This is an archive of past discussions about Barack Obama. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
For some reason I am unable to edit the article to update it. The article currently claims:
Before announcing his presidential candidacy, he began a well-publicized effort to quit smoking.[179] He has not succeeded.[180]
This is misleading. Obama has quit per MSNBC, but fell off the wagon a few times during the campaign. See the following:
"I have [quit]," Obama said. "What I said was that there are times where I have fallen off the wagon."
MSNBC (Meet the Press) is the original source of the interview that has renewed pundit talk about Obama's smoking, so they should be used as the source for any smoking update. TAway (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
That's just silly. I was a 70-a-day smoker until 1999, when I quit. Since then, I've had maybe half-a-dozen cigarettes in moments of weakness, but I am most definitely a non smoker now. It all depends on how often Obama is having a cigarette - if it's one or two per week, you can probably safely say he's quit. More than that, and you could say he has failed to quit. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense. If you smoke, you're a smoker. Trying to quit/saying you've quit/cutting down on the number of cigarettes you smoke is not equivalent to quitting. - Nunh-huh22:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
You are wrong. I went from 70-a-day to effectively zero. In the 9 years since I quit, I've had perhaps half a dozen cigarettes, and none at all in the last 5 years. Calling me a smoker is absurd. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
If you haven't had a cigarette in 5 years, it's certainly reasonable to say you've quit smoking. That's not at all Obama's situation. Smoking one or two cigarettes a week isn't "non-smoking". - Nunh-huh16:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think this should really make the article at all...is it really worth of mention in a biography of a president [elect] of the USA? However, if we decide to include it, we should do it right. If you still smoke, you haven't quit. Until reliable sources say otherwise, he hasn't been successful in quitting despite several attempts. Perhaps more neutral language on this would help...perhaps saying he hasn't succeeded "yet" or mimic his own language and say "Before announcing his presidential candidacy, he began a well-publicized effort to quit smoking, though he has "fallen off the wagon" several times." or something to that effect.LedRush (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree, and that's how it currently reads. Even if he "quit", it might be like Mark Twain, "Giving up smoking is the easiest thing in the world. I know because I've done it thousands of times." The fact that Obama is attempting to quit is plenty good enough. Having regular updates on his success and failure goes against WP:NOTNEWS. Priyanathtalk22:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand how we could even consider saying that he quit without saying that he still smokes cigarettes. As stated above, I don't think the entire topic belongs. But if we talk about it, let's be honest.LedRush (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Our article says Obama "...a well-publicized effort to quit..."[my highlight] and thus doesn't say he quit, and he is still making the effort by using the gum according to the MSNBC article. Modocc (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
The idea of Wikipedia is not to obfuscate because of personal opinions. As it stands now, the article presents only the positive effort to quit and not the realistic hurdles that many smokers face. If there is an effort to quit, what is the result as of now? Why can't we use his own words to describe what has happened? Why are we afraid of simple, NPOV presentation of facts?LedRush (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Obfuscate? No, and we don't know when he last smoked or is going to agian, and I don't care one way or the other if its covered here. Its "not fair" is simple baloney, for such a detail can get buried to another article because of summary style. This short bio has more important info to cover than the "realistic hurdles that many smokers face." Modocc (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I vote that we removed the entire smoking 'story' as too trivial. Also because it's something that would have to be constantly updated ("he quit", "he was seen smoking yesterday", "he's quitting again", "he hasn't smoked in three weeks", etc.). I think there are other things more relevant for the article, and for the editors. Priyanathtalk03:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I also find the coverage of Obama's smoking/quitting to be trivial. Unless he's getting impeached for lying to the American people about it, it doesn't need to be here. --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm ok with removal. Actually, I personally would like the addition of the Obama quote that Led suggested (for me this article couldn't be too long anyway), but I'm cool with whatever level of detail is appropriate here. Modocc (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Seems trivial. A number of Presidents have smoked. The only thing would be is if he himself had made a big deal out of trying to quit. I doubt Limbaugh would criticize Obama for smoking, given that he himself smokes cigars. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?03:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
In response, addition to, Evb-wiki's comment: another reason for including it would be if he said that he "didn't inhale" when he smoked. Priyanathtalk03:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Priyanath gets it right in terms of avoiding excessive detail. We certainly don't want "he lapsed in his quitting attempt on date X, then went Y weeks, ..." However, I think the very brief mention that we have is appropriate. In the last decades, smoking as a major public health hazard has been well recognized, so public statements by a prominent politician contribute to a notable degree to his political image.... that is, a few words worth of notability in a general biography, not more but not zero. This political meaning has changed since FDR or LBJ, who publicly smoked; it's not politically neutral the way it might have been in 1940 or 1960.LotLE×talk03:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
It may not be politically neutral, but it's also not that big of a deal. Perhaps the way to say it in one sentence (plus the citation) is that he has "struggled" with trying to quite smoking. That's something any smoker could relate to and any non-smoker could sympathize with. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?03:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Evb-wiki. Unless he's being impeached for lying about his smoking habits or dying of lung cancer, It's too trivial for inclusion here. Finally if we did choose to include it we have to do as Priyanath said and change it regularly to stay factually accurate. Rengaw01 (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I just gave it a shot by changing it to this: While he has never been a heavy smoker, Obama has tried to quit smoking several times, including a well-publicized effort which he began before launching his presidential campaign.
Anyway, I'm not married to it but thought it was neutral and more closely followed the source than the old language. Of course, if we want to delete the whole sha-bang, that is fine too.LedRush (talk) 02:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I will fight you to the death on it. On second thought, no - I'm not allowed to fight anything to the death. Doctor's orders. It seems OK, but it doesn't go far enough. He did a lot of smoking during the campaign, ya know - first he smoked Hillary, and then he smoked McCain. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?02:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Isn't part of the point that he said he quit, then admitted that he couldn't, then wouldn't give a stratight answer? Apparently, not relevant to anyone else but me. Fair enough. Newguy34 (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the smoking issue is pretty trivial for this article, given that Obama didn't run on an anti-tobacco platform or express such views. If smoking has to be mentioned, why not use Obama's own words and let readers interpret them for themselves? How about this suggestion:
When asked about his smoking habit (you could add the number of years if you want), Obama said on (fill in the date), "I have [quit]. What I said was that there are times where I have fallen off the wagon."
I don't remember Obama's exact words or the reporter's question, so those words could be used instead. LovesMacs (talk)
I think it has some relevance. His smoking has been the main point of press sources lately, and Tom Brokaw was pretty put out with him for his obfuscation on the subject. Newguy34 (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Yep. It's called context. I don't get to decide what is relevant or not, the reliable sources do. "Obama smoking" on Google, gets 10,900,000 hits, while "Bush shoe throwing" gets about 1,200,000. So, you say tomatoes, and I say reddish, roundish, fruit-like, veggie. Oh, and for the record, I am not an unbiased editor, in fact I am a very POV editor, but I do my best to ensure that the articles reflect NPOV. That's all that's required. Newguy34 (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
"His smoking has been the main point of press sources lately" LOL yeah, between Blagojevich, the Big 3 auto rescue legislation failure, record unemployment, Bush shoe-dodging, cabinet speculation, and a myriad of real issues and events, the media is practically beside itself abut Obama smoking or not smoking. What alternate universe has this been a "main point of press sources lately"?Lestatdelc (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
All valid points, which is exactly why I typed the words some and even put those little quote-y looking things to add emphasis. Newguy34 (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the smoking 'issue' is as trivial as the shoe-throwing incident would be for the Bush article - even though that one has received far more coverage. Coverage does not confer notability. I think the whole thing should be removed from the article as being too trivial - plus it seems to attract daily drive-by editors with a point to make or push. Priyanathtalk18:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
A conclusion with which I am in agreement; it'll make for a stronger article. Every since election day, this article has been barraged with POV pushing and vandalism. Newguy34 (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Some perspective: imagine that it's the year 2050 and someone is reading about Obama. Will his smoking habit be of major interest and proper to an encyclopedia? I highly doubt it. LovesMacs (talk)18:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Nor will the fact that he is the first African-American, black, bi-racial, or whatever, president. Hopefully, we will have moved past all that by 2050. Newguy34 (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
[Outdent added] I read an interesting article about how Obama will be the "last black president", just like Kennedy was the last "Roman-Catholic president". No one talks about John Kerry having been a Catholic, and for good reason; it ceased being an issue that divided us. We love "firsts" for important historical reasons, but only because they are departures from the status quo. Once we are able to move past the first, we tend to make progress. I wish it wasn't important that Obama was the "first", and hopefully, race will no longer be a gatekeeper. We'll see. By the way, who was the second black player in the major leagues? Tough to come up with at the spur of the moment, huh? Newguy34 (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Gracias. Although, as the authors of The Great American Baseball Card Flipping, Trading and Bubble Gum Book said, this was "like being the second person to invent the telephone." Which I think is kind of like the point you're making. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?19:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
But, we are not talking about telephones...wait, are we? No, we are talking about bubble gum, err, no that's not it either. Wait, what are we talking about, again? Newguy34 (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and let's not forget Christopher Columbus (???) as the discoverer of America. But back to baseball...
"The one constant through all the years has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It has been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game: it's a part of our past. It reminds us of all that once was good and could be again. People will come, Ray. People will most definitely come." Sorry, I was channeling Terence Mann there for a minute. d:) Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?23:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
The "Family of Barack Obama" navigation template
-- as found at the bottom of this article below the "Obama" nav template -- is being discussed here: Template talk:Obama family#Ugly -- which amounts to a vote from among
The fact that Obama is "the first African American to be elected President of the United States" should not be in the first sentence. It's an important fact, and ought to be in the lead, but putting it there implies it is of equal importance as him being President-elect. His ethnicity was not in the first sentence of the Featured Article version (which was, admittedly, written before he was elected). This is the only politics and government FA where an individual's ethnicity is mentioned in the first sentence.--Cúchullaint/c21:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
"President-elect of the United States and the first African-American to be elected President of the United States" is really awkward. It sounds like two separate things, plus it is a list of two items that are dissimilar, one being a position and the other being a superlative. For clarity and flow we should cut out the statement that he is president-elect because it is fully implied by the statement that he is the first African-American to be so. I share Cuchullain's sentiment, though, that the fact of his being President is primary. But how to do that without unduly minimizing the rather stunning importance of his accomplishment? How about "B.H.O....is President-Elect of the United States. The first African-American elected to the position, Obama....(etc)"? - Wikidemon (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is as straightforward as you think it is. Consider it from this alternative perspective: there have been lots of US presidents, but Obama will be the only African-American president. From a certain point of view, being an African American president is more remarkable than becoming president - especially to Americans. Most reliable sources talk about the historic nature of this particular election, purely because of the ethnicity. I suggest that this is of equal importance to his status as President-elect, and perhaps even of more importance. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I have seen a small body of pan-african "scholarship" that indicate that he is not the first. Race is really not that important, or so I am lead to believe.I would have to say that I agree with Wikidemon here.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
My suggested wording was that exactly, Wikidemon: "Barack Hussein Obama... is the President-elect of the United States. The first African American to be elected President of the United States, Obama was the junior United States Senator from Illinois from 2005 until he resigned on November 16, 2008, following his election to the Presidency." I think that flows better anyway, and clarifies the other things that make him notable. I have to say, the fact that he is the first African American president hinges entirely on the fact that he was elected President in the first place, making that more important. Again, his ethnicity is important and must be mentioned in the lead, but it is secondary.--Cúchullaint/c23:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I actually don't have a problem with how it now reads, but the Wikidemon-suggested change is also fine with me. It's a non-issue, I believe.LedRush (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
He is not going to be the first African-American president, he's going to be the first half-african-american president or first mixed president as you will , but he's not the first African American president ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.106.138.37 (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Barack Obama has a chance to be a great president and positively effect the nation. He has a chance to shed a positive light on his people. His people are not blacks, not african americans, not whites, but Americans. Barack Obama is a mixed race American, but more importantly an American. That is important above all else. I would hope that Barack himself would agree to this statement, being the good man that he is. Race should be of no importance. He is American and that is that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericbart (talk • contribs) 17:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Barack Obama isn't legally "African American," as far as I know. He is about 7% African American, while about 43% Arab (but correct me if you know what you're talking about). Codster925 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC).
