Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 55

Linux?

why is the Linux article pasted in here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.226.229 (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It was either a test edit or vandalism, now reverted in either case. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

linux?

where? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apa aff os (talk • contribs) 19:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It has been removed since.  Marlith (Talk)  02:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

why no gun stance in political positions

We're agreed this doesn't belong in the article; closing the resultat forum. PhGustaf (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
gun debate is a very big topic in usa.After he won the elections gun sales soared and yet not a single mention of his gun policies in his political positions.Yes it exists in the main article but this should be included in the main article This article can't contain every position, so if you can't find a position here, you may be able to find it at Political positions of Barack Obama. --Bobblehead (rants) 11:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC) so the gun politics is not as imp to be added in the main article.Comeon just say you dont want to show his anti gun stance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs) 17:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC) The bottom line is that Obama's stance on guns is not very important went taken in the context of his entire life, which this article seeks to summarize. Also, I think you will find his stance on guns is more nuanced than "anti-gun". -- Scjessey (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC) yeah you tell that to yourself.guns sales soared when he won,O i get it it was not politically important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs) 04:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Gun sales go up whenever there is a new president in the US, i would assume it goes up even more whenever a democrat wins/is doing good, because they tend to be on the side of more gun control more often then the republicans. Durga Dido (talk) 07:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Many people feel his view on gun control is important, as it is directly tied to our Second Amendment Rights. If a President is willing to compromise or out right disolve a God Given right, such as the Second Amendment, what else is he willing to compromise or disolve? The fact that this article doesn't comment on his stance with Firearms is a little unbalanced. President Obama has always been at the front lines of the Anti-Gun Movement and it has been a very large part of his short Political Career. 12.177.80.3 (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Let's be clear about this. Obama's policy toward guns (and control thereof) is not really important when taken in the context of his entire life, and therefore it would be undue weight to make a special case of mentioning it in this biography. Furthermore, the Second Amendment isn't a "God-given right" (whatever that is supposed to mean) - it has nothing to do with deities. It is a rather ambiguous amendment in the Bill of Rights that attempts to address the problem of some people being denied the right to bear arms when others were not, crafted at a time when this was considered important. Also, it is important to understand the difference between "anti-gun" (a ludicrous position) and "gun-control" (a sensible approach). Like most decent folk, Obama seeks only to ensure guns are covered by "commonsense regulation" - such as keeping them away from young children and criminals, and keeping the completely unnecessary spread of assault weapons in check. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC) I agree that it has little place in this BLP, given its minor magnitude (yep, you read that right -- like jumbo shrimp). But, Scjessey, are you Obama's spokesperson, press secretary, or merely a campaign consultant? Alternate reading of the reliable sources on this matter suggest that he (and his administration) seeks more than "only" the common sense restrictive policies that you write about (oh, the horror of assult weapons for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves against bad guys with the same weapons!!). Newguy34 (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Pre-inaugural controversies?

In reviewing the article, I am wondering if a "Pre-inaugural controversies" section should be included? This could consolidate all of the current controversies surrounding the Obama appointees such as Leon Panetta, Timothy Geitner, Roland Burris, Bill Richardson, Eric Holder, etc. I think this would strengthen the flow of the article. Trent370 (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Not here. This, as you ought to know by now, is a biography of the whole man - his life and career - not appropriate for small details like these. Try looking at Presidential transition of Barack Obama, where you will find this material - and note that that subtitle wouldn't fly anyway, as such items are incorporated into the proper text areas, not set aside as a laundry list of so-called controversies. Tvoz/talk 20:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

and/or Presidency of Barack Obama or Barack Obama Cabinet depending on what you want to add --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That is interesting. On the Clinton page, all of the controversies are listed, many as standalone sections. I suppose this is part of ad hoc nature of Wikipedia. Trent370 (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it is - it's almost like software updates as the wiki evolves, new articles or articles that suddenly attract a lot of attention conform more to the current model of "what an article should be" than older articles that already have well formed structures. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent...as part of that evolution, I strongly suggest that a "Pre-inaugural controversies" section. Nothing in Wikirules appears to prevent it, and it would be an excellent step forward in the Wiki-evolution. Trent370 (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

em.. <thinks> <thinks> no. You are welcome to suggest it (but I suspect if you keep suggesting it in section after section, that will become increasingly less welcome), but you'll never get agreement here to put it in. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

And for the record, Bill Clinton is far from an ideal article. At the same time, Obama hasn't been impeached for any of his "controversies". None of the controversies in Obama's career so far will be remembered in history nearly as much as any of the Clinton controversies with their own sections (although those sections are not necessarily appropriate either). Bigbluefish (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The Clinton page is quite good. It is fairly neutral, and does a fair job of outlining his many controversies. The Obama page would do well to mirror this page. Trent370 (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, neither article's job is to outline one's many controversies but the life as a whole. The Clinton article is quite good but so is this one. Name a "pre-inauguration controversy" which is similar in weight to Troopergate and we can consider a section about it. Bigbluefish (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with having a section just for controversies is that it attracts more controversies, most likely ones that do not fit in the article, because in the greater scope of his life the controversy is not that notable.If it was to be added it should be added at the part where it talks about the selection of parts of his government, not as a separate section.Cameron Scott pointed you to the correct article where this should be posted, which would be Barack Obama Cabinet as in that article it is much more notable.It would be just the same as if we added that obama choose someone to be on his basketball team that has cheated in one of his basketball games before,is it notable in the greater scope if his life?No, but it might be notable on the article Obama's basketball team 01:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

There are several problems with this idea. Most obvious of all is the notion that any of these are "controversies" at all. They are not. Secondly, this is a summary style article. Documenting insignificant details like these would be undue weight. There are other issues, but these are the most important. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources call them controversies. This is not my interpretation. They are also lead news stories (not insignificant details). Trent370 (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's unfortunate to say, but adding a pre-election controversies section just gives way for every rumor and misconceptions that people could possibly perceive right now. I admit, there are things which make me raise my eyebrow, like the lack of records, memories or transcripts of him in Columbia. Or the fact that the Chicago Sun-Times reported him a distant relative of Bush. But the problem remains that even if one fact remains true, it branches a way to an infinite "speculations" section for every rumor, personal gripe and piece of propaganda that the election left behind. We have no choice but to make due and wait until such a point that criticisms of his decisions in office become very valid. --Lygris (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Please correct while he's still president elect

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

{{editprotected}} The protected page still says he's now president. Please revert it to the last unaltered version. Alexius08 (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You've got too much time on your hands if you are going to make a stink about 20 minutes. Leave it be, it'll save time and another edit in a whole 19 and a half minutes now. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Twenty minutes, anything can happen. Lets get it right, not wrong.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This request is too late after all. Alexius08 (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

HE IS NOT THE PRESIDENT (BY THE NEXT 2 MINUTES) hahaha. I'm looking forward to the oath moment!

