)? None of them were born American citizens. Also, Chet Arthur? the Canuck? GoodDay (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
How about Hamilton? He was born on St. Croix, knew he could never be president so he wanted to be king. Thank God for Tom Jefferson. L0b0t (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Or perhaps, thank Aaron Burr. GoodDay (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
From Article II of the U.S. Constitution: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; . . . ." Those guys thought of everything. :-)~ --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I knew there had to be a grandfather clause in there. GoodDay (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Just FYI, not all of the "natural-born citizen lawsuits" dispute that Obama was born in Hawaii and is a U.S. citizen. For example, the New Jersey lawsuit by Leo Donofrio (which will probably be dismissed by SCOTUS tomorrow) alleges that Obama was born in Hawaii and is a U.S. citizen, but nevertheless is not a "natural-born citizen" because he was born with dual citizenship. There's a Connecticut lawsuit that makes the same argument. I'll refrain from giving my opinion about it, but it's certainly a very different argument from the argument that Obama's unreleased long-form birth certificate may indicate a foreign birth.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't even realized this was an issue, so I did a very little digging. FactCheck.org has an analysis of the controversy that throughly demolishes the rumors and arguments that Obama's birth certificate isn't legitimate. Whether or not this article has a section on this controversy, I'd suggest we leave in the citation I've just added to emphasize the hard evidence supporting his natural-born citizenship. It may be the only way to permanently deflate any conspiracy theorists, at least on this one aspect of the issue. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
The Factcheck "Born in the USA" thing is already in footnote #3, so I reverted.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
The only "hard evidence" of his citizenship will be the presentation of a certified copy of his certificate to the proper authorities for verification. 99.9 % of "natural born citizens" in the U.S. would simply present it when required. In fact, we have to present it for a passport, to collect social security, and numerous other reasons. The U.S. President is required to be a natural-born citizen, and so should present his passport to the proper officials. Obama could make this issue disappear in 5 minutes. Why doesn't he? [15] Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
According to this: he has and yet rumors persist. This seriously must count among the lamest conspiracy theories yet. No aliens, no mind control, no atomic bombs- just a bunch of bigots who don't know the meaning of the term sportsmanship. I would strongly suggest to all regular visitors of this page: just stop responding. Do not give the nuts the time of day and they will lose interest eventually. l'aquatique || talk 06:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
It's not quite that simple, L'Aquatique. Barack Obama's short-form birth certificate has been posted online at Obama's website. However, a short-form is different from a long-form. Obama's short form was laser-printed and certified by the State of Hawaii June 6, 2007. People like Tundrabuggy (and Alan Keyes) are seeking a copy of the original long-form certificate prepared in 1961. So, go ahead and call it a lame conspiracy theory if you like, but also acknowledge that Obama has not released the long-form. Obama may have good reasons for not releasing it, and people may have no valid reason for demanding a look at it, but the fact remains that it is still locked up in a vault.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
If you look at L'Aquatique's link, you'd see that the factcheck.org folks held the original long form birth certificate in their hands, photographed it, etc. So, actually, he has released it. --guyzero | talk 07:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
No, that's incorrect. L'Aquatique's link says: "FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as 'supporting documents' to this article." The high-resolution photographs are of the 2007 laser-printed short-form. Fact-check touched and examined the original 2007 document. They have not touched or seen the 1961 long-form, which contains info like the hospital, the doctor, et cetera.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Look, it doesn't matter. A birth certificate is a birth certificate: it's a legal document that states a person was born in a certain place, at a certain time, to certain people. If that picture is of a short form birth certificate than I don't have a long form one because that's all the information I've ever seen on a birth certificate. I trust I don't need to have mine verified by the state before you'll believe me? l'aquatique || talk 09:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I am not questioning your honesty, L'Aquatique, nor am I questioning Obama's. I'm simply pointing out the facts. There is a long-form birth certificate that Obama has declined to release, showing the hospital, the doctor, and other info that is not on the short form. That's all I'm saying, and it happens to be true. Whether it's important or not is another matter (I'm not commenting about that).Ferrylodge (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
The short form birth certificate is the only form that the State of Hawai'i (and most other states for that matter) will create for people that request a copy of their birth certificate and is accepted as proof that the long form birth certificate exists. Since the Hawaiian short form birth certificate includes the parents' names, his place of birth, date of birth, etc. it is accepted by all government agencies as proof of citizenship. All in all, this is just another conspiracy theory propagated by the tin-foil hat wearers and will never die now that it is out in the ether because like all conspiracy theory any evidence provided that contradicts the conspiracy theory is instantly labeled as a fraud and thus part of the conspiracy theory. Salon has a pretty good article on this:[16] --Bobblehead (rants) 18:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia has an article on it. Mfield (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I think that if his birthplace would've even remotely been an issue, it would've been caught long before he began his campaign for Presidency. I don't think Barrack would've been allowed if in fact there was any flagging during his background check. I have faith in our security experts. ^^ --Ulterion (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess we may never know. :-) SCOTUS declined to hear Donofrio v. Wells. [17] --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned above, Donofrio v. Wells had nothing to do with where Obama was born. Donofrio's argument assumed that Obama was born in Hawaii, and that his father was a non-citizen. No matter what your position about this whole thing, we should at least try to get our facts straight.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
There is no issue about either his birth or his citizenship. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree, there are hundreds of verified reliable sources that says he was born in Hawaii and is a legitimate natural-born citizen. The only thing notable about this are the people who cling to the theory that he was not born in this country or held dual citizenship, is a closet Muslim, in the hopes to keep him from becoming the next president. While the theories are notable in their craziness, they still don't belong in this biography. They are better included in either an election article or an article written on all the conspiracy theories floating out there on the blogsphear. Also, one comment on the whole long birth record. Why does Obama need to make it public for everyone to look at? It has been verified by a bunch of officials who have verified that it is legal and correct. Would you be ok if either your long form or short form, or in the middle form birth certificate be made public for everyone to see and verify that you are natural born? The correct answer is no most people, including you, are not ok with that. Everyone is in their right to keep people from viewing very personal records like that. So it is best to let this fade away. The election is over with. There is nothing to be gained for trying to continue this on. So lets just move on and let this theory fade away.Brothejr (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Brothejr, it's unclear who the "you" is that you're addressing. Anyway, I agree with you that birth certificate theories don't belong in this BLP, except maybe the footnotes. You say: "Why does Obama need to make it public for everyone to look at? It has been verified by a bunch of officials who have verified that it is legal and correct." Actually, here's what the Hawaii officials say: "'Unfortunately the way state laws are written we are not allowed to confirm vital information and vital records,' said Janice Okubo, a spokeswoman for Hawaii's department of health. 'I cannot confirm individual information because that is against the law.'"[18] Anyway, we should move on, but when people get their facts wrong it's okay to point that out.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Well that's good to know, because you are about to be corrected. All they meant by the above quotation is that they cannot release such information to the public, i.e. Berg, as he has no standing to demand or request to see the document. The director of Hawaii's department of health confirms that she has viewed the certificate and that it is valid. There was nothing in what Brothejr that was incorrect. Tarc (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
The Hawaii official said she has "personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Senator Obama’s original birth certificate on record."[19] That does not describe the 1961 long-form in any way, nor does it say that the information in either the short-form or the long form is correct. Hawaii officials are forbidden to do that, as she explained: "'Unfortunately the way state laws are written we are not allowed to confirm vital information and vital records,' said Janice Okubo, a spokeswoman for Hawaii's department of health. 'I cannot confirm individual information because that is against the law.'"[20]. Is any of this important enough to mention in the main text of the present article? No.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Please, give it a rest. Confirming that they have it on record may not be precisely the same as confirming its contents, but it is remarkably close; the state wouldn't have Obama's birth certificate on record unless he was born there. No state keeps the birth records of people who weren't born there. There is literally no point in arguing this any further. Can you please, finally, at long last, stop? I think everyone here would rather talk about something else now. --GoodDamon 19:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
The Alan Keyes lawsuit says otherwise: "The vault (long Version) birth certificate, per Hawaiin statute 883.176 allows the birth in another state or another country to be registered in Hawaii."[21]Ferrylodge (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Let's stop beating a dead horse here and let the issue die in obscurity. Brothejr (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Anyone wishing to discuss the matter further can go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donofrio_v._Wells.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