There is no legitimate source anywhere stating that Obama is Arab, and certainly not with any specific percentage. Obama is of Luo ethnicity (Kenyan) by way of his father, and Anglo-American by way of his mother. In the UNITED STATES, the term African-American refers to any American citizen of traceable African descent. Historically this has meant - by way of the One-drop rule even people who were 1 in 32 parts African. Today it is more or less if one identifies as African-American, then they are, even if external perceptions are to the contrary (as in the case of people who "pass").—GodhevalTCW
Media coverage of ethnicity controversy and the intro
This new coverage won't make some editors here happy, but it's out in the media from a very reliable source:
Debate over whether to call this son of a white Kansan and a black Kenyan biracial, African-American, mixed-race, half-and-half, multiracial — or, in Obama's own words, a "mutt" — has reached a crescendo since Obama's election shattered assumptions about race... [...]
"To me, as to increasing numbers of mixed-race people, Barack Obama is not our first black president. He is our first biracial, bicultural president ... a bridge between races, a living symbol of tolerance, a signal that strict racial categories must go," Marie Arana wrote in the Washington Post.
At what point do those with concerns about using "African-American" instead of biracial in the intro stop being archived or told to read the FAQ in the face of notable public controversy? TAway (talk) 08:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
One article is not going to do it. Ditto for Dr. Leroy's scholarship. His theories were enbraced until Barack came along by the Pan-Africanists, but they are strangely silient on the issue now a days. This article will not make it in unles there is a lot more coverage of it, sorry.Die4Dixie (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
What exactly is wrong with my previous suggestion, based on the Lewis Hamilton article - "Coming from a mixed-race background, with a white American mother and black Kenyan father, Obama is often recognised as the first African-American president of the United States", which I feel covers both sides of the coin succintly enough? Once you factor in his time in Hawaii and Indonesia and his limited connection with the African-American community until his 20s, I feel that 'African-American' alone gives a misleading impression of his history. If we're realistically honest, a kid growing up in the Bronx surrounded by crime and drugs has little hope of becoming president, but the son of two university students does - ethnicity is a smaller factor which appears prominent as more of the former and less of the latter are black--MartinUK (talk) 11:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with it. I get the feeling that most of you have never taken the time to look for sources that cover this subject, or sources that refer to him as bi-racial. Just about any reliable source you can think of has called Obama bi-racial, and probably referred to him as the first African American President as well. Veryreliable sources can be found. I've seen hundreds if not thousands of sources that go into detail about his mixed heritage, finding sources is not the problem. Landon1980 (talk) 12:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Here's the thing: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and most importantly Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. Everything that is added to this project has to come from a reliable third party source. (I.E. a source that does not have any glaringly apparent bias (An example of a paper with bias: World News Daily), that has at a sizable editorial board that oversees the articles that journalists write and publish, and has enough oversight over everything they publish.) This does not include opinion pieces, blogs, forums, etc. Wikipedia also reflects what the majority of reliable sources say about Barack Obama. Currently the majority of them refer to him as African American and the article reflects this. If a person is trying to open a debate as to get rid of the African American tag, then Wikipedia talk pages and articles are the wrong place to do it. This is the main reason why these debates get shut down, due to this not being a forum to discuss these things. Please keep all conversations on topic and on how to better improve this article. Brothejr (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
From that same article: Most Americans see Obama as a black man, and he identifies himself as a black man. As they mention he see's himself as an African American and the Wikipedia article reflects this. Brothejr (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Whoops, looks like someone didn't read their own source and just ran with the headline. Landon, noone here is arguing the position of "no one calls him bi-racial". The argument is that the majority of reliable sources refer to Obama as the first African-American president. Tarc (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I am well aware of what the source says tarc. Can you direct me to the policy or guideline that suggests what Obama self-identifies as matters, or that the publics opinion matters? I don't have the time, nor do I wish to rehash this, my only point was finding sources is not a problem. I don't see how anyone could possibly know how many sources say this or say that, there are way too many of them. One day the neutrality of the article will improve, in due time. As of now too many editor's are hung up on what Obama's opinion on the matter is, and ignore the fact that thousands of sources refer to Obama's mixed heritage. You name a reliable source and I bet that I can give you a link where the source calls him bi-racial or mentions his mixed heritage in some way. Most of you are still in pre-election defense mode and don't realize the election is over. Landon1980 (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the core problem here is that what Obama truthfully self identifies as does not matter to you. The thing here is that it does very much matter. It would be a violation of WP:BLP to apply labels to a living person who does not apply them to themselves and also to ignore what the person self identifies as. We are not arguing that he is mixed race and the article does go into his mixed heritage. The real issue is that first tag, the tag that the person applies to themselves. If I was writing a bio article on you for instance and you personally think of yourself as one thing that can be backed up, and every reliable source out there refereed to you as that, then I would be obliged to use that tag the same way as you do. To do anything less would be a BLP violation. The same argument applies here. He self identifies as African American and we refer to him as such in the intro section. Brothejr (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
"It would be a violation of WP:BLP to apply labels to a living person who does not apply them to themselves and also to ignore what the person self identifies" I'm having trouble finding that in WP:BLP can you show me where it says that please? It's one thing to say that he is widely referred to as African American, or to say that most of the public consider him AA, and another to report it as fact. Read over WP:ASF please. There are more than enough sources to justify including something in regards to his mixed heritage in the lead. Obama being bi-racial and being widely referred to as African American can be sourced with thousands of reliable sources. Landon1980 (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I am always a little disheartened to see that people pretend that no reliable resources refer to Obama as biracial...that is clearly not the case. While it is true that it is much more common to see Obama referred to as African American, there are very many references to him as biracial (or a similar term), including Obama himself. Yes, he usually self-identifies as African American, but not always. Anyway, I am not sure how much better the inclusion of the fact that he is biracial will make the article, but it would be nice to see people discuss wikipedia policies fairly.LedRush (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and that makes it hard to discuss things on here. Most editors are less than honest about this. When such a large number of editors demonstrate a bias there is really nothing you can do about it. It's a shame that policy does not trump consensus of around 20 talk page regulars. The large number of editor's disputing the neutrality is also ignored, the threads are speedy archived so to shift consensus to their side. The truth is far more people have suggested a change be made than are happy with the current state of the lead. I'm confident that the article's bias will be short lived and that sooner or later WP:NPOV can be introduced to the article. The article is one big praise section, and anything that could even possibly cast a negative light on Obama is completely ignored. Landon1980 (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
You two are getting pretty good at the strawman constructions, I'll give you that. Again, the argument isn't that "no reliable resources refer to Obama as biracial", it is that only a minority of them do, as compared to those that refer to him as African-American. Obama's self-identification, while important, is not the only contributing factor either. Please respond to what people are actually saying here, and not to the made-up arguments that you only think they are saying. Tarc (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
You are getting very good at inaccurate character assaults. People above have argued that there were no reliable sources: Brothejr said that this type of statement would be original research. This could only be true if no sourses backed up the statement. Die4Dixie said that "one article isn't going to do it" which implies there is only one article. That is obviously not the case. Your argument, Tarc, is a more reasonable and defensible one. But alas, we need to address all the arguments thrown our way, and one concerns there being no sources to back the claim and therefore the use of the term is original research. You could probably help focus the discussion by helping to respond to these arguments yourself rather than attack me with misrepresentations of the situation.LedRush (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of character assaults, you are also pretty good at them too and I'll ignore the sly comments of logic. Simply put your argument is mainly a soap box argument. Maybe you could separate your POV from this and take a look at the sources. While we can all agree there are sources out there that comments on his mixed race, the thing is there are a many more that comment on his AA status. The lead of an article is meant to summarize the entire article with the important highlights of the person's career. One of the largest achievement is that he is the first publicly identified African American to be elected president of the US. This is how the vast majority of sources report it as and many other wikipedians have mentioned before, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Brothejr (talk) 18:44, 15 December
2008 (UTC)
Thank you for again misstating my arguments (or projecting others' upon me) while making insulting comments about me. Anyway, as I've stated above, I don't know that the inclusion of this term in the article will make a substantial increase on the quality of the argument. I only entered into the discussion to try and get people to make logical points and not knee-jerk reactions against anything seen as a slight to Obama. I really hoped the tone of discussion here would improve here after the election and after the right wing conspiracy theorists left...but it appears many editors here are conditioned to be haters.LedRush (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Here we go with "original thought" again, it is not original thought when reliable sources say it. Have a look at original research before you mislabel things as such again. Asking for reliable sources not to be ignored is also not soapboxing. Is that the best reason you can come up with for the lead to not be neutral? Also, please show me where I can find that previous quote of yours in WP:BLP. Will you also show me how you know that many many more sources call him African American than mention his mixed heritage in some way? This is the only article I know of on here that everyone has to dance around what the subject would and wouldn't want. There is not one negative or questionably negative thing in this article, try comparing the tone and content of this article with other articles on political figures. Do you not realize that Obama also self-identifies as a biracial person (not that it matters)?Landon1980 (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Of course Obama is multiracial, and any source that documents his heritage will report this. So much for things that can be filed under "duh". Moving on to less obvious matters, such as how we should describe Obama in the lead of the article, it may be helpful to revise what Wikipedia is. Our purpose is to provide a tertiary source - in other words, a collection of data published by other sources. Indeed, our criterion for inclusion is not truth, but verifiability, which is assessed according to publication in reliable sources. We should report the view of those sources neutrally and should not give any viewpoint coverage which is of undue weight compared to its representation in the sources. Finally, the article lead should provide a concise neutral summary of the article contents.