He is president at noon. He is now president. Gary King (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

ACTUALLY he wasn't president at noon, because he wasn't sworn in. Making Biden 44th and Obama 45th. Funny how that works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.118.213.33 (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the constitution, with or without the oath, Barack Obama became the president at 12:00 Noon. There have been a couple dozen vice presidents who took the oath before the president with the president taking it after noon without the VPs being counted in the list. If you'd like, you can count Biden as "acting president" for those six minutes, but that still doesn't give him a number. Dick Cheney has been acting president several times.

I see your point. Marie Therese Charlotte was Queen of France for 20 minutes and she's still recognized as Queen. So it can count for Biden too. Linda Mancia (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

71.195.126.69 (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The oath isn't when he became president. The constitution states it's at noon. Gary King (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's irrelevant now! The inauguration is a non-governmental celebration not required by the constitution. At 1200 EST, Obama was president. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

From US Constitution Article 2 section 1, it looks to me like Obama didn't become president until he completed the oath at around 12:06, while by the 20th amendment, Bush's term ended at noon, so it looks to me like the office was vacant for 6 minutes. Yes, I guess Biden was Acting President, like LBJ in the few minutes before took the presidential oath on board an airplane. Maybe some reliable analysis will be published someplace that the article can use. 207.241.239.70 (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, it doesn't matter now, but CNN said that Barack Obama officially becomes president at noon, regarless of whether or not he has taken the oath.--Interchange88 18:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but CNN is wrong. Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." - Article II of the Constitution President Obama was President when he finished the oath of office, not before. I don't know if the office was vacant for six minutes or if Joe Biden was President, but Obama was not President. --B (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but you don't seem like a lawyer, because you seem to be misconstruing the words you just quoted. Not, "before he be President" or some such, but "before he enter on the execution of his office" - or, he can't do anything else before he swears. Your interpretation, while one possible way to read the text, is not mandated by it. Please provide support for your version.  :)

Let me correct myself; B, you seemed to be making sense but overlooked Am. XX of the Const., which forecloses your reading: "1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin." So, at noon Bush and Cheney are out and their successors in; the oath of office is a formality before they can begin executing, but you are simply wrong as to whether they are or are not "in office."75.103.6.106 (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

75.103.6.106 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC).

I wrote this above so, but wanted to repeat it here, it seems that according to the constitution, the person becomes president at noon no matter what, however he has to take the oath before he has any presidential powers.So he is president, he just cant do anything a president has to be before he swears in. Durga Dido (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we need a reliable source to resolve this, but the issue is interesting enough that I hope one can eventually be found and used. Amendment 20 definitely says Bush and Cheney were out at noon, and presumably Biden (who was already sworn) succeeded Cheney at that moment. Article 2 doesn't seem to perfectly resolve what happened next with Obama: either he became president at noon without the ability to exercise presidential authority til he took the oath, or he didn't become president until after taking the oath, with the office vacant for those intervening few minutes. I like the "vacant" theory just because it makes the narrative more interesting. 207.241.239.70 (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

--As a constitutional Law professor, I can tell you that the above is correct: Terms of the previous president end at 12:00:00 EST, and simultaneously the president-elect becomes president. However, he cannot exercise any of the powers or duties of the office until he swears the oath as mandated by the constitution. So, for that 5 minute gap, Obama was president, he simply was not able to sign any official documents or create executive orders (or whatever) until taking it. Interesting quirk, since Justice Roberts screwed it up -- he still couldn't do those things until repeating it CORRECTLY, but in practice it won't matter since the Constitution doesn't mandate that there are witnesses to him saying it and he could always say it to himself in a men's bathroom somewhere and have it count. --DJohnsen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.182.235.101 (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2009 (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.

Met his wife?

Obama met his wife, Michelle Robinson, in June 1989

Shouldn't that read "met his future wife?"--87.164.120.144 (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Nah, He was already married to her by then... just didnt get to meet her till later. 65.208.22.26 (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That sentence has been re-written to avoid confusion.--JayJasper (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't confusing in the first place, Jesus Christ. Richard75 (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It is. "Vice President Dick Cheney said on June 2, 2005" would be technically incorrect in an article written today, since he's no longer vice president. "President Obama said on June 2, 2005" is also incorrect because he wasn't president yet back then. That's what the words "then" and "future" are for. Sure, it's semantics, but there's no reason for being sloppy.--132.252.185.42 (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

African-American or "African American" descent

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

closing discussion - this issue has been discussed at length; no need to bring it up again. Please see the FAQ #2

A minor (so far) edit war has erupted over this issue. This is a very old issue on Wikipedia on many other articles. I think to not accept what he considers himself (African American) at best is splitting hairs and at worst smacks of racism (although I'm not calling anyone racist). Using how he designates his own racial identify to resolve this issue is far superior to dredging up old arguments such as the "one drop rule" or percentage of "black blood" to be considered African American; take a look at the edit history of G. K. Butterfield, where edit warring has occurred because he does not look African American). In fact, if you want to look purely at racial heritage, he is half African and half American. That's makes him as much or more African American as almost anyone claiming that heritage. But that is beside the point. It's how he identifies himself that is critical. Ward3001 (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

As the son of a full-blooded African, he's more African-American than most of the people in the country who are considered as such. Grsz¹¹ 00:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well as articles. Please don't put false information on talk pages, such as you did regarding Arabs in Obama's ancestry. And by the way, Obama does not have the name Muhammad. That was a rumor started by the fear-mongers trying to scare everyone into believing that Obama was ... (oh no!!!) ... a MUSLIM. Ward3001 (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I did NOT put ANY "false info" on the talk page. You have as much proof about Barack's daddy being completely African as I do about him being 75% Arab. For all YOU know, Barack's paternal great-grandparents could be Satan, Lilith, King Solomon, and the Queen of Sheba..... but wait! That would make Barack's dad 75% Palestinian (aka Arab) and 25% African again.

Even if I did grant you that Barack does not have the name Muhammad, you still have to clear up the Arab presense in the names Barack and Hussein, as well as the whole Messiah thing.

No one is fearing that Barack is a Muslim. There isn't any shame in that. Just why hide it?