List Of Campain Stops

An important list of campain stops would be a good edition to this article. Forteto42 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forteto42 (talkcontribs) 15:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Not for this article, but if someone is that interested in doing it, a list article might be created and linked to the campaign article. That being said, I'm not sure how necessary such a list article would be.. Seems to be quite a bit of listcruft to me. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
How about working in some of the more important campaign stops into the prose at the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 article? Seems like that would be the logical place for it. --GoodDamon 19:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Donofrio v. Wells

Hello,

There's currently a case (Donofrio v. Wells) pending in front of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding Obama's citizenship. Maybe it could be included as a link here or in a subarticle. Also, I have no idea what it means. I just created the article because I was surprised Wikipedia didn't have one already. Tony (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


Chronic Gambler Jet Schizo Donofrio's lawsuit is invalid, that's why it is not included. Jet Schizo claims Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen because Pop Obama was a British citizen. A Natural Born Citizen however, is anyone born on U.S. Ground. Regardless of Parents Country of Origin. Obama was born in Hawaii (USA). The specifics are simple, and the inclusion of a frivolous and failed lawsuit is not of encyclopedic value. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, the wiki page for the lawsuit you created doesn't meet merit of being included. I have no idea how to remove the page, but I'm just making it know so someone else can fix it. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Given the lawsuit is being considered by the Supreme Court, it would seem not to be invalid. Not only are you censoring the article, you're censoring discussion of the article and other articles. If Obamassiah was born in Hawaii, why has he spent $800,000 on legal defense rather than simply showing his birth certificate (not the certificate of live birth.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.179.114 (talk) 06:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
There's a process for nomination for deletion. That's not something I've done much, but I'm sure someone who reads these pages will know. Also, it seems like that guy arrived out of the blue (or the red) and hadn't read a blessed thing that's been written here about it. Or else he ignored it. The only reason for such an article at this point is a POV content fork. In fact, maybe I'll try a speedy delete and see what happens. That I think I can do. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
In fact, it's already nominated. Go to that page and make your opinion known! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The Court refused to hear the case without commenting. The court has to decide if it wants to hear one more he is not a citizen type case.[22] Edkollin (talk) 06:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


As noted down-thread, a Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article has been created to provide a home for these fringey-but-notable issues. Lestatdelc (talk) 09:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

change?