My own opinion is that, although sources which write about Obama's heritage or racial background will use terms such as biracial or multiracial (interestingly, often in addition to calling him black or African American), sources which write about Obama himself tend to use one of the latter terms. Consider the newspaper headlines and lead paragraphs from around the world reporting the election results:
The Sydney Morning Herald: THIS IS OUR TIME THE new president-elect of the United States, Barack Obama, pledged to unite the nation across racial and partisan divides and to show the rest of the world that "America can change" as he made history by becoming its first African-American leader.
The Guardian (UK): Barack Obama to be America's first black president Americans placed their faith in Barack Obama today, turning their backs on a past of slavery and segregation and electing the first African-American to the US presidency.
The Financial Times (UK): Obama promises ‘new dawn’ after historic win Barack Obama promised a “new dawn of American leadership” after he was elected the first African-American president of the US amid international acclaim and record turnout on Tuesday.
The Times of India: Obama makes history, elected US president WASHINGTON: Democrat Barack Obama captured the White House on Tuesday after an extraordinary two-year campaign, defeating Republican John McCain to make history as the first black to be elected U.S. president.
The New York Times: Obama Elected President as Racial Barrier Falls Barack Hussein Obama was elected the 44th president of the United States on Tuesday, sweeping away the last racial barrier in American politics with ease as the country chose him as its first black chief executive.
The Globe And Mail (Canada): Obama overcomes CHICAGO -- Americans overwhelmingly chose Barack Obama as their next president last night, sending the first African-American to the Oval Office in a historic election victory that also gave Democrats commanding control of Congress.
The New Zealand HeraldObama: 'Change has come to America' Barack Obama called his election as president of America the "defining moment change has come to America", calling for "a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility" to address the greatest challenges "of our lifetime". Obama was elected the 44th president of the United States - and the first black Commander-in-Chief in the country's history in a crushing victory of his Republican opponent.
I believe that the above sources provide the best available guide as to how history will describe Obama.
In summary: The lead of the article should provide a summary of Obama and his achievements, as the sources do. The body of the article should contain a section which describes Obama's heritage, as the sources describe it. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK15:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Almost all of those sources you've quoted are left-of-centre politically, and thus have an agenda to overstate the racial significance of the event, when his white Grandmother, Indonesian stepfather and Hawaiian time may be more positively significant to his life than his black father. Plus, newspaper leads are not the same as Wikipedia article leads - theirs trying to grab the attention of the reader, rather than to summarise the facts of the event. Is it a fact that there are no remaining racial barriers? As there's never been an Asian-American or Italian-American (for example) President, that's debatable. Does his election directly relate to slavery? Debatable, as none of his ancestors are known to have been slaves and I believe he earnt a majority of the white vote. Was the campaign any more extraordinary than Bush V Gore in 2000 or Kennedy V Goldwater in 1964? Matter of opinion - it wasn't as close or controversial as the former, and the candidates weren't as polarised as in the latter.--MartinUK (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Please provide sources rather than arguments. I'd be delighted to see any sources you can provide to redress the balance, perhaps headlines from right-of-centre newspapers that describe Obama as America's first president to be Hawaiian-born, raised in Indonesia, or (to get back on topic) multiracial, biracial, or of mixed race. Otherwise your position seems to be nothing more than original research. Speaking of which, I don't really know why you'd want to use this page to argue that the sources are wrong. This isn't the place for that. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK16:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
SheffieldSteel is explaining this quite accurately. As long as the vast majority of reliable sources lead with, and emphasize the African-American part, that's what we'll do here, end of story. Those same sources also sometimes touch on the rest of the story, further down in their articles, or in the occasional article about the broader picture. Oh look, that's just what we do here also—in the fourth paragraph of this article, leading the second section, it gives the full details of Obama's heritage. Surprise, surprise, Wikipedia is quite accurately reflecting how the vast majority of reliable sources are covering this issue. Priyanathtalk17:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
There is a body of afrocentric scholarship that proves he is not the first. Perhaps the "first publically acknowledged by whites to be black " would be more accurate, and would not minimize the brave contributions to scholarship that these reliable sources have made. I'm begginning to see the Euro-centric agrrogance that my professors talked about and that i was always incleined to dismiss.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
LOL, if you can find a preponderance of Reliable Sources that say "first publically acknowledged by whites to be black ", then I'll be impressed, to say the least. Priyanathtalk19:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
D4D, as noted above Vaughn's theory is the epitome of a fringe theory currently and any inclusion of his theories in this article would be a violation of WP:UNDUE to the extreme. --Bobblehead(rants)19:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
This is a conspiracy perpetrated by the white man to keep a brother down by minimizing the achievements and successes of the brothers in the struggle over the last 400 years by calling scholarship "fringe" in order to keep a Eurocentric view of history!:DDie4Dixie (talk) 03:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Wow, Dixie. What's more evident to me is the classist insinuation that the election of this so-called "black" man somehow reinforces the achievement ideology and other romantic American myths. How similar was Obama's privileged white childhood to that of the typical African American boy? What are we trying to hide by rejecting the opportunity to celebrate Obama's multiracial heritage?M. Frederick (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Here is a direct quote from Obama: "I identify as African-American — that's how I'm treated and that's how I'm viewed. I'm proud of it." In other words, the world gave Obama no choice but to be black, and he was happy to oblige. This is clear cut, and further legitimizes this talk page's FAQ Question/Answer #2. Read it, would you please? Duuude007 (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Facts only matter if the mainstream media cite them more often than myths perpetuated for political gain. What a fancy, fancy loophole!M. Frederick (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Alma mater
Woodrow's Wilson's listed alma maters include Davidson, from which he transferred to Princeton. Working on that logic, should Occidental not be added to Obama's?--203.129.60.245 (talk) 06:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
There is a case in the Supreme Court's docket to investigate whether or not he is qualified to become POTUS, because of the "natural citizen" requirement of the Constitution. According to British law, which applied in Kenya at the time of his birth, he would be born a dual citizen, because he was born in Hawaii, but to a minor mother, and Kenyan father. He would not be a natural citizen, according to some people's definitions. A natural citizen is someone born in the country to two citizen parents. His parents weren't citizens. However, he would be a citizen, because of the 14th ammendment, but not a natural born citizen. The Supreme Court has been called to decide. Shouldn't that be mentioned?
24.21.94.80 (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
This has been discussed at great length and determined not to be a valid addition to this biography. Please see the archives. Tvoz/talk02:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I believe Berg v. Obama is still active in the Supreme Court, but Donofrio v. Wells and Wotnowski v. Bysiewicz have been denied so far. --Bobblehead(rants)03:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
While the petition for cert. in Berg v. Obama is still pending, [1] it alleges he was born in Kenya. It does not involve the duel or "primary" citizenship argument/analysis addressed by 24.21.94.80 above. Berg contends that Obama was not born in the U.S. --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
The real conspiracy is the attempt to get people to donate money to fund these 'vital investigations'. Follow the money. (I'd prefer Wikipedia not be used as the enabler in this scam, but I guess some fools have to learn by experience.) Flatterworld (talk) 06:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
The other issue is that if your parents are citizens of a different country, even one we dont like, and you are born in the U.S. , You're a Natural Born Citizen. You don't automatically become an Unnatural Born Citizen when its politically convenient for those who are afraid of you. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 08:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
[Outdent added] Not necessarily. Constitutional scholars are not settled on whether one is a "natural born" US citizen or a US citizen, under the scenario described; see also dual citizenship. But, in this case, unless some other "informnation" comes to light, it's safe to assume that Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen. Newguy34 (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
??? Is there a reliable source that says so? Actually, for something as controversial as this in a BLP, there should be several reliable sources that say so before it becomes a candidate for inclusion. Newguy34 (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Tin hat wearersAgain, no. Some wingnuts did a phone interview with Obama's grandmother. Between the bad connection, a bad translation, and confusing and leading questions, they thought she said Obama was born in Kenya. She later straightened people out. Their equally bad recording was their 'smoking gun'. You have to love conspiracy theorists. They will never accept that they are wrong, no matter how much evidence or how many court decisions go against them. Priyanathtalk18:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
You forgot that they apparently edited the recording in order to eliminate the step-grandmother correcting them once she realized they were asking about whether she saw him being born in Kenya rather than saw him when he visited Kenya. --Bobblehead(rants)19:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I think Alan Keyes has a suit too, which appears to have more merit and his statements of facts are substantially different than the "tin hat" crew's arguments.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
What you think of the case really has no relevance here, though. It is no more or less notable/fringe/conspiratorial than the previous ones. Tarc (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
The problem with the other cases is not that they are fringe/not notable/or conspiriatal, it is that the parties initiating the action lack standing. Alan Keyes does have standing, and his suit is notable and has been widely reported. I'm not sure what your definition of "notable" is. Appartently you think that your thoughts on note worthyness belong on the talk page, so I hardly see how mine would not.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Quick and easy test on Alan Keyes' suit:
Does the mainstream media generally lend any credence to it? (Yes/No)
Do law scholars lend any credence to it? (Yes/No)
If the answer to either question is yes, then it may be of significant impact to Obama's life, ergo suitable material for his BLP. If the answer to both questions is no, then while it is notable for the sheer amount of noise it has generated, it doesn't belong in this particular article until the unlikely event that the Supreme Court sides with Keyes. --GoodDamon20:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
17 individauls and groups suing an indiviadual or filing suit against him is notable. If 17 individuals sued me in federal court, of course it would be notable to my life. Perhaps the analogy is bad? As far as lend creedence, they acknoledge and report that he has been sued. Reporting it means that they must believe the suit exists, or perhaps I missed your drift.Die4Dixie (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Er, Dixie, since when does legal standing confer notability? That Keyes may have standing (quite debatable, though) does not elevate his suit above the other kooks. Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories is where this subject matter resides, it really has no place in the main article. Tarc (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Er, Tarc, since it was reported widely in the media by reliable third party sources. "When" something becomes notable is established by this bar, not when narrow editors decide what is or is not notable. Perhaps there is some other policy under which grounds you object to this material, and not notability?Die4Dixie (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
You made the claim that since (in your opinion) Keyes has more standing than previous litigants, that that elevates his case above the others, that it is more notable. I find that claim to be rather ridiculous, and see no basis for it in Wikipedia policy. Tarc (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
That is not what I said. What I said is that the suit is notable, which you said was the bar for inclusion. The wide reporting of the existance of the suits is evidence of its notability. Perhaps, if you cannot understand why the suit is notable, I could break it down real slow on my talk page for you, if you like.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
The suit is NOT notable. The "wide reporting" of anything does not necessarily make it notable. Of course, the story weaseling its way into wikipedia at all is intended to try to add some false legitimacy to this nonsense. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?22:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Presidents have scores of lawsuits filed against them. That is not notable, neither are the individual lawsuits, unless there is some merit. The coverage of all of these suits is about their kookery, which is their only notability. That's why they are being covered in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. So regarding Keyes, the (tinfoil) hat still fits. Priyanathtalk21:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I like to monitor the Rush Limbaugh page from time to time, to see how the other half lives. As usual, the page is replete with turning every molehill he can find into a mountain, as regards Obama and the Democrats. Yet not a word about this so-called "controversy". Why? Because it's nonsense, and he knows it. The "controversy" exists only in the fantasies of die-hard conspiracy theorists and a few who somehow think they can steal another election for the GOP. There is no controversy. The fact that wikipedia even mentions these fairy tales is more than generous. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?22:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