Give me one source, one source that says he has Arab ancestry. And give me one source, one source that his name is Muhammad. I'm waiting, but I'm not holding my breath. Continue to violate WP:BLP and you will be blocked. End of discussion. Ward3001 (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't think so. The source is his birth records, which suspiciously have not been released yet. Give me a source that says his dad is 100% African. -Linda Mancia (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

COLB has been released, thats a record of birth. Linda, you're wrong. COLB says dads nationality is African. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 02:53, 21 January 2009 (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.

Anyone think that maybe cabinet info would help????

Does anyone think that the people he has in his cabinet is important? That should definitely go in the article. Linda Mancia (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

First, there is at least one box along the bottom of the article that lists the Cabinet nominees/confirmed members. But this is a biography of Barack Obama, not an article about his presidency - there are several other articles about the specifics of the presidency and the cabinet - see for example Presidential transition of Barack Obama, Presidency of Barack Obama, both of which are clearly referenced in this article. Tvoz/talk 00:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, couldn't see it, it was too small. Sheesh, pal, you don't have to be so mean about it. -Linda Mancia (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Tvoz wasn't being mean. He was being accurate. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Pre-Inaugural images

I've corrected the captions of those images. Obama was president-elect during his visits with Bush & the former Presidents. Obama's Inauguration 'should not' change those images captions retroactively. GoodDay (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"First African American and 43 White American to be President!?!?!?"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Vandalism reverted. Nothing else to it. Grsz¹¹ 00:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Yes he's biracial but come on.. he identifies himself as African American and I really don't find it appropriate to state he is another white president as well. It just seems pointless.

It was vandalism and has been reverted. Grsz¹¹ 02:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the wikipedia article regarding President Washington needs to be improved.

For example, just today I typed in "Barack Obama" on wikipedia. Upon reading the President's article I learned that Barack Obama was the first African-American ever to be assume the office of President of the United States.

Afterward I typed "George Washington" on wikipedia. Upon reading the article I noticed that the article fails to recognize George Washington as the first white and first male ever to assume the office of President of the United States.

Although this is assumed I do believe this must be changed. I myself have attempted to edit the article but have failed under the circumstance that the article is locked. JacobtheMagnificent (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)JacobtheMagnificent

What's the citation for Washington being the first white male President? Besides which, given that he's the first President, it's a given that he's also the first white male President. In fact, there's no point in bringing this up at all, except to prove some PC-related point. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's the citation. Washington was "the first, period." George W. Bush, is apparently the first from Connecticut and the "first attacked by a pretzel and honored in a traditional Iraqi shoe tossing."[1]

I'm not sure if this is related directly, but in the beginning of the article, it says "He is the second African American to hold the office," which is obviously wrong. I would revert it, but it's semi-protected and I don't have an account. 68.82.187.82 (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2009 (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.

How many Americans have been President?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is that this issue is not important enough for this top-level biography article. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Did Obama make his first gaff as President? He says 44, but the actual number is 43. Cleveland served twice. Time to add to the article?--Jojhutton (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop being ridiculous. Nobody counts it any differently. Grsz¹¹ 02:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Counts what any differently? Its the actual number. Listen to his speech. Face it, hes not a numbers guy, 58 states, now 44 Americans have been president.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not a forum. This page is to discuss edits to be made to the article. AnyPerson (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well lets add it, didn't you read my post?--Jojhutton (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The numbering is counted as distinct administrations. Since Cleveland served two non-contiguous terms, his two administrations are counted separately. It really doesn't matter if you don't want it to make sense, based on the quasi-official way presidential administrations are counted, this is now the 44th. Yes, Obama is the 43rd person to occupy the office, but its just not counted that way. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, why not add it. A single word. Don't you have more productive things to do with your time? Grsz¹¹ 03:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not important enough to warrant inclusion. He made a common mistake. If he had said "I'm the 3rd person to hold this office and the 6th black to." It'd be noteworthy. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 03:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a mistake. GW Bush was always referred to as "43". That's even what his father calls him. It's standard counting. See this for example. AnyPerson (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Its a major gaff. Listen to the speech. He says "44 Americans" not the 44th president.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't prove it was a mistake. He could have been trying to keep things simple. Speaking of mistakes, it's spelled "gaffe". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, he's the 59th President. Grsz¹¹ 03:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're being funny. The guys who preceeded Washington were called "President" but it wasn't the current role of "President". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a major gaffe. It's a common mistake. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'll just create an article called "Critism of Obama" and then add it there.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You should. 207.237.232.51 (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source, other than your own opinion? AnyPerson (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes its in his own speech.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we please stop the chatter. Every reliable source says he's the 44th President. Move on to doing something useful to improve Wikipedia. Ward3001 (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you read what I'm saying, or what he said. "44 Americans" look it up. I know that he is the 44th President, but he is the 43rd person. He Goofed.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion, my opinion, anybody else's opinion based upon what they hear or what they think they hear on a speech is Original Research. Has a reliable source commented? AnyPerson (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Holy crap. The conspiracies and gotcha gamers can't stop for a damn moment. I expect to see this arrogant hubris on the part of Obama focused on extravagantly in the next Ann Coulter screed. Hurry up and contact her instead of Wikipedia, Jojhutton. ThuranX (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, he goofed. HE GOOFED. It's NOT NOTABLE. Move on. Please! Ward3001 (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If he goofed in a side comment, then its not notable. But this was his Inauguration Speech. Its very notable.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

How's this New York times front page article to end the discussion: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/21/us/politics/21inaug.html?hp "Published: January 20, 2009 WASHINGTON — Barack Hussein Obama was sworn in as the 44th president of the United States on Tuesday and promised to “begin again the work of remaking America” on a day of celebration that climaxed a once-inconceivable journey for the man and his country." 207.237.232.51 (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