It appears that in this article Obama has been referred to as african american, as a mixed race person myself i would find it offencive for anyone to call me anything other than mixed race simply becuase i am niether white or black, this needs to be changed as it is not actually correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joaswaahn (talkcontribs) 03:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Already covered at great length. We go with reliable sources, not original research. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

He considers himself black, so I think it would only be polite to refer him as such.--Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

Following a discussion on the fringe theories noticeboard about how to deal with a metastizing series of articles and subsections relating to Obama's citizenship, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories has been created to provide a home for these fringey-but-notable issues. Donofrio v. Wells and similar subsections of Andy Martin (U.S. politician), Philip J. Berg and Alan Keyes have been condensed and merged into a roundup of legal cases on this issue; see Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#Litigation. I recommend that editors seeking to add such material should be politely but firmly steered in the direction of this new article, where such material can be corralled without exporting disruption to other articles. Also, if you know of Obama birth certificate or citizenship material that presently exists in other articles, please let me know so that it can be migrated into the new article. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You might want to generalize that the "Obama conspiracy theories", as the Rezko and Blagojevich stuff will be coming out of the woodwork also. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The citizenship conspiracy theories are in a class of their own; it's better to have a focused article rather than just a grab-bag of random conspiracy theories. If there is significant coverage of the Illinois issues than I'm sure we could look at creating an article on that topic. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Image??

Is the new portrait used really official, is it the real presidential portrait or is it just made by Obamas team? Marcusmax(speak) 18:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Methinks it's not the "official" presidential portrait since he isn't president yet. But it works for me, for now. Priyanath talk 19:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Source

I wonder if any of this could or should be incorporated. Please read it in its entirity before commenting [[23]].Die4Dixie (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The "Is he black" question is already covered in the Cultural and political image section and Public image of Barack Obama article. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering abour the lead where it is asserted that he is the first african american. Perhaps "although some question this assuption .. " and give an in text citation?Die4Dixie (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
It's a good article (I read it all), but still doesn't change the preponderance of reliable sources that identify Obama as African-American. Someday this will all change, but for now that thought is best for discussion at African-American, imo. Same with attempts to add "some question that assumption" - it's best for the broader article, African-American. Not here, as has been discussed quite comprehensively. Priyanath talk 20:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Unfortunately that is an extreme minority view and such a prominent mention of this speculation would represent undue weight. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
This is why I asked . Dr. Leroy seemed to be a prominent AA historian and expert in the field, but I figured it would be better to ask . I saw his impressive web site here[24], and remember when he did a presentation at a school that my mom did her student teaching at several years ago during black history month on the subject.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
That's why this kind of thing might be best for an article like African-American, where it might not violate (best to ask there) undue weight (WP:UNDUE). Here, it most surely violates Undue Weight. Priyanath talk 20:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
THank you both . If his scholarship is so fatally flawed as not to be inclued here, then it certainly doesn't belong somewhere else on the project. I had some of my own questions, but you have both helped clear them up. If nothing else comes out about it, then I think it's best left closed. With a new mention of it in the news, I was unsure if it met the trhershhold or not. Thank you both for you patience.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh.. You're talking about the Dr. Vaughn paragraph of the article, rather than the article in its entirety... There's nothing technically wrong with Vaughn's scholarship, it just isn't accepted by his peers. That one is definitely an extreme minority view. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

President-elect?