BB, Limbaugh has covered this issue. He speculated on air that the reason why Obama visited Hawai'i at the end of the election cycle was not because his grandmother was sick, but because he was going to "update" his birth certificate to show that he was born in the US. Granted, that was before Obama's grandmother died, but he has covered the issue on his show. --Bobblehead(rants)22:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and he repeated that theory on his page also. That was late October, and at that point he was trying to make a mountain out of that particular anthill. And when she actually died, a day or two before the election, he dropped that theory like a hot potato. The story has no substance, and he realized that. He may be a prevaricator, but he's not a total idiot. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?22:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Is there a WP:SANITYCHECK tag? I guess not, it comes out red. Ask yourself this, though: If there were any objective hint that these allegations were true, don't you think that the FBI, the CIA, the Republican National Committee, the McCain staff, whatever bureau watches elections, or the New York Times wouldn't have jumped on it by now? Do Berg et al have better information sources than all those guys, or did they all conspire to get Obama elected? Sheesh. PhGustaf (talk) 01:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
What happened to the threshold of inclusion being notability and verifiability? You can say what you want, but what it all boils down to is it is negative so therefore it cannot be added to his biography. If a case made it all the way to the Supreme court questioning Mccain's citizenship it would be in the lead sentence. If something is related to Obama, notable, and can be verified by reliable third-party sources then it should be allowed in the biography. There sure have been a lot of changes made to policies for this article, and as long as the article is owned by a couple dozen die hard Obama fans nothing will change. I voted for Obama myself but I leave my POV out of this, there isn't one single negative thing in the entire article. The whole thing reads like a campaign ad, and a big praise section. Have any of you actually compared this article to other articles on political leaders? Like regarding the issue of Obama's race, nearly all of you base your argument on "Obama says this and Obama says that therefore we must say the same thing" when the truth is Obama's opinion isn't even relevant. All that matters is what the sources say, and they report it both ways. Go back and look at the straw poll, nearly every vote was based on what he self-identifies as. I know that WP:RS doesn't exactly apply to this article but... "Primary sources are not considered reliable for statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion." Obama's race is what makes his election historic, and more notable than usual and sources can be found in large number referring to Obama's mixed heritage. None of you will even entertain the idea of a neutral, factual lead such as what I suggested. WP:NPOV exists for a reason and you should not be able to pick and choose which articles it applies to. You act as if Obama being biracial is the opinion of such a minute minority that it would violate undue weight to include it. There are a lot of firsts regarding this election, including how our policies are applied and interpreted. Landon1980 (talk) 04:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
First, the lawsuits are only notable because of their absolute fringieness. That makes them notable as a fringe movement, or for the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article. That is how reliable and mainstream sources are covering the issue, when they do cover it—and their coverage is not nearly as heavy, for example, as the George Bush shoe throwing incident. Which is also notable only for it's wackyness, and not for the George Bush bio article. Regarding the African-American issue, didn't you read the reliable sources quoted above? They are all emphasizing that aspect, often in the first sentence, like this article. The issue of how Obama self-identifies is barely secondary, if at all. The reliable sources are nearly all leading with 'first African-American' or 'first black' to be elected president. So there are no double standards here, only the standard of reliable sources, notability, and Undue Weight. Which is why this is a featured article. Maybe if other politician bios were as well-edited, they too could become featured articles. Priyanathtalk04:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Can you think of another article of such a well-known person that there isn't even one negative thing in it? There is a big picture of the man playing basketball, and talk about him quitting smoking, etc. 67.48.121.203 (talk) 05:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
And his drug use, and his relationship with Tony Rezko. I just looked at the George Bush article for comparison, and it's about equal to this one. Don't worry, after 4-8 years in office, there will be plenty of mud to throw at Obama, if not shoes. Priyanathtalk06:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Yesterday AP reported: "Individual justices and the entire court have turned down emergency appeals over Obama's eligibility at least seven times in the past six weeks." I'm just sayin'.... Flatterworld (talk) 08:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I know you all love Obama. But this page is crashing my PIII 700. Keep it lean. There was no valuable info lost after fat trimming. Just a lot of lard. Thanks -Spotsbooks342 (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with loving or hating Obama. This is a featured article that is carefully edited by a large group of editors, and it is not appropriate to unilaterally make large edits in the way that you did without discussing them here first. If you want to present arguments for the edits you think will improve the article, please do so here. But note that the length of the article is within guidelines and given the significance of the subject, we think it is warranted. Tvoz/talk04:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the time you've all taken to consider my changes to the page. Frankly, I can no longer continue working with you on this particular page, because it literally will not load on my machine: WinXP PIII 700 ~390 MBytes RAM. I leave you with my existing edits. I appreciate your attention. -Spotsbooks342 (talk) 05:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I has an extra computer if u need 1. I am in PA so let me know on my talk page if you are near me. It is P4-2.4 Northwood with 1gb ram. The Obamanator probably can get a better one for free, but this is all I got. Testmasterflex (talk) 07:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I like compacting the notes section. Can we keep that, please? Much of the article length comes from that, and the only downside is not being able to see the note section all at once (but one has to scroll anyway). Conveniently, with notes compacted, clicking on a note still takes you directly to it even in the collapsed note section. No downside, plenty of upside.--chaser - t19:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Barack Obama is not black. Barack Obama is not white. He is Mulatto. Damn did I really have to just type that. I thought people knew this stuff already.
(DR1208) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.138.3.169 (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Can someone who has access to this page write the following under the President Elect section: " After Obama was announced as the President-Elect of the United States, at least one lawsuit was raised that falsely stated that Obama was not born in the USA, and therefore was not eligible to become the President-Elect (or the President). Obama, however, was born in the US (in Hawaii), and therefore is eligible to become the President of the US. Kb3mlmsk (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
This has been discussed before and the thought is that it is better not to include any mention of tinfoil hat conspiracies in the BLP.LedRush (talk) 20:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Unless they switched without telling me, they're members of the United Church of Christ, but not affiliated with any particular congregation. PhGustaf (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Do we have a source for the characterization "Mainline Protestant"? I see that UCC is considered such, but I wonder if we're not teetering on OR with this unless there's a source connecting Obama with the term. Tvoz/talk20:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
UCC is considered Mainline Protestant, and he was in the UCC. That seems like the backwards approach, though. Maybe someone could find out what is the actual denomination he considers himself to belong to at present, if any. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?20:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I changed the template back to UCC. Barring a reference saying that Obama has repudiated the denomination as well as the congregation, I think that's correct. Of course somebody who can't tell a belief system from a building is going to change it tomorrow. PhGustaf (talk)
I think putting UCC back was correct, and that its removal was based on a misunderstanding of the concept, as you're suggesting. Now, if he joins a different denomination when he moves to DC, that would compel a revision, presumably. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?20:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll Google this. Yes, Mainline Protestant at present would teeter on original research, e.g.,
"...Since Barack's policy postions tend to be socially liberal one could surmise that Barack continues within the Mainline and traditionally Calvinist, "Evangelical" tradition and related sects (read: some branch or another of liberal Protestant Christianity) and hasn't given much indication he'd recently verged into his being a generic Movement "Evangelical" or an adherent of related, conservative sects such as Charismatic Evangelicalism (read: some branch of conservative Protestant Christianity)!"
If someone quits going to St. Francis Xavier because he doesn't like the priest, does he stop being a Catholic? Unless Obama says he's no longer UCC, we have no business saying anything else. PhGustaf (talk) 21:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
If someone starts going to church solely to use such attendence as a vehicle for social or political power, do they become a christian?Die4Dixie (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
(Back.) Bugs, you are correct, the media's use of Mainline seems to coordinate with mention of the UCC. (Sure, he's also classed in general as "liberal Christian" but such a label is too nebulous for our encyclopedic classification of Obama's religious subgroup, IMO.) Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply …21:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
There are thousands of sources that state that Barack Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ. There are plenty of sources that state that he quit Trinity, but I can find no sources that indicate he has switched denomination. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, he is still a member of UCC and it should say as much in his infobox. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Die4Dixie is trying to make a political point of some kind. He's also wrong about denomination being at the "local level". In line with what PhGustaf said above, JFK presumably switched from one congregation to another when he moved from Boston to D.C. He did not cease being a Catholic in the interim. UCC is a national church, so unless Obama has made an announcement of some kind to the contrary, his denomination remains UCC. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?13:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
This is not about a tiff, it is about renouncing his membership. Since we seem to want to discuss Catholics, it is simply the same as excommunication, except originating from the other end of the stick. This was not done in anticipation of a move. If you do that , you remain a member of the first congregation until your membership is transfered. I rather expect I have bben in church and transfered my membership more times than the editors who want this now unsourced claim inserted. In fact, I'd bet money I've been in church more times in the last wo months than they've( other edidtors, not the Obamas) been in the last five years. Provide a source since his renouncement of his membership that he is still in the UCC fold before putting it in. It is certainly not a UCC minister doing the swearing in.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Nice semantics. Communion with a denomination flows from membership. Please provide link that says that membership renunciation allows someone to be a member in a denomination, and how one acquires "membership" in a denomination.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
If you're a religious adherent of a particular denomination, and you leave your congregation because your preacher is saying and doing embarrassing, hurtful things, you don't stop being a religious adherent of your denomination. Imagine if you found out your own church minister was involved in something you didn't want to be associated with. Would you suddenly somehow lose your denomination if you left that particular church? That's just plain silly. --GoodDamon22:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
[[2]]. Please understand the structure of the UCC and understand the importance of lovcal membership. If I rnounced my membership, then yes I would cease to be say a Wee Wee Free, but not a Knoxist or a Calvinist.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
In fact, with so many mentions , we need to include this [[4]], incorporating it into his personal life section. In the BLP, the renunciation and repudiation of the church in which one was baptized is a significant life event, and is conspicuous by its absence.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)
A Former Church Member
Understandably, Die4Dixie is questioning whether or not Obama's current affiliation (or perhaps religious adherence) is still with the United Church of Christ. I've no doubt that Obama's future church attendances will help clarify (or complicate) this issue. Until then, perhaps simply specifying Obama's former Trinity membership would be the proper, encyclopedic and verifiable information to include here: Religion: Christianity (former member of Trinity United Church of Christ). Modocc (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Original / personal research. What's needed is evidence that he is no longer a member of the UCC denomination. Maybe he isn't. But no one has provided any evidence of that, only personal opinions. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?01:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
What? Obama did leave Trinity and not necessarily the UCC. Please reread my suggestion, cause I think you missed my curve ball. Modocc (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