In your opinion and yours alone. Please do something else now. Grsz¹¹ 03:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I posted that to be on your side, and you could review WP:Civility.  :) 207.237.232.51 (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And Jojhutton, if you consider it notable, then please find a source that discusses it and then wait for a consensus here to put it in the article. Otherwise, you have made your point ad nauseum. Please move on. Ward3001 (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Apparently, there is a lack of understanding among some editors. I am not arguing about which president he is. He is the 44th. I will say it clearly and in caps HE SAYS THAT "44 AMERICANS HAVE TAKEN THE OATH". THAT MEANS 44 "DIFFERENT PEOPLE". INCORRECT 43 "DIFFERENT PEOPLE" HAVE TAKEN THE OATH. ONE OF THEM TWICE. ITS NOT DEBATABLE ITS A FACT. HE GOOFED IN HIS INAUGURATION SPEECH. That's notable.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand you perfectly Jojhutton. And I repeat: if you consider it notable, then please find a source that discusses it and then wait for a consensus here to put it in the article. Otherwise, you have made your point ad nauseum. Now please stop repeating yourself drop this until you find that source and get consensus. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, because if you continue I'm going to WP:ANI. Ward3001 (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You may understand, but there are others here who may not be as smart as you and me. I keep seeing the argument about him being the 44th president. That was never what I was trying to say. The papers will be out in the morning.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm i understanding what this discussion is about wrong or what?He said NOW 44 Americans have become president,He and 43 before him, that's what i understand from it.Where is the wrong part?And everyone just refers to the numbers as how many people not how many elections there have been since the dawn of time, i think someone posted the number as 59?44 is counting single and double term president as the same. Durga Dido (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is the height of being nitpicky. SMP0328. (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Besides which, there is no evidence that it was an ignorant mistake, he may well have said it that way just to keep things simple for the audience, most of whom are not so nitpicky. They just as easily complain about the redundancy of saying "Americans". If he took the time to spell out the details, that would have been a needless distraction. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a source. Obama's own hometown paper. [2]. Looks like a source to me.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is another. [3]--Jojhutton (talk) 04:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)You've convinced me! Let's get a rope and a tree and start lynching us some darkies, Jojhutton! You bring the sheets and cross, I'll bring the kerosene! </sarcasm>. SHUT UP ALREADY, CONSENSUS IS NO!ThuranX (talk) 04:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Treating it as a "major gaffe" is POV and undue weight.--Rosicrucian^Talk 04:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The question is not whether he said 44, the question is whether it was a true mistake on his part, or if he was just trying to keep things simple, as opposed to, "43 natural-born American citizens (as required by the Constitution) have taken the oath 44 times, due to Cleveland's two terms being split by Harrison's." Oh, yeh, that flows well. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Didn't all the presidents elected to multiple terms take the oath each time? That would make for more than 44 oaths. Not that it really matters. I'm no Obama fan, but this thread is WP:LAME.Rlendog (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I now see that the media bias has extended to wikipedia. I guess that truth on this article gets suppressed again.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Media bias?! At most, it's a trivia item. Tell me why it is a "major gaffe."--Rosicrucian^Talk 04:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Read WP:CABAL. Your blanket personal attack against all the other editors here is unacceptable. None of the other editors who've responded feel that what is at worst a misspeaking, and at best Obama being simplistic to not ruin the flow of his speech, is notable enough for inclusion. This isn't a conspiracy, it's just editing for a good article. What the fuck would you even write in there? A gaffe isn't notable, it's misspeaking in public. If you can swear that you've never, ever, ever, misspoken, throw stones. Otherwise, kindly shut. the. hell. up. already. ThuranX (talk) 04:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Given the inherent silliness of that "media bias" comment, I conclude that you were just being funny, starting this section to see how many folks you could bait. My guess is that the articles cited were also being funny, probably an echo of Bush, who said so many stupid things that they published 365-day tear-off calendars of Bush's gaffes. How does the 43 vs. 44 compare, as a "major" gaffe to Bush's "mission accomplished" or McCain's "sound economy"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It's just not notable. If we're going to include this we would be expected to include every little nit-picky mistake he'll make for the next 4 years. That wasn't done for Bush and there's no reason to start now imo. OptimumPx (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• This is getting lame. Give it up Joj, nobody cares. PhGustaf (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Multiple people are going way overboard in their comments here and need to tone it down in a major way. As to the substance of Jojhutton's point, yes, Obama was incorrect to say that he was the 44th person to take the oath. However there is no way that fact is going into this article, which is a biography of his entire life. We do not mention a small misstatement he made in his inaugural which no one will remember a month from now. A legitimate argument can be made for the inclusion of this detail in the article Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration, so long as there are multiple secondary sources that discuss this issue. I suggest that Jojhutton take his concerns over there and that others with a view discuss it there as well. This is not the appropriate article for piddling details of the inaugural so let's drop this discussion, which is quickly devolving into a pointless political slugfest.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be OR to conclude that he made a mistake in his article unless a RS said so. and also BLP. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous. Any NPOV person can see this "major gaffe" is not notable.--88.227.205.14 (talk) 09:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Could it be the reason Jojhutton continued to argue this point was because others refused to see that he was making a correct statement? If he said he was the 44th American to take the oath, he was wrong. In saying that, I don't think it belongs in this article. Titch Tucker (talk) 12:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

43 being factually correct is not in dispute. The problem is that he's trying to make something major of it, without any reliable source indicating there's a valid reason to make something major of it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

very unnotable to be added to the article. I just don't get it why someone counts a minor mistake in speech. w_tanoto (talk) 12:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, there's no evidence that it's a "mistake". He may have said it that way on purpose, knowing it's not factually correct. Until someone interviews him and asks "why did you count Cleveland as two different men", no one can make any assumptions. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

As`you say, it does not deserve a mention in this article, its not notable enough and has no reliable sources. I am curious though, why would he would make a mistake on purpose? Titch Tucker (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I never assumed that he did it on purpose or accident, he just made a mistake.

Now, I see that many of you disagree with its inclusion. I cannot begin to speculate as to why. My hope is that you are trying to protect the article, but my fear is that some of you just don't want Obama to look negative, even when presented with so much evidence.

Why is it significant some may ask. Its because that this was not just some off the cuff remark you made to a reporter, nor was it a speach he made at a luncheon, or a normal news conferance. It was his Inauguration speech, perhaps watched by mor people than any other event in the history of the world. A factual error like that in what is most likely the most important speech in his entire life seems rather significant. I cant see a scenerio where his speech writers actual would tell him to do it on purpose. If he had said it correctly and said 43, then yes, those who don't understand would question the number, but at least he would have been correct and those who are smart enough could explain to the others. Thank you for your time. I don't expect to change anyones mind, but I hope that at least some of you can lower your guard and see why this goof is important. It would seem that Obama doesn't know his history as well as he should.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Drop it Jojhutton. There is no consensus. You're arguing for the sake of argument. You're disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Ward3001 (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

He also stumbled on a word or two, here and there. Are you going to make something of that, too? Unless you can find a citation that says this so-called mistake matters, then it's irrelevant for this article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with wanting to prevent Obama from looking negative. It has everything to do with wanting to prevent trivial, non-notable cruft from filling up every nook and cranny of the article. Tarc (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

In regard to the peanut butter reference in your edit summary, maybe this so-called "mistake" would be as appropriate to the article as salmonella is to peanut butter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:46, 21 January 2009 (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.