Failure to understand electoral system

Point of accuracy: He will not be "president-elect" until the Electoral College meets and confirms it. They certainly will, but as of now he is the "presumptive president-elect." And don't start that crap that "the news says he's the president-elect and that's a valid source." Until they meet, he's not, and it doesn't matter how many people claim he is.Mzmadmike (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No, that "crap" is a Wikipedia Policy. Grsz11 17:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Of course it is not wikipedia policy. However, this was discussed at length and we have a compromise that has kept the peace, so please see the archives.LedRush (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind...it looks like the consensus footnote has been removed.LedRush (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
There, I've restored the note that was there to ensure that these discussions never get off the ground again. Move along...nothing to see here.LedRush (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
A foot note is not to say that consensus cannot change, nor should it be used to stifle debate. I would support such a change. I would say that is 2 people in the building of consensus for changeDie4Dixie (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the previous discussion in the archives, it's clear that the preponderance of reliable sources are using the simple "president-elect", and the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 also defines the next president as "president-elect". It would take an overwhelming consensus, if that, to override reliable sources and acts of congress. Not going to happen. Priyanath talk 22:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Where are your souces, absent WP:original researched synthesis, Mzmadmike?
Note that the following is how things work, semantically: If you were at some point to become generally presumed to have been elected to the U.S. Presidency, what you then become called is the, yes, President-elect. (THEREFORE, use of the term presumptive President-elect would be entirely redundant in this situation. In other words, sure, if for some reason people were to stop presuming Obama were the president-elect, then people simply would stop using the term President-elect until there was one who was so presumed to be elected. Got it? Cf.: Bush v. Gore, &cetera.)
The point of fact in this matter is that we simply can't throw out all those media sources, sir or ma'am; 'cause, cousin, Wikipedia ain't about The Truth -- but about reflecting prestigious secondary sources, plain & simple.
  1. Such as, I don't know, say The New York Times:
    Times Topics > People > O > Obama, Barack
    Barack Obama
    President-Elect of the United States
    Vice-Presidential Running Mate: Joseph R. Biden Jr.
  2. Then, as a check to see if Wikipedia editors got this one reasonably right this time, let's check other prestigious tertiary sources, e.g., The Encyclopaedia Britannica:
    Barack Obama
    president-elect of the United States
    in full Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.
    born Aug. 4, 1961, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.
    American politician who on Nov. 4, 2008, was elected the 44th president of the United States, defeating Arizona Sen. John McCain, the Republican candidate.
  3. Or, for that matter, we can even check with the United States government itself, such as the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress:
    OBAMA, Barack, (1961 - )
    Senate Years of Service: 2005-
    Party: Democrat
    OBAMA, Barack, a Senator from Illinois; born in Honolulu, Hawaii, August 4, 1961
    [... ... ...]elected as a Democrat to the U.S. Senate in 2004 for term beginning January 3, 2005; elected as the 44th President of the United States on November 4, 2008.
  4. And last but not least, we can check the private organization headed by the private citizen (and, um, presumed elected presidential candidate, viz., the President-elect) Mr. Barack Obama: CHANGE.GOV: OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT-ELECT:
    YOUR ADMINISTRATION
    President-elect
    Barack Obama
    LEARN
    Barack Obama was raised by a single mother and his grandparents.
    [...]
Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply 22:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any real support for a change (other than the 2 people above), so why don't we just ignore this and hope it goes away?LedRush (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

 I . (But it's so fun-- !) To reemphasize: Being President-elect is essentially a conditional affair -- similar to a couple's being "engaged to be married"......

Bob promises Sally if he were to make partner, they'd marry. The company offers him the partnership, with the offer only awaiting mere rubberstamping at an upcoming board meeting. Bob calls Sally and tells her the good news. They book a mosque, church of temple for the ceremonies, and the minister lists the ceremony in its bulletin. They register at a local department store for gifts. A local newspaper's society page carries a newstory about their upcoming nuptials. The couple sends out invitations. Is the couple engaged?

Since being engaged is conditional in nature, to insist, "No, one must not say they are engaged -- because Bob told Sally their engagement forever remains conditional upon his becoming partner, and this awaits being rubberstamped at the upcoming board meeting, so until that point, they're just presumed engaged!" -- is unnecessary. So, we just go by the minister's announcement, the news report, the department store listing, and the couple's announcement and go ahead and step out on a limb and call the couple -- "engaged." Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply 23:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 II . Barack tells Hillary, "I'm going to designate you my nominee as long as Bill agrees to /x/ /y/ and /z/." Obama's transition publically announces Hillary is designated, but the President-elect mentions in his statement something about his assumption that the Secretary-to-be's husband will fulfill certain obligations. The announcement is published in the press, by government organs, and by Senator Clinton. Q. Is she the designated nominee? Or the presumed Secretary-designate?
A. The former, because Secretary-designate is already conditional enough a description and reliable sources term her as such. Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply 00:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College The Electoral College consists of the popularly elected representatives who formally select the President and Vice President of the United States; since 1964 the electoral college has had 538 electors.[1] In 2008, it will make this selection on December 15. There's your source. "Consensus" doesn't enter into it. Incidentally, Grsz saw fit to claim that I and my novels (nominated for two major awards, translated into German and Russian, available in all bookstores in the English speaking world, sold somewhere over 400,000 copies, made several bestseller lists, etc) were "not notable" about ten minutes after I made the correction to the false claim that he is president-elect. Now, he almost certainly WILL be president-elect. However, per the Constitution and laws of our nation, he is not yet president-elect, and no "consensus" changes that. Claimed "consensus" supports such claptrap as Creationism. So, I will be correcting the article again, and on the morning of the 15th you can officially call him President-Elect, as he will be. The "consensus" and myth that the popular vote elects the President is how we got that whining crap about Gore's loss. Let's remember that this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA that is supposed to be accurate and educate, not express a "consensus" opinion. Anyone who can throw OR around about this clearly is not educated enough on the subject to comment and should refrain from doing so, and anyone petty enough to personally attack someone's professional status over such a minor issue, especially when they are wrong, should not be editing at all. Unfortunately, I don't see any way to nominate a person for deletion, though there certainly should be. Play nice, now.Mzmadmike (talk) 08:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Spare your lectures on how the electoral college works. We know how it works. This has already been debated at length. The term "President-elect" is defined by the government to include the "presumed" winner. There is no OR about it. Obama is the President-elect, period. And the Gore-Bush issue had to do with the popular vote in Florida, not the overall popular vote nor the electoral vote, so you've got that story wrong. And you've also got it wrong about the date - it won't be official until January 6th. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
.Mzmadmike, everyone here agrees that electors confirm the formal election results; where our disagreement is, is whether the presumed winner is the President-elect or not until they do so. Per WP:SYN:

Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion[...]then the editor is engaged in original research.

Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply 09:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
[ec] Mike, making changes, especially to a FA on article probation, should not be done unilaterally when the discussion on the talk page and in the talk archives quite clearly opposes those changes. You are incorrectly assuming that you understand the electoral process better than the experienced editors here - which, by the way, is patronizing and insulting - and you are ignoring the arguments that have been presented many times over on this: namely that the article that is wikilinked in the first sentence, President-elect, has a very clear and elaborate explanation of exactly how it works, and that the common use of the term is slightly different from the technicality, but that virtually all sources that we draw on to build our articles use the term as soon as the election is decided, well before December 15 or January 6. We have bent over backwards in this article - unnecessarily as far as I'm concerned, but I am going along with that consensus decision - to include a footnote (now 123) that explains some of the arcana surrounding this, so your insistence on adding "presumptive" is just not going to fly. Just about every press report that one encounters refers to him as President-elect, as they have for all other presidents-elect in the past, once the election was decided, before the Electoral College meets and before their votes are certified. I understand that this may give you agita, and that's regrettable, but as has been explained, we follow sources and, yes, we make decisions based on the consensus of editors, not because any one of us thinks he or she knows best. My advice would be that you take a few days off from this article and return after Dec 15 when your sensibilities won't be so offended, but please don't presume that you possess more knowledge than the rest of us about how this encyclopedia, or the American political system, works. (As for your irrelevant views about that "whining crap about Gore's loss", I think you may have missed the part where the Supreme Court stepped in, against all precedent, and substituted their views over the views of the Florida Supreme Court in a matter that has otherwise and always been deemed a matter of states' rights - and prevented the recount that would have determined whether Gore's popular vote would have carried the state, and therefore the election. So please try to leave your obvious POV at the door in this very minor issue of using the term "President-elect".) Tvoz/talk 09:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm having a hard time believing the amount of vitriol in this discussion when it's over something that is going to be a moot point in around FOUR DAYS! SAColorfinger (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
It started the day after the election, and it won't be officially over until January 6th. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
In response to SAColorfinger: do a Google Blogs search for "presumptive president-elect" (or just click here[25]) and you'll see where this is coming from (you can skip the first link, which is to User:Mzmadmike's blog about 'Failpedia'). It generally has to do with 1. There's only "one president at a time", and 2. Obama hasn't proved he's a citizen yet. I'm guessing they like the tone of 'presumptive', as in 'presumption', also. sigh..... Priyanath talk 15:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
" ... the common use of the term is slightly different from the technicality ... " Although I agree that common usage dictates calling him "president elect" in articles, I sympathize with mike on this (he's wrong, but I sympathize). The electoral college vote is not a technicality - if they say "no John Doe", the answer is "no John Doe" (I am deliberately avoiding using Senator Obama's name in that context). All common sense and historical precedent tell us that the electoral college will confirm the Novemember vote, but (as I understand it) it's not a technicality; which is why we are a representative democracy and not a democracy, no?Nightmote (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
No, the electoral college is by no means a technicality. But the term President-elect is not defined in the constitution, and the government uses the term as an umbrella term that includes the "apparent" winner. Indeed, if some startling revelation or other misfortune came out about Obama over the weekend (or Biden, for that matter), the electoral college would likely have to chose someone else. The logical choice would be Hillary Clinton. No, it wouldn't be McCain, because these are Democrats, remember - unless they wanted to shackle him with the recession for 4 years. Not likely. And he won't be "officially" the President-elect until January 6th, when the ballots are certified by Congress. But "President-elect" is perfectly proper to use, from the evening of November 4th until noon on January 20th, barring some misfortune. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Footnote

In order to stop the endless debate on whether or not Obama is the president elect, after countless hours of fighting and research, we decided to keep the language as it is currently in the article but put a footnote in the lead explaning the situation (hours later all footnotes in the lead were deleted and we made the NB as it is now). The rationale for this was twofold: 1. it could deter the repeated discussions on what it means to be president elect from occupying our time and taking our focus off the ball; 2. doing what Wikipedia does best: inform. By having a simple explanation, people could learn all the need to about the issue in one sentence. If they want to learn more, they can go to the article.

Sometime during my wiki-break the footnote was changed, and I have since replaced it twice in the last 24 hours. Of course, I will not revert again and break the 3RR rule. However, I hope that people can understand why the note exists (and there are tens of thousands of words you can read on this in the archives) and why I made the change. We should work for an integrity of process here, and when a compromise is fought over as long and as hard as that one, it doesn't seem right for people to delete it without discussion.

Anyway, that's just my two cents...LedRush (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course, before I even finished this baseball bugs deleted it.LedRush (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Show me the diff where the "NB" part was agreed upon and I'll back off. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I left a message on your talkpage so as not to ignite a flame war over here.LedRush (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of reliable sources report that Obama is the president-elect. While a niggly-piggly to-the-letter reading of the Constitution may tell that it isn't proper to term one the president-elect until after the Electoral College actually votes, the colloquial, everyday usage meaning of the term has simply come to mean "the dude who won in November". Tarc (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we can stay on topic here.LedRush (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Show us where there was consensus for adding the superfluous "NB" to the footnote. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you're being deliberately hostile and rude, baseballbugs, or if it is inadvertent. However, I have explained the situation on your talk page and above. Demanding proof for something no one claims is true as a straw man for discussion is not good faith. I've tried to avoid flaming over on this article, and will continue to do so, but I believe the change of the footnote was improper for the reasons stated above, on your talk board, and now below:

The compromise called for a footnote in the lead. When the lead was cleaned of this footnote, the NB formed. Later, the NB was deleted. I think this is unhelpfull for two reasons:

1. Baseballbugs correctly argued in the discussion that a footnote is helpful (rather than just a link to the President Elect article) because: "What if they don't want to read that entire article and just want a simple explanation? It's just a courtesy to the reader. Keep in mind we do this encyclopedia for the reader, not for ourselves." That end was met when the footnote was in the lead and not buried at #137 in something people will never see.