It would depend on what that denomination's tradition considers its rules to be. But even if someone looks it up and finds out the rules, that's an original synthesis. It is not Wikipedia's place to speculate on what his relationship is with the denomination. "Formerly with a UCC church" or some such text is probably most appropriate as this does not make a judgment one way or the other on his relationship with the denomination ... although since this is the infobox, that's really too long and just saying UCC should suffice - guess Obama's religion is not within Wikipedia's scope. --B (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Bingo. That's the problem - original research / original synthesis. What's needed is a reliable source explicitly stating that Obama has left the UCC denomination. Arguments about how the UCC supposedly does things in general, are not valid. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?02:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflicts)Again, Obama resigned from Trinity United Church of Christ (which is not to be confused with the UCC denomination; see links). That makes him a former member of the congregation; a former member of Trinity... Just thought I put forth a reasonable suggestion and not personal research or opinion. --Modocc (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree, and thanks for addressing one of my concerns (the excessive length) we can include a links to the specifics. Modocc (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the issue of putting "former" in the infobox is that it's confusing. It only states the denominaiton, not the specific congregation. The body of the article can explain the minutia of the situation. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?02:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Finally, something resembling a reliable source. The writer might have jumped to conclusions himself, but it's an AP wire service story, so I think it would qualify as a valid source. So under religion it could be just plain "Christian", or it could be UCC "former", or it could still be left at UCC since that was his last known denomination. But with the citable source available, perhaps there's a possibility of reaching consensus on the matter. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?03:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
How about Christian (Formerly TUCC)? My last edit to the mainspace might have been ambiguous and there should have been a comma between christianity and the formerly so that it was clear that formerly modified UCC. In all fairness, his breaking with TUCC should be mentioned, as it is a significant life event. I am open to any neutral dealings with the facts, but this is a nettle that musts be grasped with both hands.Die4Dixie (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
If you would make the edit, I'd be gratified wirh the redirect to TUCC directly. Before I make an edit about the TUCC situation, I'll make the proposal here.Die4Dixie (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
That edit works for me. I think it clarifies matters to associate Obama (or maybe disassociate him) with TUCC rather than UCC in general. PhGustaf (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
The edit satisfies me. It is not important that you agree with me on this, but for what its worth: today most people in this secular world do not under stand the individuals role within the church. He placed himself outside of the jurisdicion of the church hierachy by resigning his church membership without transfering it. This concept is alien to most people because they do't feel bound by any power greater than themselves. Membership in reformed churches stem from baptist as children, and then a public declaration of faith before the congregation. Communion with the denomination and the church hierachy stems from this. A rupture of this relationship severs the bond of invidual and denomination. Transfers of membershp do not do this. This fine distinction is not as important as it once was, when the church was the center of social life and shunning was a real issue. Of course we do not live in a theocracy now, so most would not give much thought to the spiritual implications within a denomination. Now a adays, people do pretty much what ever they want, without fear of accountability to the church hierachy, and there are no consecquences for conversions or separations. But anyway, the edit is fine.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
If I'm understanding you right, he basically excommunicated himself. However, that's not necessarily a permanent thing, as he could join a UCC church in DC, assuming there is one, which there probably is, given that it's a large denomination. Choosing a church, a school for any young'uns, etc., are among the many rituals a new President goes through. This entry is essentially a placeholder until his family selects a new church. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?19:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
No,notapermanentthing.If you look at the constitution, he would ahve to make another declaration of faith to rejoin, since he doesn't have a membership that he could transfer (having resigned/renounced it).Actually, excommunicated in the catholic sense is too strong, as he could still take communion in the reformed churches, where the basis of elegibility for the sacraments is a belief in the Jesus as one's savior and the other stylized beliefs.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
[[5]] In fact, a thourough reading of article V of the constitution and bylaws of the United Church of Christ should make this apparent to the most sckeptical editor.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Note that UCC is quite literally a "congregational" church in that each congregation makes its own rules. There is a hierarchy and there are synods, but they provide suggestions rather than dicta to the congregations. TUCC is hardly a typical UCC congregation, and it's useful to associate Obama with it rather than UCC in general. PhGustaf (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes. The First Congregational Church of Waverley, MA (UCC), where I was raised, has for example been taken over by Koreans. This probably leads to more interesting church suppers than those served in my day by Swedes. PhGustaf (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I have pretty serious reservations about that citation -- the reporter seems to be making an offhand assertion rather than documenting a fact. But I agree the best thing to do is wait a few weeks and see what church Obama shows up at. I'm not gonna change the infobox again, PhGustaf (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I also have reservations about it, but as far as I know it's the only citation we have. What we have otherwise is everyone giving their opinions on that matter, none of which are citable in the article. I did change the wording to "most recently", which sounds weaselly, but it's a true statement. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?21:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure we have to like the cite. There is no cite that claims he is still in the UCC fold since his public break with Trinity. I would just recommend, if not what we agreed on earlier, removing all refrence to UCC there and leaving christianity.Die4Dixie (talk) 06:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I like "most recently" seems to me like that could have more than one meaning. I could probably find some more sources if the two above are not enough. It doesn't matter if it's an opinion piece, the majority of sources are opinion pieces that is why they must be reliable, third-party, and known for fact checking and accuracy. Wouldn't something like "Christian, former UCC member" match the sources better? Is there a need to mention the UCC at all? Could we simply put Christian? Former UCC member doesn't suggest he's a former Christian, only that he is a former member of the UCC. Landon1980 (talk) 11:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how "most recently" could be taken more than one way. In any case, it is a true fact, and it pre-empts debates (i.e. the constant edit skirmish, which arose again after the compromise) over whether he really is or is not a current member of that denomination. I, for one, am still not convinced; nor am I convinced the editorial writer knows what he's talking about. But there is no question that his most recent denomination was UCC. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?12:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Most recent could mean he is still with the denomination. Do you have a source that says he is still with the UCC? I can see readers taking most recent as that is his latest denomination, former is exactly what the source cited says, not that is was his most recent. Landon1980 (talk) 12:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
By the way I'm not really convinced either but we don't have to be convinced, remember, verifiability not truth. Would you not agree that the two sources are reliable? I'll look for more in a minute. Landon1980 (talk) 12:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Besides the Sun-Times column, what's the second source you're referring to? And if we say "prev. UCC", what do we do about those decide to delete it? Maybe just revert with "see talk page consensus"? That would obviate 3RR if it comes to that. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?12:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
"Most recently" to me means "last known". We could say it that way if it would be clearer, since we don't currently know what denomination he's affiliated with, if any. It's just that "last known" sounds like something from a "Wanted" poster. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?12:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Would an email response from the denomination headquarters be accetable to all parties to clarify this?(and how would I go about sharing it?) Die4Dixie (talk) 12:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
It wouldn't be valid as a source for the article, but we already have a source. It would serve as documentation within the talk page, as "corroborating evidence". I'm fine with that. If they have anything posted on the internet that explains their membership rules, as corroborating evidence or further elaboration on what the citable source already says, I'd be fine with that also. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?12:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Most recently means last known to me as well, but that doesn't let the reader know he has left the denomination, just that it's the last update we had. The other source I'm referring to is this source I posted above. I may be wrong, you are more experienced than I with editing so you may be right. I don't really have any strong feelings about it. Landon1980 (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, I missed it somehow. I'm also not seeing anywhere in the article that says he left the denomination, only that he left the specific congregation, which is a widely known and undisputed fact. For us to infer that that means he is no longer in the denomination, regardless of how much we supposedly know about the topic, still amounts to original research. So the Sun-Times item is the only citable documentation we have on the matter just now. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?12:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I thought that was the only church in the UCC he ever attended. I've not seen anything that says he has attended another church in the denomination since resigning. Leaving that church would be leaving the denomination since he did not simply switch to another wouldn't it? Regardless we could put 'formerly TUCC' linked to the exact article on the church he last attended couldn't we? Landon1980 (talk) 13:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
And I say that it would not necessarily mean he left the denomination. That's why we need at least one citation that explicitly says he left the denomination, and we have that. And for the skeptical (like me) some corroborating evidence would be helpful. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?13:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
When he resigned his membership he left the denomination, that will be true until he picks a new church within the denomination. Does this even matter? Why can't we just put former TUCC, there are several sources for that. Obama's membership with the UCC was within the Trinity church, therefore technically he's left the denomination. I've spent the last hour and a half researching this, and when questioned Obama has made no statements suggesting he is staying within the UCC, only that his family will find a new church home and that there are lots of choices. Landon1980 (talk) 13:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
TUCC is not a denomination, it's just a congregation. And I don't agree that it's clear he has left the denomination just by leaving a specific congregation. If Die4 finds something specific to convince me, then fine. Obama has apparently made no statement at all about his future church plans, so we can't infer anything. The safest fact to post in the infobox is that his most recent denomincation was UCC, for anyone who cares about that kind of thing, which I frankly don't, but the other Presidential infoboxes state a denomination, as far as I know. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?13:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
He doesn't need one, since he is unique in having publically repudiated membership in a church. He is without a church and a denomination. We only need one source that says he is not in the denomination, which we have, and not one that says he still is. This should not be so complicated. Other stuff exists is no reason to fewel his box is naked.Die4Dixie (talk) 13:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
It gets complicated because the agreed upon (?) compromise was violated. Presumably it's in the infobox because someone wants to know at a glance what his denomination is and/or was. Earlier I said that Presidents typically have a denomination there. One strong exception is Abraham Lincoln, whose religious views are very difficult to pin down. Facts About the Presidents simply stated "No specific denomination". That doesn't exactly apply here, because as far as I know, Lincoln never belonged to any specific denomination. However, there may be another way to handle this. In the Lincoln article, it simply links to an article that discusses the matter. How about, in this case, simply stating "Christian", but with a link to the section in the article that explains his current situation. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?13:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
He may very well pick a new church within the denomination, we don't know that. As of now he doesn't have a membership with the UCC, he resigned from the only church he attended within the denomination. Saying he may not have left the denomination altogether is original research. Presently we have no idea if he will pick another church in the denomination, but we do know he resigned the only membership he ever had with the UCC. the probability he may choose to pick another church within the denomination is one thing, saying he is still with the denomination is another. To be within the denomination you must have a membership with a church in the denomination. This is like a car owner selling his ford car and has not yet purchased a new car. The guy may have loved his ford car and choose to buy a new one, but that doesn't make him a ford owner while he is searching for a new car. Landon1980 (talk) 13:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The main thing is to arrive at a stable situation in the article. I don't agree with your argument, and I am not convinced the editorial writer knows what he's talking about. But if it just says "Christian" and links to the explanation in the article, that should cover all the bases, shouldn't it? Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?13:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I think that would work. This seems very clear cut to me. The only way he will have not left the denomination is if he picks another church in the denomination, and he has not done that. So explain to me how he has not left the denomination if he is not attending a church within the denomination? He may go back to the UCC, but right now Obama is churchless. I simply don't understand how he can be in the denomination without attending a church in the denomination. Landon1980 (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the one we ironed out earlier is best. If it gets reverted against consensus with the article probation and lack of discussion, take them to ANI like you did me. If they had an opinion, they should have participated, not lurked around reverting are hard work using summaries to do what should be done here.Die4Dixie (talk) 14:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