Ancestry

According to the genealogist William Addams Reitwiesner, the ethnic/national ancestry of Obama, as far as is currently known, is as follows: [4]

        50.0             %      Luo
        37.402 343 75    %      English
         3.710 937 5     %      German
         3.125           %      Irish
         3.125           %      Scottish
         1.562 5         %      Welsh
         0.976 562 5     %      Swiss
         0.097 656 25    %      French
     -----------------
       100.0             %

So why then, does the Early life and career section of this article say "Barack Obama was born at the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Ann Dunham, a white American from Wichita, Kansas of English and Irish descent"? He is technically more German than Irish, although it would seem impractical to mention all seven ethnicities of his mother. Khoikhoi 05:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It probably has to do mostly with self-identification. If Ann Dunham thought of herself as of English & Irish descent, and not of her German descent, then it is more significant to her, regardless of however many "quarterings" german she was compared to Irish. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the thing, there is no evidence cited (not in either of the two sources) that she did in fact identify as English & Irish-American. It simply mentions that Obama has Irish ancestry, which appears to be equal to the % that he is Scottish as well (which begs the question, why is one mentioned instead of the other?) It appears to be based mainly on trivia, that he has distant connections to a village in Ireland. Khoikhoi 05:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Presumably the "English and Irish" has a source. What does it say? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not denying that he was Irish, I'm questioning why we are giving preference to one ethnicity over the other. The sources you mentioned are here and here. I don't see anything in either of them about his mother's self-identification though. Khoikhoi 05:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's this source but I wouldn't call it, um, "reliable". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess he's Jewish too. :-) I've added a footnote to the article, hopefully that can sort things out. I think the thing about the Irish ancestrial village would be much better off in Family of Barack Obama. Khoikhoi 05:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Why "we" are giving preference? Or why the sources are giving preference? Looks obvious to me - just as with a feature on TV today - the strong Irish heritage of Chicago, and the "O'Bama" play on words. And, yes, family of Obama would be better. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Khoi's compromise solution works well. It represents the source well, and it keeps the writing good while directing the reader to the full information in both the footnote and the reference. This is a good solution... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Tvoz/talk 06:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That still leaves open the question of what to do in this article. I think it should simply say African and European ancestry, and with a link to the family article where the chart cited above could be posted. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a double standard. We have articles on white people with every ancestry they just so happen to claim. It's also very un-wiki like to cop out so everyone can say "he's just biracial" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.169.149 (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Most white people don't have anything to say at all about their ancestry. This is talking about how to record the details of Obama's ancestry that have relevance to his overall life story and public image. Bugs' suggestion is a great summary. It doesn't imply that his ancestry isn't more complicated, just that the mainstream doesn't care nearly as much as the fact that one parent is African and the other European, and that not nearly as much as the African bit. Bigbluefish (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"He has acquired the knowledge during his four childhood years in Jakarta."

This sentence is in the last paragraph in the "Family and Personal Life" section. It is poor grammar. The word "has" should be changed to "had" or else deleted. Thank-you.

Doug —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.224.115.225 (talk) 06:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Your fix is even better. Thanks, Doug —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.224.115.225 (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought the original wording looked like it was written by a non-English speaker. Or by me if I hadn't slept for 2 days. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

First Biracial President

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

closing discussion - this issue has been discussed at length; no need to bring it up again. Please see the FAQ #2

BAM! the ultimate solution. His whiteness being made up of Dutch, English, French, German, Irish and Scottish descent and blackness being made up of Kenyan/Luo decent. (Lenerd (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

There's no such thing as race. African-American is an ethnic background. Grsz¹¹ 23:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you are wrong on both counts, there certainly is such a thing as race, and African-American is not an ethnic background. A race is a biological subspecies, or variety of a species, consisting of a more or less distinct population with anatomical traits that distinguish it clearly from other races. Ethnicity refers to selected cultural and sometimes physical characteristics used to classify people into groups or categories considered to be significantly different from others. Lenerd (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Is German-American a race? Israeli-American? It's all pointless. Obama has an African father, making him more African-American than most of the people who are called the same. Grsz¹¹ 23:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Modern scientists pretty much dismiss "race" as a biological notion. In any case, this is a solution to no problem; the vast majority of the sources say "African American", so so do we. PhGustaf (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2009 (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.

President Barack Obama

Barack Obama is the first Bi Racial president not African American. Bi Racial is 2 Races, Multi Racial is more than 2 races & trans racial are adopted children. Bi racial & Multi racial people are a race of their own.

In the winter time you can see his white skin shine through. Anyway even though President Obama does not acknowledge himself publicly as Bi Racial people like me see right through him.

~I do believe that he is the first African-American and bi Racial president. He can be both. His father was of pure African decent. All that matters is that he is of African decent and has American citizenship. That's what makes you African-American.JacobtheMagnificent (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)JacobtheMagnificent

Thanks for your thoughts Jacob, though these issues have been addressed before with respect to this article and are not going to re-litigated right now. Please see WP:WELCOME for some tips on being a new Wikipedia contributor. Happy editing!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Is African-American really appropriate. I would say one has to be a descendent of slaves for the term to have its usual significance - Jacob's reading of the term is too literal. His racial background is important because his is non-white - however to suggest that this is the reversal of the slave trade and the distruction of its last vestige is completely wrong. Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.137.45.109 (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe some would say that, but the valid sources say African American, so that's what he is. But as long as Wal*Mart remains in business, forget about this "last vestige of the slave trade" theory. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

As many as 80% of "African Americans" have some European ancestry so I would venture that the best way to determine if someone is African American is if they identify themselves as African American. Mr. Obama does. --131.212.204.53 (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Barrack Hussein Obama is indeed the first Bi-racial President. Willingness to identify with one side of your ancestry does not disqualify the other half. Being raised by his Caucasian Relatives should indeed count for something. Barack could just as easily be described as White. Would it not be even more historic for the first Bi-Racial Candidate, one who represents the best of both Races. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanley167 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you guys are missing the point. He is indeed half white and half african american. To take an example, if I've never had milk before and I drink some half and half (half milk/half creme) I can say "This is the first time I've had milk". He is "the first african american president" because he is the first president to have a significant part of his hertigage be african american. If all presidents before obama were fully African American than obama would be the first white president or more specifically "the first president to have European discent". If Barack was both Chinese and African he could claim to be both the first Chinese American president as well as the first African American President. Anythingapplied (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Can We Change That Picture

Because that is a really creepy one. We have to have more under fair use. KP317 02:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