2. Integirty of process. We came up with a compromise after long disagreements. The compromise was to have a footnote in the lead. It is not a leap to assume that the reason this was acceptable to people who wanted the text in the article itself because of the prominance of the note (the first note in the article).

I really hope the conversation can stay constructive and not degenerate into insults, sarcastic replies, and deliberate misrepresentations of others' opinion.LedRush (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, I was on-topic, as is Baseball Bugs. You have been asked several times to produce the location of this footnote or whatever compromise, and have failed to do so. Why is that? Tarc (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
You are incorrect. I was not asked "to produce the location of this footnote or whatever compromise". I was rudely threatened with the following condition: "Show me the diff where the "NB" part was agreed upon and I'll back off". Of course I never stated that the NB was part of the initial compromise. The compromise called for a footnote...that is all. This footnote was put in the lead. Because it was in the lead, all parties agreed to it and the issue was over. However, footnotes were removed from the lead and the note was moved and became a NB. I have been very clear on this point, and continuing to pretend otherwise as a straw man is just not acting in good faith. You can see the whole thread at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_42#Validity_of_the_term_.27President_Elect.27 .
However, now I don't even know what the point is. I hold out almost no hope that anyone wants to discuss this honestly and constructively. Long term editors who make fun of the people who come here angrily flaming for the inclusion of their fringe theories may want to look at why this place fosters such resentment and animosity. Being polite and honest will almost always better serve the article. Sarcastic replies and insulting misrepresentations of others' ideas just makes tempers all around worse.LedRush (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, that conversation. What I see there is some discussion on wording, and then a small group of people pushing for a footnote at the very end of the discussion, with no one else really chiming in. I would not characterize it as "consensus was reached on a footnote", no. that wold be a bit disingenuous. Tarc (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you need to look again.LedRush (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
By way of clarification, the first 40-50% of the thread is about whether he's the president elect or not. Then, the footnote idea is introduced as a compromise. The last 50-60% of the thread is in proposing the footnote language, tweaking it, and deciding whether or not it is acceptable to all parties.LedRush (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I was wrong: Sheffield Steel introduced the idea of a footnote in the lead near the beginning of the discussion: "It sounds like a good source. I think perhaps a footnote could be added to the term "president elect" in the lead section, to explain this. That might make everyone happy (or at least, everyone might be willing to accept it). What do others think?" SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 03:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC) LedRush (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, BAseball Bugs said "A footnote after the linked President-elect, explaining it in one simple sentence for those who don't feel like reading the President-elect megillah, would seem reasonable. Especially as there have been editors here who didn't understand it." Of course, the linked president elect was in the lead at that time, and that's where the compromise expected it to go. I am not arguing for that now (though not a bad idea), just by way of further clarification.LedRush (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't the first to revert that "NB". In any case, I find it overkill, patronizing, whatever. A footnote is fair. It's also not worth making a big thing of. Everyone recognizes Obama as the President-elect. It's not an issue. A simple, discrete (not "shouting at you") footnote is more than sufficient. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