D4D, by attendance I meant joining another church in the denomination. He resigned his membership with Trinity, and that is where his membership with the UCC was within. No matter how you spin it he is currently not with the UCC. We have no sources saying he is still with them, only that he resigned his membership and a well known fact that he left TUCC. Landon1980 (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
we agree then . I know members who cannot attend a church(homebound, etc, out of country) but they remain members unless they repudiate that membership.Die4Dixie (talk) 14:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
You are correct, he did not transfer his membership he resigned plain and simple. Like I said above, he may rejoin within the denomination but as of now he cannot possible be in the UCC. I'll be perfectly happy with Bugs' latest suggestion though. Landon1980 (talk) 14:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I do feel that the section needs to be expanded to deal with the Rwev. Wright issue in a neutral way. Make it happen. But with the same caveat. If people come in and start mucking about with it, they go to ANI after one revert. We have to treat all alike even if they agree/disagree with us on political issues.Die4Dixie (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Well he did cause the contested seat to become vacant, if that's what you mean. That's how "TBA" ended up the article. However, while there isn't an article about how the "A" is going, it would just be confusing to infer that the scandal article is the next best thing. That article contains very little known fact about the process that is underway to choose that replacement. Bigbluefish (talk) 11:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Emmy wins
Surely this article should mention his two Emmy wins? There are no mentions of this achievement and the categories he's in at the bottom don't mention Emmy Spoken Word Winner... 90.192.223.153 (talk) 01:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Ugh, you both made me look... Obama won two Grammy Awards for his audiobooks, as noted near the end of the article. As for any Emmys or ESPYs, if Obama is that successful and anyone does care, we will need a citation. Modocc (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I added it as one in the infobox, and got reverted with the good-faith assertion that it was not a profession but a job. I don't know of any wiki standard for "profession" vis. "job", but I do think it makes good sense to place it there, because community organizing was a major element in Obama's career, and the text says "community organizer" two inches to the left anyway. So I ask for input. And yes, this is no big deal. PhGustaf (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't even know if it's a "job", rather sounds more like a "job description". In fact, he was "director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP), a church-based community organization", for three years. Does 3 years really qualify it as one of his "profession"s, and what would that profession be called? I think it's best left off. Priyanathtalk00:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I still see it as just a job, and not really relevant enough to tick off in the infobox. A mention in the article body should suffice for something that really only gained its notoriety as a Palinite talking point. Tarc (talk) 15:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Heh. As a Palinite talking point, it led to the quip, "Jesus was a community organizer. Pilate was a governor." In any case, I concede the issue. PhGustaf (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
The relevant infobox fields are profession and occupation. If you'd like to, you may put attorney under profession, and community organizer under occupation. Also note that 'politician' is NOT a profession either. (If you read the wiki article about profession, they're licensed after specific education such as attorney, educator, physician, professional engineer, electrician, plumber and so forth. They're all jobs, but they're generally licensed because they can put someone at serious risk if not done properly.) Flatterworld (talk) 22:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
←To me it is confusing to use both the 'profession' and 'occupation' infobox fields. It now reads like he was professionally trained as an attorney and politician, but works as a community organizer and attorney - and that's just not correct. If consensus is to separate profession from occupation, I'd say we have to have 'profession' as attorney and 'occupation' as politician and community organizer, but I think this all is adding confusion, not bringing clarity. And I am not convinced that the 'occupation' field should be an historical record of past occupations. Tvoz/talk20:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Mention Hawaii birth/upbringing in leading paragraphs
Sorry if this has been brought up previously, but it's not mentioned in the FAQ. It strikes me as a bit unusual that the state where he was born and spent all of his youth, except aged 6 - 10, is not mentioned in the lead. While I agree that Obama is more closely associated with Illinois than with Hawaii, I feel the connection with Hawaii is strong enough to justify inserting a few words about it. I would suggest this, in the second paragraph:
A native of Hawaii, Obama is a graduate of...
or, if confusion with ethnic Hawaiians is a serious concern, this:
Originally from Hawaii, Obama is a graduate of... or
Well, I don't think we need to think about the loonies. I'm suggesting adding three or four words, and this seems at least as important as the universities he went to (especially Columbia). I've just had a look at the archives and it doesn't seem to have been discussed going back to Archive 43. Maybe people can just give their opinion here about whether it's worth the added length, without worrying about what's been decided in the past. 67.150.246.171 (talk) 12:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC) [Or identify past discussion of the issue, if there's been any. 67.150.246.171 (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)]
A quick comparison: Bush 43 and Clinton do not mention place of birth in lead; Bush 41 does, Reagan does; Carter and Ford do not; Nixon does. Seems like a pretty mixed bag to me. I would generally lean slightly against including the extra information in the lead; what it adds does not strike me as overwhelmingly notable (obviously it should occur early in the body of the article, as it does). On the other hand, I lean against the addition only weakly, it would not be horrible to include either. LotLE×talk07:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Of course, his birthplace is a little more relevant that those of many other presidents since it's the first one outside the contiguous states. That said, I went through the lead statement by statement and this fact would be the least important by a good margin. Every other aspect sets up the subject of significant parts of the article (i.e. summarises and introduces, as a lead should), whereas his birthplace doesn't really get many column inches; it's just one of the details. So I'd stick with the shorter, sweeter version. Bigbluefish (talk) 11:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't really think his birth place is important enough for the lead. I doubt very many people buy into the ridiculous allegations about his birth place, I may be wrong but I don't know anyone that does anyways. Landon1980 (talk) 11:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
What is the weird fetish about the "contiguous states" about? This pops up from time to time on this talk page. Any prez who from a state that hadn't been the birthplace of previous ones would have some "first-ness" about it, but the fact Hawaii is an island (well, a bunch of islands) doesn't seem to have any inherent moral or political signficance. LotLE×talk19:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
At least from my experience, there is something culturally distinctive about Hawaii that differs from the mainland USA. People are interested in what "kind of person" can become President. If it weren't for America's history, I'd say his Hawaiianness would be a more important facet to who he is than his blackness. Sure, it's anecdotal and not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. Though, and this is pure speculation, I daresay that some people feel it validates Hawaii's Americanness. Bigbluefish (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I certainly think Hawaii is every bit as American as any other state. Its relatively recent addition as a state seems more interesting than its non-contiguity in my own mind. Hawaii is certainly not distinct in having its citizens imagine a distinction. Pretty much every state has natives who proclaim and believe in the special culture and values of that state. I guess one difference is that Obama and those around him seem to have played on the "special values" of Hawaii much less than Bush43 and associates have played on the "special values" of Texas. P.S. I'm not sure what to make of "if not for American history"... without that history, Hawaii (or any state) wouldn't be a state, or anything might have been different in any arbitrary way. But history is what it is. LotLE×talk20:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I would also think Obama's place of birth wasn't particularly significant if it hadn't also been the place he spent most of his youth.
Bigbluefish says that not much of the article is devoted to this, but I would say there's more about it than about Columbia University. An entire sentence is devoted in the lead to the fact that he taught consitutional law, while there are two sentences about this in the body. On the other hand, I count six sentences in the section on his early life that mention locations in Hawaii, and I am not even suggesting the inclusion of an entire sentence about it in the lead.
I also think that while, as Bigbluefish says, one function of the lead is to summarize later parts of the article, another function is to present what is considered the most basic information about the person. For example, the lead mentions his full name (and its pronunciation) and date of birth, though this is hardly elaborated on in the article. So everything depends very much on our appreciation of how basic this information is. I feel that in any biography, place of origin is a fundamental element.
LotLe mentions other pages that do not include information about place of birth. In fact, the articles George W. Bush, Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, which are given as counterexamples, all mention the states where they held political office, and these happen to coincide with the state in which they grew up. It is plausible that in these cases information about the state of origin was omitted because, to take the example of Bush, it would have been felt repetitive to mention both that Bush was raised in Texas and that he was governor of the state.
In Obama's case, like Hillary Clinton's, the state where he grew up is different from the one where he held office. I am not suggesting adding an entire statement; I am simply suggesting the addition of three or four words to the beginning of a sentence. 67.150.252.90 (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
It is a little jarring that the lead jumps straight into his law studies. He's a world traveler, having lived in places that the previous President only (maybe) heard of at some point in his career. I don't know how to summarize all of his residences in one or two sentences. Maybe, born in Hawaii, spent time in other nations, came back to the U.S. to pursue higher education, and at that point it picks up. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?19:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
←I think 67.150 raises a good point - it has been commented on many times that Obama was born in (and identifies himself with) Hawaii, just a couple of years after it achieved statehood which is notable, as it emphasizes his youth among other things. In my opinion adding a (very) few words to the lead would be appropriate because it is an unusual part of his bio. And Baseball B's point is well taken. The intro can and should mention this stuff. Tvoz/talk20:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Most admired
Obama has been named as the person Americans most admire, according to a USA Today/Gallup poll[6][7] Not sure if anyone here feels this merits inclusion, but am placing it here for your consideration. Do note that this is the first time since Eisenhower that a pres-elect has been "most" admired. KillerChihuahua?!?16:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
In the sum total of his life,it's not really notable. I would defer to more sympathetic editors on the issue however. It is also transitory and recentism, todays polls are stale tommorrow.Die4Dixie (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I am not keen on popularity polls in general. For a whole career, maybe. Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb, for example. Lincoln and Washington, for example. The trend of Bush's popularity throughout his 8-year presidency. But not for whoever is the hot item this week. More worthy of mention might be Time's man of the year. The one poll that really matters, though, was held on November 4th. Let's check back in a year or two or three and see how his popularity is. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?19:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
It's good to agree with D4D on something. This factoid on "most admired" is completely silly WP:RECENTism. Moreover, it's not really a fact of Obama's biography itself... at most about the "cultural perception" thing, but in a transient and accidental way. Keep out hagiography, please. LotLE×talk19:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that public perception article is kind of a mess now (it's become a bit of a coatrack) but it's probably the only place that such a poll could be considered notable enough to include. It's definitely not notable enough for his biography though (at least not at this point in time, maybe a few years from now if the image sticks). --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Info needed regarding conspiracy theorists
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.
Resolved
I have inserted a paragraph acknowledging the notable existence of conspiracy theorists regarding Obama's pending presidency. Such theorists have consumed a notable amount of American media attention, and have been featured on such networks as the Fox Network.
I have noted that Wikipedia User The Magnificent Clean-keeper has attempted to delete this information with the simple comment that he felt that such information was "too much weight" (too weighty?). I have since re-inserted it and asked this user to please comment and elaborate here before making any further such deletions.