There will be an official portrait real soon now, which we will be able to use because federal stuff isn't copyrighted. Pleae, someone, pick him a decent tie. PhGustaf (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Er, the current one is the (latest) official portrait. Mfield (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought the pic was fine...--Justin Herbert (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally I don't like that picture either,i remember the old one that in my opinion was better.The current picture in my opinion just doesn't represent a President, thats the only reason I don't like it.In most cases changing a picture because person x doesn't like it or person z thinks another is better,is just a matter of opinion, so i didn't bring this up.Let's just hope the next official picture will just be more presidential. Durga Dido (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The ape picture? Not funny and deeply offensive, not least because of the racial connotations. Can we lock this down please? Thanks. Ravenwolf68 (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)ravenwolf68

They are not talking about that vandalism, and when the picture is reverted is is auto changed back to the gorilla. needs full protection Jebus989 (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Religion

Didn't he leave the United Church of Christa after some controversial issues with Jeremiah Wright? 194.82.118.105 (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

He left Wright's church, yes. ThuranX (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

yes he left Wrights church(Trinity United Church of Christ, but that does not mean he does not have a religion. Durga Dido (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

According to this wire source, http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1284403,obama-church-choice-111708.article, Obama left the denomination. This citation was previous discussed here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_46#A_Former_Church_Member and the box was updated to reflect the resulting consensus, but two days ago someone removed the edit without an edit summary or any discussion here, so it should be restored. Modocc (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Leaving an individual church isn't the same as leaving a denomination though. Has he explicitly switched denomination? Timrollpickering (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, leaving the church can result in leaving a denomination (see previous discussion for the original research assertion). Regardless, the relevant text in the source is

The United Church of Christ, the denomination from which Obama resigned when he left Wright's church, issued a written invitation to join a UCC denomination in Washington and resume his connections to the church.

Accordingly, he resigned from the denomination. Its considered a reliable source too. Modocc (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

His Grandmother's funeral was at a Unitarian Universalist Church, and I thought I saw a reference to him attending Religious Education there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.247.206.104 (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2009

I think this grandmother funeral is included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.36.115.219 (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

first African American first African American first African American

I mean, really, could the article feature more prominently that Obama is the first African American to do this; the first African American to do that? Given that the President went out of his way to avoid playing "the race card" during his campaign, should the article really reflect his success only as the first African American, or more as the best politician for the job? I think not. 207.237.232.51 (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Give me a break. Obama pulled the race card all the time. -Linda Mancia (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I highly disagee, Linda. 207.237.232.51 (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Being both the first black president and the first black head of the Harvard Law Review are significant things which Obama has done, and thus which deserve inclusion in the article. Are you implying that they are somehow not noteworthy?--Rosicrucian^Talk 01:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I am implying nothing: I am stating outright that while the matter is noteworthy, I do not believe the matter is given proper weight in this article. FYI, while I think it should be mentioned for the time being, being President of the USA and head of HLR are significant on their own: they need no quantifiers. 207.237.232.51 (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And I am saying that being the first black president is more significant than just being president of the United States, just as being the first black head of the Harvard Law Review is more significant than just heading the law review. They are more exclusive groupings, and worth noting.--Rosicrucian^Talk 04:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I count two - First AA US President, and First AA EIC of Harvard Law Review. Each is included in the article body with citations, and then mentioned in the lead. First AA President is a huge accomplishment. Harvard Law Review is a big accomplishment too, but perhaps overshadowed by being the President, so I would not mind either way if we dropped that entirely from the lead. Also, whereas law schools and law firms once had a race barrier, I don't know that's the case so much anymore, so I'm not sure that being the "first black" is as groundbreaking a deal there as being the first black president. Wikidemon (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No overuse. Also, your statement is your POV. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

POV how so? Because I describe him as "the best politician for the job"? I state it that way simply because he won the election...but to note as the very second line of the lead that he is the only AA to hold this position (and shortly therafter mention another accomplishment as 'the first AA to...') is somewhat derogatory and demeaning to all his accomplishments as a leader. 207.237.232.51 (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I.P. person, that wasnt directed to you, it was directed toward Linda's claim of race card pushing.--DemocraplypseNow (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be appropriate to include in the article that good historical evidence exists, suggesting that Warren Harding, not Barack Obama, was the nation's first African-American president?Cospelero (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That would depend on whether you know of a reliable source stating that good historical evidence exists to this effect. As far as I'm aware, every source of any authority attributes the title to Obama. Bigbluefish (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Come on - is there any other authority to rival Stephen Colbert? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

He is the second African American to hold the office.

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.

---

Is this correct? Who was the first African American to be president? 74.181.122.248 (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Zach

No it isn't. --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It said that just a second ago. It is changed now. 74.181.122.248 (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Zach

Looks like a quick edit that rolled back already. rootology (C)(T) 01:49, 22 January 2009 (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.

Assumed Office Date

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

WP:FRINGE, nothing reliable would argue this. Grsz¹¹ 02:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

---

I think this needs to be changed to 01/21/09. Technically he did not take the oath of office until today, because the one yesterday was misworded. I'm going to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TGothier (talk • contribs) 02:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No, he became President at noon yesterday even before he took the oath. Read the rest of the talk page before you post things like this. Grsz¹¹ 02:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The 20th Amendment allows his presidency to begin at Noon on the 20th, regardless of any oath: the oath isn't required for his Presidency to begin. But I still think it's notable enough to be given weight of one line. However, I'm not crazy about the wording "Because there were technical problems with the way the oath was taken". I would rather see, "...with the way the oath was administered and taken...". Especially since, per http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/21/oath-is-administered-once-again/?hp , "During a luncheon after the ceremony, Mr. Roberts could be seen on camera telling the president that the mistake was “my fault.”" 207.237.232.51 (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC)::He was president on 1-20-09 at noon, per the 20th amendment. Some could argue that he didn't have power to execute any powers of the office until 1-21, but no one (and that means NO ONE) would seriously argue that.LedRush (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2009 (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.

No, Article Two of the United States Constitution Section 1 Clause 8 "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:". So no, he wasn't President. I'm arguing that.--Tyler (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Then find a reliable source that says he wasn't President and go to town. Grsz¹¹ 02:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

YOu may do well to review the 20th Amendment: "Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin. " 207.237.232.51 (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Katie Couric commented just after the noon hour struck that technically Biden was President at that moment - and that is technically true, and presumably it's why the VP takes the oath first, just before noon - to keep the office intact in case some disaster happens. They also intended to get Obama's oath done by noon but they didn't quite make it. I think they were about 7 minutes over. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

In any case, the term begins at noon on the 20th, not on the 21st. In fact, Bush left right after the ceremony, and even as the ceremony went on, the new administration was doing stuff at the White House. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

And on reflection, Katie Couric (or whoever fed her that bit of trivia) got it wrong. It's the similarly-false David Rice Atchison argument. If something had happened to Obama, Biden still would have remained VP until he was sworn in as President. But it's reasonable to assume that's why they swear in the VP first. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(oudent) Indeed folks. Joe Biden was never Acting President, Obama became President at Noon EST, January 20, 2009. Period, end of discussion, no but's about it. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Our naming convention on Wikipedia for biographical articles, and for heads of state/Presidents of all countries, is the naming like we have right now.