A note in the lead puts far too much weight on the issue. Moreover, a special "note bene" link anywhere in the article also puts a bit too much weight on it. However, a plain footnote lower in the article seems acceptable to me. I think the pedantic (and slightly WP:ORish) point would be perfectly fine to omit altogether, but I can live with a plain footnote low in the body. LotLE×talk 19:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Lulu is completely correct, as he was the last time I recall his talking about this, and as has been said over and over and over again here and on other pages. Ledrush, you are confusing consensus with exhaustion - I, for one, made my point in the thread you linked to above, and stopped commenting in that thread because enough is enough. There is a tendency at play here to wear down people, asking the same question over and over, opening the discussion again and again, and then when editors are sick and tired of responding, calling consensus for what was clearly not the consensus at all. Consensus doesn't mean last man, or woman, standing gets his or her way, although I have seen it tried many, many times. The consensus was and is crystal clear that the most that is needed - the most - is a footnote in the President-elect section. The President-elect article explains it all. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE WIKILINKS. The "nota bene" footnote that you keep inserting without consensus is overkill, gratuitous, and way too much weight - LotLE's solution is just fine, and I also remain unconvinced that even that is necessary. But I have been willing to go along with it because it was so important to some folks, and I can live with the irritation I get every time I see it. But I am not willing to live with a huge Note Bene section about this incredibly minute point, nor am I willing to go along with "Presumptive" president-elect as MadMike tried to strongarm in last night, see discussion immediately above. This is all of a piece, and it is a gross waste of time, and pathetic to boot. The man was elected President, he is now called the President-elect according to virtually all sources - we say so, like everyone else does, and like we would have had McCain won the election, and this has to stop already. As I suggested to Mike, I really encourage you to take a break from this article until at least December 15, when that part of the issue will be even more moot than it is now, and you won't find it so painful to read. Enough. Tvoz/talk 20:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC) correction: MadMike's unilateral change was discussed two sections up. Tvoz/talk 20:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Your opinion is fine, but pretending that there wasn't agreement on the note in the lead is just wrong, and your personal insults are unwarranted. This whole process is quite demoralizing. Your statements above that the most that is needed is a footnote is not even remotely supported by the record. However, it doesn't matter now because the issue has been brought up again, and a small group of agressive and rude editors will simply outlast anyone who has any idea that could be seen as negative to Obama.LedRush (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Just for the record, I think I supported the footnote because, at the time, there seemed to be a reliable source explaining the issue. That does not now seem to be the case. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
There are reliable sources, so let's not use that pretext. Again.LedRush (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Regarding December 15th, I don't know that the electoral college results are going to be announced then. Certainly they're not official until Congress certifies them on the 6th. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
It might be instructive to see how this was handled in the past, although wikipedia may not have existed yet in 2000. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I guess we could look to other coutries...but do you think anyone here would soften there position based on it? I am resigned to not getting a constructive conversation about this, and the issue mostly died after the last compromise.LedRush (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Correct. And a good thing, too. Can you imagine the POV editing that would have been going on then on a minute-by-minute basis? Or suppose we had wikipedia during the Civil War? Tvoz/talk 20:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I was just looking for a President precedent for the present. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
If there's a new proposal for a footnote, why not post it here? Then we can discuss it, and its sourcing. If there's no proposal, or no source, there's not much to (productively) talk about. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I posted here to get the old deal back in place. (FN in the lead, like agreed, or NB in the body, like what happened after the lead was "cleaned"). I will not waste my time showing people sources again (like I did before) only to have them be ignored by people who don't care (I have not heard a serious contention that the sourced info was incorrect, and getting bogged down in sources before there is a general agreement wastes time).LedRush (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I have long had a problem with the President-Elect issue. The foot note is a goodfaithed effort to resove some editors concerns. Besides being factually accurate, which we all want,( or so thought we did). Anyone who has had 10th grade political science in the US should know the voters do not elect the president , the electoral college does and they have not voted. An inconvientant fact, that if we argue about it for 3 more days it will be a moot point( which I get the feeling that this is the idea). Leave it in for a couple of days , and when they vote , change it to whatever you want.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you shoudl have finished grades 11 and 12 then. The Presidential Transition Act of 1963 establishes in law the orderly transfer, the establishment of office for transition and the use of the term President-elect as follows:
"(c) The terms “President-elect” and “Vice-President-elect” as used in this Act shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the office of the President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained by the Administrator following the general elections held to determine the electors of the President and Vice-President in accordance with title 3, United States code, sections 1 and 2."
Barack Obama is the President-elect as recognized not just in media and and common usage by the public, but also under the above cited law since the polls closed on November 4th, 2008. Those claiming otherwise are braying at the moon. - Lestatdelc (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
i'm sorry you felt like you need to personalize this. While your 11th and 12th grade comment had a certain humor, I'm certain your point could have been made just as effectively without it.Die4Dixie (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
All these "Prez elect concept clarification" debates, have many phases in common. Apart from the repetitiousness of the arguments, one of the most common phases of the discussion is the introduction of the 1963 Transition Law. This phase will be followed by the usual Electoral college and Congressional proclamation arguments. Is there a possible shortcut to all this? Dr.K. (logos) 03:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Every time the same question comes up, answer SEE ARCHIVES and be done with it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
(ec) You know Bugs, I was thinking about a very similar thing. I was going to propose copying and pasting answers from the archives as a kind of fun exercise and to demonstrate the repetitive nature of these debates. Of course I was also going to propose that after pasting two or three previous answers to terminate this debate due to absolute proof this was covered before and to save some bandwidth. Dr.K. (logos) 03:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that the answers don't "answer" the issue about how to deal with a complicated issue. Of course, I did cut and paste some of the proposals we had before, which were to just put the footnote in the lead (which was moved to a NB in the article). We discussed, agreed, and then welched. Now the issue has come up again. What a surprise.LedRush (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
A proposal I hope gains the community's consensus: How about we put a note next to the article's first use of the term President-elect that suggests the reader cursor over it. Then when its cursored over, have a youtube-type box pop up, upon which would be shown a beautiful or handsome spokesmodel who'll be doing airquotes on his or her fingers? Wouldn't that satisfy everybody's concerns? Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply 03:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
The Prez elect part of the discussion should not have taken place at all due to exhaustive coverage. The discussion, if any, should have been limited to the size and location of the footnote. Dr.K. (logos) 03:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
A lot of issues would go away a lot quicker if everyone on the page would be a bit more civil, and lose some of the rudeness and sarcasm. Everyone responds more positively if they are treated with respect, and if there concerns aren't mocked, etc. There aren't any major civility issues I've seen lately, but about 4 or 5 of you are unnecessarily hostile, rude, and bitey with anyone who doesn't share the same opinion as you. It seems like that unless someone is doing something other than praising Obama they are treated poorly, and you fight to keep any content out that could even possibly cast a negative light on Obama. I'm done with arguing my concerns about the neutrality of the article, but when you compare this article to other similar articles there is an enormous difference in how things are handled, how things are written, what can and cannot be added and so on. Landon1980 (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
When people say ridiculous things over and over and over and over and over...whether it is whining about bi-racial descriptors. footnotes, criticism sections, natural born citizenship, or throwing hysterical hissy fits when they think people are insulting them when they really didn't...it tends to try on the patience of others. We don't have to reinvent the wheel everytime someone hope along into this talk page to suggest one or more of the above. Tarc (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::::(ec) @Landon: I don't see your point(s), neither do I see where I have been uncivil or bitey. You put me in a difficult position because if you refer to me you have no reason to be so uncivil and I don't wish to answer in kind. I am not going to be baited but you should stop this line of personal attack. I guess asking you to apologise is asking too much. Enough said. Dr.K. (logos) 04:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would apologize, but I wasn't talking to you. I wasn't talking to anyone, it was just a general statement on how newcomers/editors are treated sometimes. You, Dr. K, are one of the few people on here that actually do respect other editors, and their opinions and hear them out properly. There was no need for you to accuse me of baiting, personal attacks, and incivility though, there was nothing uncivil in my comment, let alone the fact I wasn't even talking to you. I'll apologize anyways, I didn't realize this thread was about you, I thought the discussion was about issues that were brought up frequently and how to handle them. Landon1980 (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Landon. It's my turn to apologise for mistaking your comments. I thought the way you indented just below my comments it was to include me also and I simply couldn't find where I could have gone wrong. I should have known better because I met you before and I would not expect this from you, at least not for a good reason. Anyway I just struck my comments above. Thanks for the courtesy of the apology but clearly it was not needed because you clarified your point. Take care. Dr.K. (logos) 05:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
And yes. Thanks for the gentle (slightly sarcastic?) reminder that the thread was not about me. But what do I know? ;) Dr.K. (logos) 05:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Haha don't worry about it, we all make mistakes at times. I was surprised when you thought I was talking to you, and I understand your reaction based on that. None of those things apply to you, you are always respectful and a pleasure to converse with. Have a good day, Landon1980 (talk) 05:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
The feeling is mutual Landon. Thanks for your kind comments. Take care. Tasos (Dr.K. (logos) 06:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC))