It is not notable in the slightest, and if others hadn't lopped it already I would've cheerfully done so myself. Wholly unnecessary tinfoil nuttery. Tarc (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
It is notable, hence the wide reporting. The problem for inclusion here is that there are other articles that deal with it. I wouldn't object to linking to them somewhere. It is in that article where you can give yourself free reign to explore the issue. This is not a battle that you will win. On a nother note: Instead of using ad hominems, Tarc, you might attack the argument logically and not use inflammatory languae.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
No, it is not in the slightest bit notable to his biography. As for "ad hominems," you may want to look up the definition of that term, as it's not really applicable to this exchange. Tarc wasn't attacking Scottperry in his post, he simply called the conspiracy theories "tinfoil nuttery" (which they are). --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you should take a gander at them. It is a logical extension of his statement that those who believe or are on the fence about these claims are tinfoil hat wearing nuts. Please contact me via email or my talkpage if you need me to explain this more slowly, Loonymonkey.Die4Dixie (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
There is no way in a million years that any of this fringe crap is getting into the BLP. The assertion that these conspiracy theories have received "wide reporting" is ridiculous. They have been reported, but only by "staff reporter" types on slow news days. There are things that have been left out of this biography that have received orders of magnitude more coverage, but still lack enough significance for coverage here. Any conceivable coverage here would be inappropriate based on any or all of these: WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT, WP:N, WP:FRINGE, WP:RECENT and WP:COMPLETE BOLLOCKS. Okay, I made that last one up. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
No, it is not logical in any way, shape or form to take what I said and twist it into an attack, as what I was directing that comment towards was the conspiracy theories themselves. Someone else did the very same thing a few weeks back within these pages; trying to assert that a phrase I used ("the definition of insanity is doing the same things repeatedly, expecting a different result") was the equivalent of calling that person "insane". Simply absurd.
The problem with these sorts of article additions is that the pro-conspiracy people think that just because a reliable source mentions the conspiracy theory, that that automatically warrants inclusion. What these people tend to forget...either willfully or accidentally, I cannot say...is that there are several other policies that must be met and adhered to as well, as Scjessey lists above. Tarc (talk) 22:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I of course never said the argument that Tarc used was against WP policy, but pointed out the logical fallacy. I of cource said that it didn't belong in the article. Any hoo, there is an article on logical fallacies here at Wikipedia. Anyone who doesn't understand what an ad hominem fallacy is is welcome to explore it with me, and I'll explain any big/unfamiliar words on my talk page. I never suggested in any way that there was an attack, only a logical fallacy.Die4Dixie (talk) 02:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
In fact, I just took a minute to look at the article on ad hominem, and it still means the same thing it did 20 years ago. I can explain the fallacy using British English spelling for our friends from across the pond too, if it will help them understand more readily.Die4Dixie (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
It was neither, as I disparaged the argument that the person was making, not the person himself. Your frequent and insincere offers to "help" others "understand" what they already understand far more than you yourself do are rather uncivil, quite uncalled for, and do nothing to advance the discussion regarding the improvement of the article. Summation; quit while you're behind.
If there's nothing further that either you or Scottperry can offer to support the inclusion of this into the article, then it appears that this issue has petered out. Tarc (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I most certainly did not suggest that it should be included in the article. You do presume to know what I understand and do not. To imply that I did argue for its inclusion is a mendacious and dishonest act. As far as linking to in a "see also" section, there is not a problem. Information should not be hard to find, and it is an obvious link. Exploring it in the article is not. If you can't still understand, I could up load a video to Youtube and make monkey motions.Die4Dixie (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
It shouldn't go in a "See also" section. See WP:ALSO. Items are suitable for a "See also" section only if they would be suitable for the main text of a "hypothetical perfect article". Here, the better solution is to link to the article in question from a sub-article, which has already been done in this case. Incidentally, this is a very bad article talk page to be making monkey remarks.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
From the section that you linked to: "These may be useful for readers looking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question."I would tend to think that conspiracy theories about the subject of the article would be at least peripherally related to the subject. This quoted sentence epitomizes the reason for adding the links: so that readers can find information if they are looking for it. As far as the last statement you make, I would never associate monkey motions with the article, the talkpage or the subject of either to be sure.If you feel there is a connection in your mind, or that of others, I would be happy to refactor it, just say the word.Die4Dixie (talk) 03:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
(Unindent).In fact, the article on JFK mention and link to conspiracy theories as soon as his assasination is mentioned. I'm not saying we need to link to conspiracy theories about his birth as soon as we mention his birth, but in a see also section is appropriate and inline with policy. A link is not an endorsement of the theory; but rather, allows readers interested find more information.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
This is more an art than a science, but I think the policy suggests including something in a "See also" section only if it is excluded from the body of text due to size constraints, or is excluded from the body of text because the text hasn't been fully developed yet. Not just any old peripheral wikilink is supposed to go into a "See also" section. A less obtrusive place would be in a footnote, or in a sub-article.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I supose that both our readings are logical here. I might make a request for input/comment later and get broader community input.Other editors please note: 1) I do not say we need to mention them in the article and 2) I say based onmy reading of the policy it is appropriate although some might object on WP:DONTLIKEIT grounds. Others, like Ferrylodge might read the policy differently while acting in good faith.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Conspiracy theories about JFK's assassination became (eventually) a cultural phenomenon, so avoid WP:FRINGE exclusion. Already debunked theories about Obama's citizenship that snagged a few moments on Fox during the election cycle do not pass WP:FRINGE by my most generous reading. Someday they might be important, on their own without WP mentioning them, but I say for now, forget about it.76.205.215.84 (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I could give more weight to your opinion if the weren't done by an anonymous Ip address with 2 edits and didn't pretend that Fox news was the only media outlet that covered the stories. I'm not suggesting the stories are true, just that they should be linked to. Please see point one and two above that I posted, and then I welcome you to hit the "About Wikipedia" link under "interaction" imediately below the search box on the left of your screen. Read a little and get back with us. You can also use the "Village Pump" for help understanding the project.Die4Dixie (talk) 07:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Adding it to the article gives undue weight to this nonsense. In contrast, JFK links to conspiracy theories about the assassination, as they have been widely covered by all levels of media. Also, JFK is not a living person. BLP requires caution about posting stuff like this. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?12:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I do not see that any more can be said to convince the conspiracy supporters that the addition of this material is simply unsupported by editing policy. I believe this is still on article probation though, so there are remedies for tendentious editing. Tarc (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Wikipedia articles should not be used to enable the fringe theories of a few deluded sore losers. Attempts to shoehorn this crap into Obama-related articles will met with vigorous disapproval. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
You people have yet again misrepresented what I have said. I am not a"supporter " of a conspiracy theory. I refer you again to point one and two that I posted above. See also sections( please read the WP policy) exist so that readers who what to read things even "peripherally" related to the subject can easily find it. Please explain how a conspiracy theory about Obama is not even "peripherally" related to him, with out relying on WP:DONTLIKEIT. Please clarify why this should not go in a see also section, thanks.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Since these "theories" have received minimal coverage (claims of "significant" are patently ludicrous), any mention of them in the mainstream Obama-related articles would be a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT. Frivolous lawsuits and wild claims from the fringe have no impact on Obama himself, or the presidency as a whole; therefore, it is clear that mentioning these thing here would be plain wrong. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I blevieve that you must be playing WP:DENSE. I dont want to include it in the body of the article; but rather in a 'see aslo' section. Might be a case of pleading "I didn't know that" Die4Dixie (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
You assume incorrectly. Any mention of these "theories" (even simple links in "See also") would be WP:BLP violations because they would (even if only slightly) legitimize these theories. Not even links can be considered. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
That does not legitimize them in any way. It just informs readers of their existence. Perhaps you would be convinced that it were true if you saw it appear there, but I think our readers are intelligent enough to undertand this is not an endorcement.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
No way that these nutsy theories belong here. They would have to gain a lot more ground to even reach the WP:FRINGE. This perhaps especially in the "See Also" section (which is not meant to be a dumping ground for everything that is far to contentious to belong in the article text... in fact, best articles omit that section altogether). LotLE×talk20:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
This subject has received lots of coverage in the MSM, as indicated by a simple search of Google News, or by looking at the footnotes here. Clearly, this fringe theory should not be whitewashed from Wikipedia. It can be (and is) covered adequately in the Obama sub-articles, and the articles wikilinked therefrom. Not every MSM-covered detail about Obama can be included here in this particular article, and that includes lots and lots of details that are covered in the Obama sub-articles but not in this article.
The preceding argument is plausible and reasonable. The reason why these discussions keep recurring and dragging on forever at this talk page is because Obamaphiles keep making unnecessary WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments, keep insisting that the matter be covered "nowhere" on Wikipedia, and keep insisting that people who think otherwise are nutcases who actually believe Obama is ineligible. IMHO.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
That's not helpful. Please stick to the point and don't use this page as a forum for complaints about other editors. Fringe theories can be covered encyclopedically, and sometimes they are notable. Nearly any famous person has rumors, conspiracy theories, pop culture references, controversies, etc., attached to them. Any American President draws all kinds of fringe people out of the woodwork; the first African-American President even more so. There are a few notable fringe theories about Obama among the thousands of notable things about him. But I see no evidence that any of this is notable to who he is, meaning it is not terribly significant or relevant. We only have so much room here, and I don't think it's a good idea to clog that space with the oddball things that random people get in their minds about the man. I would put them in the same camp as criticism / praise, pop culture / trivia, and some other extraneous material. It doesn't do a lot of harm if done judiciously, but it is not directly about the subject and does not add to an encyclopedic understanding. They are also magnets for bad editing. I would oppose a dedicated "fringe" section, and look at each specific incident on its own merits. If the information is collected anywhere, better to devote it to a "public image" article or articles directly about the subject. 21:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
If you are saying that this fringe theory should not be mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia ("it is not terribly significant or relevant"), then I think that view is unhelpful for two reasons. First, it goes too far; we should only be concerned about whether it's suitable for this article (and I agree with you that it's not). Second, I think that view is dead wrong, due to the substantial coverage in the MSM.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I think we mostly agree. One or two of the fringe theories / challenges to Obama's citizenship, birthplace, and eligibility for the Presidency are notable in their own right. Others are not independently notable but inform the subject and put it in context. It's an editorial decision but I think the best organization would be a dedicated article for the subject - there was one but it was up for deletion. I don't remember the outcome. None of these are worth a link in my opinion. Same goes for theories that Obama is a closet Muslim, communist, racism directed towards him, and a few other things like that. I think you have to take each on its own merits. Some things that start out as fringe theories become notable as they have a real-world effect on people, and sometimes even turn out to be true. But even well-grounded rumors (e.g. JFK and Marilyn Monroe had an affair) aren't even links in either of their articles. I think the bar has to be pretty high to avoid this becoming rumor-pedia. Wikidemon (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
There is a wikilink in the Obama campaign sub-article, here. That seems like appropriate weight. I agree with the consensus that putting it in a "See also" of this article would be undue weight.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
You, Wikidemon , and I have a healthy and respectful disagreement. I believe that a link allows people who are searching for this information to find it easily, does not endorse the theories as accurate or truthful, and falls within the "sum total of human knowledge". I just don't believe that that knowledge should be difficult to find. Most people who do not edit wikipedia would have a hard time finding that artilce: They shouldn't have to search exactly for Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories in order to find this information about the existance of these conspiracy theories. A see also link is not an endorsement of the truth value of the various theories, only that they exist. In fact, linking in a see also with Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories clearly takes the position that they are "conspiracy theories" and marginalizes them. It certainly doesn't give any weight to the parties who argue them in court's opinion; but rather, as I say marginalizes them and merely informs of their existance. Why would we not want in this project with such lofty ideals about the sum total of human knowledge that knowledge to be readily availible to those who don't know the very specific magical wiki search terms?Die4Dixie (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your measured and respectful response. I will look at it, and the WP:ALSO and the relevant sub articles. My first read leads me to believe that you are correct. When I am satisfied that you are (or not) I will let you know here. Your response appeals to reason instead of wikilinking to multiple policies that have no bearing on the subject, and is certainly more reasonable than the typical WP:DONTLIKEIT mantra that I am accustomed to here.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Alright. In looking over the other articles I can see how linking to them all would be problematic. Perhaps the link would be more appropriate under the Public Peceptions article. The one who origanally brought it up has not revisited the issue and it is closed as far as I am concerned.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:45, 28 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.