I suggest move to US President Barack Hussain Obama because it is more descriptive. What do you think

No, it's not more descriptive. And no, this is not productive use of the talk page. Grsz¹¹ 02:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I forgot making a good faith suggestion to try to improve the article was not proper use of the talk page. Silly me. I am in awe of your graceful ellegance as you are clearly so much e-cooler than me Banana254 (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Chill. This comes up all the time, so it appears that some of the regular users here are a little punchy; you had no way of knowing that this question gets asked all the time. Per Our guidelines for naming articles, articles about people should be titled with the most commonly used name of that person, thus our main article about Bill Clinton is under that name and William Jefferson Clinton redirects to that one. Likewise, this article is under Barack Obama since that is what he is most frequently called. Barack Hussein Obama redirects to this article. Hope that is some help! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I think it's more appropriate. (And I also think Grzs needs a little down time from this discussion page...it's the encyclopedia ANYONE can edit, your level of civility is decreasing, and you're starting to bully this page. everyone has the right to their opinion and your tone and attitude are starting to show a lack of respect for that.) 207.237.232.51 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC).

I also agree with the above poster. But not Wikidemon. --68.63.54.207 (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, our page on naming conventions is pretty clear on this; it is most appropriate in all cases to call the article after the most common name. If you disagree with this guideline, you should take it up at the talk page of that guideline first, and after there is a wide consensus among Wikipedians to change the guideline to read in a way that would allow the name change you want, then we can move the article. However, seeing as the article is named by the already long established rules at Wikipedia, unless those rules change, there is no compelling reason to change the name of the article. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that George W Bush's article did not have prisedent in the article title nor am I aware of any other president from any country who's article is like that. I see little chance for a consensus here.--76.66.180.48 (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines are just that: not hard-and-fast rules. And we should try to remember that although this is a tough article to edit right now (and probably for some time to come), we must still BE BOLD. 207.237.232.51 (talk) 04:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

For this article and others like it that are high profile on a big group of peoples mind and very important and that have so many contributers working on it, a discussion on information to add is better,because you might think that X is important but then when you discuss it with other people you might agree with them that its not that important then you have thought, or that the bigger audience don't find it as important as you might think.Most of the time people will also discuss it with you to come up with a possible better way to add the information.I do think we should BE BOLD but without discussion I should should do that on stuff that are obviously wrong/missing like stating a wrong date. Durga Dido (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The article should stay as is, following the convention for bio pages; and "President Obama" and the like can be redirects. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:56, 22 January 2009 (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.

GA Status?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This is already the highest level of quality (FA) we have on Wikipedia. Probation just means that admins here have a wide hand to use a strong hand on any trouble generated, due to the nature and importance, and history of this article.

Is the probation keeping this from being a GA? Is there a suggestion page to suggest things to help it get that rating? Im sorry if its a dumb question im partially blind in one eye and its hard to see some of the material. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is already an FA which is higher than GA.. —Borgarde 05:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Not only is the article featured, but it is (AFAIK) the only article to be Today's Featured Article on two seperate occasions, and the second time was while it was under probation. Indeed, it is the probation which keeps the article from descending into anarchy, and helps to maintain the rather high standards of writing in it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"Article Probation" is a potentially misleading term. It's not the article that's on probation, it's the editors. It's a Good Article already, and the probation helps keep it that way. PhGustaf (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2009 (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.

Re-inauguration

I think after "He was sworn in as President on January 20, 2009, in an inaugural ceremony at the U.S. Capitol." It should mention that he was re-sworn, as he messed up the one at the ceremony.

You can read about it here. 80.42.37.12 (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

And here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually it was Roberts who messed up, and it wasn't a re-inauguration, or of any real significance - it was a case of belt and suspenders, I think, to fend off critics like Chris Wallace who was already raising questions about this non-issue. He became president at noon even if the oath was delayed, according to everything reliable I've read. And SheffieldSteel is right - it doesn't belong in this biography of his life. Tvoz/talk 23:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

succession box

I added the exact dates (Jan. 20) to when his presidency began in the succession box. This brings uniformity (other presidential pages give the exact date), and I think people would want to know the exact date. --EATC —Preceding unsigned comment added by EATC (talk • contribs) 22:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

selecting vs announcing

Section #2008 Presidential campaign currently says

"On August 23, 2008, Obama selected Delaware Senator Joe Biden as his vice presidential running mate."

Probably just nitpicking, but it should be slightly reworded for greater accuracy: Obama selected him before that date. On August 23, he announced Joe Biden as his running mate, so that's what the article should say. 78.34.146.122 (talk) 08:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"Announced" is technically correct. We know he was "selected" (tentatively, at least) prior to that date because of the media tease he had going on. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes... erm, so you agree with me that the article should say "announced" rather than (as is currently the case) "selected". In that case, would you mind doing the edit? 78.34.146.122 (talk) 09:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC) (Also, we can safely --not just tentatively-- assume that Biden was selected prior, as opposed to on August 23, simply because the veep pick is most obviously not decided in one day, and certainly not on the same day it is announced. See also wikinews:US candidate Barack Obama announces Joe Biden as his running mate via text message)

I changed "selected" to "announced". I don't know that it matters precisely which day he was "selected". That could be added if it was known, but it seems like minutia, at least for this article. For the detailed article on the campaign, it might fit - if known. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You still don't seem to quite understand what the problem was, so I'll spell it out once more: The article used to say that [Obama selected Biden on August 23]. That old version was clearly wrong. This was never about [when Biden was selected], but about not wrongly stating that [he was selected on August 23], when what happened in reality was that [his pick was announced on August 23]. The date is correct and should be in there, but it cannot be used in conjunction with the verb "selected", as that is simply not factually correct. 78.34.141.87 (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Changing it to this would solve the problem completely:

"On August 23, 2008, Obama announced that he had selected Delaware Senator Joe Biden as his vice presidential running mate."

-- Scjessey (talk) 14:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That'd be fine by me, but it's not even necessary. Changing [selected on August 23] (which was clearly wrong) to [announced on August 23] solved the problem already. Good thing such a little and noncontroversial change required so little time to explain... 78.34.141.87 (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to be a pain, but. The 2008 Democratic National Convention delegates chose Biden as Obama's running-mate (at Obama's request, of course). GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Announced as his choice, and approved by the convention. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that satisfies my curiousity. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, good point, agree with the wording [announced as his choice, and approved by the convention]. 78.34.141.87 (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

picture

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The Commons versions are now full protected indefinitely, both for the crop and the original official portrait, due to the current risk and visibility, and because they're really unlikely to change or need technical image updates.