(out)Similar articles handled in a different manner? How many articles have you seen with a debate on whether or not someone should be called President-elect? This is a unique situation that can in no way be compared to other articles. We have no precedent to work from (Wikipedia wasn't around for the last President-elect), so we're working on things as they come up. I think all the editors here should rather be commended for their constant discussion and innovation put forth here, as it truly is unchartered territory. Grsz11 05:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the President-elect issue, I think it's fine like it is. I just mean in general that sarcasm and rudeness never helps anything, it only further agitates the issue. Sometimes everyone needs to realize that even though the issue has been raised a hundred times that it's a new person, not the same person that has participated in the prior discussion(s). Most of the editors do a tremendous job on here, but some of you have a habit of being rude, sarcastic, hateful, etc. Nothing is viewed as uncivil as long as it is used while expressing the view of the majority, but nearly anything from the minority that could be possibly seen as borderline uncivil is reprimanded. Landon1980 (talk) 05:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Come on, sarcasm gets everybody through a bad day! Grsz11 05:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

This is the nerdiest discussion on the entire Internet Tim010987 (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm is truly horrible. People who employ sarcasm should be blocked immediately. This is a serious encyclopedia!!!!1 Jehochman Talk 18:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Be careful, you might be the first to go. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Did I hear something about nerds? Does anyone doubt the many contributions of nerds to the advancement of science in general and to encyclopaedias in particular? Dr.K. (logos) 18:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Please people. Wikipedia is not a forum. --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of !voting

The signatories below support updating the proposed guideline (or whatever it is) "Post-election edit war syndrome" to address candidates presumed elected, eventually certifying it an official Wikipedia policy (or whatever).

X me Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply 22:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Electoral College

If this random article from 2004 is any indication [26], the results of the electoral college votes will probably be made known on Monday. It still won't be official until January 6th, when the Congress certifies it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The 111th United States Congress won't be certifying it until January 8, 2009. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

NEWS FLASH: HILLARY WINS ELECTORAL COLLEGE IN AN UPSET!!!

Made ya look! The electoral college vote today went exactly as expected, and Obama is now almost the "official" President-elect. [27] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean they voted today as expected or what? How exactly do you know it went as expected when the votes have yet to even be tallied? All that article said was that they voted, that they will tally the votes, and gave the projected outcome based on election night. Landon1980 (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
They voted today on schedule, and elected Obama as expected. As the article notes, "With only Hawaii still to vote, all the electors had cast ballots in accordance with the popular votes in their states." There are many other internet stories talking about the individual states' electoral college votes, whose results are made public, they're just not "official" until the joint session certifies the votes on January 6th. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Make that January 8th. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
So it's the 8th now??? Wow, they're cutting it close. What if the electoral college lied about who they chose? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, all right. I admit I looked... J.delanoygabsadds 23:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Ha! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)