My opinion doesn't carry much weight, but several presidents have. Hussien seems no more notable than Barack or even Obama for that matter.Die4Dixie (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Standard practice for all articles is to go by the name the subject is best known by: John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, et al. Presidents typically swear in using their full names, so that fact does not enter into it. Barack Obama's middle name is seldom used in reporting about him. It was used by some detractors during the campaign, to try to somehow link him to Saddam Hussein or to try to claim he's Muslim (as if he chose his middle name). But Barack Obama is the most common usage. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?06:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I got an edit conflict when attempting to make the same point as Bugs. All I'll add is that it's not merely "standard practice", it's expressly prescribed by the MoS. JamesMLanetc06:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes. And it leads to debates sometimes. I don't think there's any debate on this one. The most common usage by far is Barack Obama. Just plain "Obama" is also heard frequently, the difference being that it seems a fair number of supporters use it, whereas calling a public figure by just his last name and no title is often done with a degree of contempt attached to it. (We didn't hear many folks say "Bush" with affection.) Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?06:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I expect William Henry Harrison had used all three names for a long time before he became president, simply because there were plenty of other William Harrisons around. It would seem odd if he suddenly changed his 'usual' name as soon as he was elected president. Also, some periods of time were simply more formal than others. Jimmy Carter yes, Bill Harrison no, Tommy Jefferson definitely no. (As for using only the last name, I think there were plenty of Reagan supporters who just referred to him as 'Reagan'.) Flatterworld (talk) 07:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you're onto it. There were probably multiple William Harrisons where he came from. I've heard Jefferson referred to as "Tom", but I'm not so sure people really called him that to his face. The public formality you refer to has only been recently eroded, and it's kind of an Aemrican thing. We call our companies' CEO's by their first names as if we were their pals or something. A generation or two ago, that was not done. And it is funny how people will be called by their last name, sometimes with contempt, other times with affection. Go figure. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?15:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Characterization of "early life"
I removed a short paragraph from the "Early Life & Career" section and replaced it with a slightly longer bit that I merely lifted, and truncated, from the extended main article on the topic.
Removed paragraph:
As an adult, Obama admitted at the 2008 Civil Forum on the Presidency that he had used marijuana, cocaine, and alcohol when in high school, which he described as his greatest moral failure.
I think that this alone isn't an appropriate way to characterize the entire formative period of the subject's—a major public figure's—life. It also is misleading, in that the subject's public admission of using those substances occurs in a memoir he published in 1995, not in 2008.
Replacement paragraphs:
"Of his early childhood, Obama has recalled "that my father looked nothing like the people around me — that he was black as pitch, my mother white as milk — barely registered in my mind." In his 1995 memoir, he described his struggles as a young adult to reconcile social perceptions of his multiracial heritage. He wrote that he used alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine during his teenage years to "push questions of who I was out of my mind". At the 2008 Civil Forum on the Presidency, Obama identified his high-school drug use as his "greatest moral failure."
"Some of his fellow students at Punahou School later told the Honolulu Star-Bulletin that Obama was mature for his age as a high school student and that he sometimes attended parties and other events in order to associate with African American college students and military service people. Reflecting later on his formative years in Honolulu, Obama wrote: "The opportunity that Hawaii offered — to experience a variety of cultures in a climate of mutual respect — became an integral part of my world view, and a basis for the values that I hold most dear."
More context overall, there, flows better, and not too lengthy, I think. References from source (the main article on the topic) are retained. Notice, whoever-you-are that felt it was the most relevant detail, that the "greatest moral failure" bit is retained. —Aratuk (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Self serving statements about the drug abuse are probably not that relevant. The whole section, drug use and all could go for my opinion. Every junky in rehab or jail and even on the street has an excuse for their behaviour.Die4Dixie (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
While what you say about junkies is true (and frankly just as applicable to Rush Limbaugh), it's still a notable portion of his formative years. Do you have a suggestion for alternate wording that isn't "self serving"? Otherwise, I think the new wording is fine. --GoodDamon19:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
All due respect, but it can't really be argued that we're talking about a junkie in rehab or on the street. The passage refers to the teenage drug experimentation of a popularly elected government official. In American culture, and I believe in other English-speaking cultures, this is noteworthy information. It is also relevant what the official had to say for himself to allay public concern over the issue in order to get elected. Consider: if your junkie on the street managed to be elected president, statements on drug use would be a thousand times more interesting, and warrant their own article. --Aratuk (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying that he is a junky, just that self serving rationalizations about drug abuse are not particularly notable, as most people who abuse drugs play the victim when explaining the behavior. Nothing particularly notable about that. In fact, teenage drug use in the US is not particularly notable, unless the person is caught. I don't really have strong opinions about it, but I think the excessive "explaining" is undue weight. This is not something that I feel very strongly about, so make yourselves happy. It is rather transparent, though.Die4Dixie (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
On a little more reflection, it appears that we are claiming that he abused drugs because his mother was milky white and his father pitch black. Now if I were to read those sentences in Britannica, I would rightly want my money back. If we are saying that he abused drugs because his mother was white, or conversely because his father was black, that would be original research, no? Is he an expert on human behavior? Is there a reliable 3rd party source, perhaps a behavioral psychologist, that has validated this claim? Is Obama trying to say having his milky white mother and pitch black father made him do drugs? That is what it looks like it is saying to me.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
ONe more reading leaves me with the black/white barely registered in his mind, so how is it related to his early childhood? something that doesn't register in ones mind might not be important enough for the BLP, and questions of weight come up.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd be happy to chip in to refund Die4Dixie all the money he spent to buy his copy of Wikipedia, and let him go read other material he'd be happier with (I hear there is an affordable site called Conservapedia that might better fill his reading expectations). LotLE×talk22:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Die4Dixie: I think it would be helpful if you paid attention to the fourth sentence of my initial response to you, instead of what seems to be only the first. Rephrased: What Obama had to say for himself is relevant, if for no other reason than because it served to allay public concern enough that he was elected to national office by a wide margin. It worked, apparently. Whatever it was he said, they bought it. His explanation was effective among the American electorate, and that is nonpartisan justification enough for inclusion, in terms of drug-use philosophy or any broader political rubric you wish to apply. In historical terms, Clinton got by with saying that although he smoked marijuana, he never inhaled (for which Obama mocked him), and W-Bush simply lied, and covered up his past. So, it's worth mentioning. --Aratuk (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Now if you have a reliable third party source that says the American electorate bought a "bill of goods" because of this statement, I would welcome its inclusion, Aratuk. Lulu, if we are going to speculate about what people would be happier reading, perhaps you might check out some Lolicon or Playgirl, or shotaconmight be right up your alley! ( I really don't want to play this game, so let's stop here).I guess my biggest objection is to the milky white/ pitch black that has no impact on his child hood being placed beside the drug issue. It is a non sequitor, and appears we are saying that something that barely registered to him caused him to be a drug abuser. I can see now that I didn't make that clear enough.Die4Dixie (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the reading suggestions, D4D. I don't think any of those areas interests me, but should I buy anything in those genres or from that publication, I will know not to demand my money back as you have done of this encyclopedia upthread :-). Btw. What's up with your most recent fantasy about Obama being or having been a "drug abuser"?! I'm tempted to ask what you're smoking, and where I can get some, but I'll WP:AGF and just assume you have a vivid imagination. LotLE×talk00:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I must have missed where he said that the cocaine and dope he smoked was lawfully prescribed by a licensed physician and that he took them in a manner consistent with the labeling that he received from the pharmacist. I guess that it was original research to assume that he hadn't been lawfully prescribed them.I just read the first paragraph of the handy dandy article here drug abuse and figured that one who abused drugs was a drug abuser. It's purely academic, as I certainly don't want the article to use the words "abuse" or "drug abuser". But this is a side show. Can you not see how the two sentences and ideas juxtaposed in this manner appear to say that his mother and fathers skin type caused him to abuse the dope?173.20.157.45 (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Sign commentDie4Dixie (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
You have to consider that the American public knew about Obama's explanations, primarily because the only evidence at all on the subject is those statements, themselves, freely made by Obama long before he ever ran for office, and addressed again during his political campaigns. If you want to take into account basic ignorance of the fact that he made those statements, published in mass market paperback, that's neither here nor there. The public has to have bought the bill of goods, because that was the only item on the bill of goods! Like, there have been no evidentiary statements made by others, no crazy Hawaiian Obama stoner photos turned up on the internet (although if you have some, I'd love to see them). If one can provide information directly, in toto, with a couple of brief quotations, it is far preferable to a summary with references. In other words, the primary source for the data is already here; it's quite simply included as a natural part of the article. This is it, buddy, all there is. Plain peeled bananas. --Aratuk (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Just my two cents, I don't see anything wrong with relaying Obama's own reason for using drugs. Without it, people may be left with a false impression that he is proud of his actions. Leaving it up to readers' imaginations can be dangerous. JenWSU (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The longer version provides more information than the abbreviated version, and it's perfectly clear from both versions that he repudiates drug use. The difference is that he's man enough to fully admit to it (as contrasted with certain other recent Presidents). Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?15:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I went back and looked at the previous presidents page on your site. Although it wasn't real heavy on negatives, you managed to throw more then a few into it. On the other hand, the Obama page looks like a worship page to a patron saint out of a catholic prayer book.
I have only been on wiki's site a couple of times, and I hope that this will be the last.
Hopefully at some point in the future, wiki will use an editorial policy that is even handed. In case you folks aren't aware, plenty of print publications are failing, as I see it, for the same reason. I'm not asking you to smear anyone, nor are most other people, but, I do believe that you should operate by the old adage that, what is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander.
If not, while you will have your advocates, others like myself, will look around once or twice, and ask, "What are these guys, a bunch of political hacks?".
I had my problems with George Bush, there were a couple of issues I could have supported impeaching him on.
There are more than a few questions about Barack Hussein Obama that have never been resolved. Some of them need resolving, and ignoring them will not make them go away.
As for the birth certificate, obviously none of you idiots have ever looked at your own. Why don't you try comparing yours, to the presidents. The paucity of information on that document is almost scary. Try it sometime.
Resolved