Today the main portrait was removed and replaced by an image of an gorilla. Very funny... but not very good for Wikipedia. It should be an uncontroversial issue to make the main portrait ineditable? --PeterKristo (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears this has been a problem across several articles. I am currently working on hunting down the source of the problem, it looks like the picture has been changed back for now, but it doesn't look like the image here or at commons was edited to do so, nor was this page directly edited itself to add the pic. Still investigating. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

While it may seem racist to have a photo of a gorilla for Obama, keep in mind that Bush was sometimes compared to a chimp. So it cuts both ways. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that that is a very helpful thing to say. The person above seems to be responding to a genuine concern of vandalism, and he's not the only one who noticed it, apparently. I have found several other, apparently unrelated complaints, regarding this problem. However, I cannot nail down the source. My guess is that an unprotected template was the source of the issue... It appears to be resolved for now, as the pic looks fine today... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a really unhelpful way of putting it, to say the least. rootology (C)(T) 14:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The real issue is how the photo was messed with, and that's what the experts' energies should be focused on. I thought a "commons" photo was "read-only". If a "commons" editor messed with it, they should be slapped. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice deflection. ;) Yes, the Commons photo was the one messed with here. Commons photos, all several million of them, are all editable, same as any file here. rootology (C)(T) 15:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Then what is the value of "commons"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Images at commons can be used by any language Wikipedia, not just the English version, using the same image syntax used for a "local" image. Unless there's some compelling reason not to (like a license issue), users are strongly encouraged to upload all images to commons rather than "just" one local language version so the image can be reused by all 265 Wikipedias. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The source was apparently the image on commons which has been deleted and restored removing the vandalism from its history, see [7]. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a technical limitation. You can't lock down only one section from editing yet, unfortunately. rootology (C)(T) 14:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If it becomes a major problem, and Commons reacts the way they normally do when en.wp has issues (namely, by sitting on their hands), I'll just upload a copy locally and full-protect it. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The original is indef protected on Commons; I'll go do the crop now. rootology (C)(T) 05:09, 23 January 2009 (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.

Please use 'forty-fourth', instead of 44th in the content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The Wikipedia Manual of Style requires we use "44th".

In the article content, let's use forty-fourth as opposed to 44th. This style is used on all the other US President & Vice President wiki biographies. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't have a preference for either, but academic convention and technical writing generally prefer that the numbers 1-9 are spelled out, while any number more than nine is written using number characters. I think the reasoning goes something like, it is easier to write "123,487" than it is to write "one-hundred and twenty-three thousand, four-hundred and eighty-seven. Newguy34 (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

After seeing it changed 'so many times', I think I'll throw in the towel. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

My reason for prefering them written, is because numbers are used in the Infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we have the space and the conventions suggest it. It would be easier to read also.  Marlith (Talk)  19:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I like fourty-fourth, but don't really care.LedRush (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of, he is serving in the 44th presidency, but is the 43rd president. NPR (National Public Radio) cleared this up a couple of days ago after a lot of people noted that Grover Cleveland served two, non-consecutive terms. Obama's staff reported that Obama said "44 Americans" in order to avoid confusion, but nevertheless, it is incorrect. President and presidencies are distinct. 64.217.3.158 (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It has to be written as 44th, according to WP:MOSNUM, where numbers larger than 10 should be written as digits. This is non-negotiatable, and considering this is a FA, it ought to be setting an example. Majorly talk 01:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Though of course, forty-fourth may well be an exception. It ought to be consistent with the infobox. Majorly talk 01:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but he is right. WP:MOS is very clear on the number writing. 44th is correct.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2009 (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.

Lead paragraph

As a preemptive measure, I approve this edit.[8] Wikidemon (talk) 01:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems like an improvement. Ultimately, his being President is a lot more important than being the first black President. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. 207.237.232.51 (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Fourthed. It's still appropriately in the lead as an item of major public attention, yet it is now at a slightly better place. I like the edit very much. 78.34.141.87 (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirects

Looking at the pages that redirect here, I wanted to bring some up for discussion here. Grsz¹¹ 02:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

O'Bama, O'bama

Ob ama

Barry O'Bama

Obamessiah

Barry Soetoro

Obama 44

Obama obama

I have no problem with those redirects. The goal should be to get people to the article. SMP0328. (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

They should also make sense. Grsz¹¹ 02:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This may be the wrong place to discuss the redirects. If you think a redirect does any harm, go ahead and nominate it for deletion. Personally, I don't see a major problem with most of them although some seem pretty useless in terms of finding the article. I think I'd nominate Obamessiah for deletion though, it really does seem inappropriate (but lo and behold, it has been RfD'd before and was ultimately kept). 78.34.141.87 (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The Barry ones are fine; it's reasonable for someone to search under his nickname under Barry Obama or Soetoro. Not sure about the Barry O'Bama, though. rootology (C)(T) 05:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

They are conceivable erroneous homonyms that people might think is how it's spelt. It's not a very common name. Plus, the song There's No One as Irish as Barack O'Bama put the spelling into circulation. Bigbluefish (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Trivia

Trivia regarding U.S. Presidents is a legitimate concern because it's a common concern of commentators, biographers and chroniclers of all persuasions: which ones were left-handed, which were Freemasons, which churches they belonged to, their ethnic backgrounds, and especially their nicknames and sobriquets ("Father of His Country", "His Accidency", "Honest Abe", "FDR", "Ike", "Macbird", etc.) So if Obama's name attracts any cute misspellings, they're relevant and possibly should be mentioned. If certain remarks I've heard, however cheap they may be, become common currency (e.g. "There's a town in Japan named Obama" and "Obama spelled backward is 'Amabo', which in Latin can mean either "I'm gonna love" or "please!"), they will be relevant also. So will "First president born outside the thirteen original states", "First president born west of the Mississippi", and (as elsewhere on this page) "First president born outside the continental United States". Rapunzel129.93.65.41 (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive search box this talk and all archives - enjoy

I've added a search box for the very extensive talk archives here, at the bottom of the tables up top top of the talk page, for maximum ease and visibility. Enjoy. :) rootology (C)(T) 05:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That is fabulous - and I'm stealing it (with thanks) for my own talk page. Hope that's ok! Tvoz/talk 05:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Go for it, I stole it from WP:AN myself. :P rootology (C)(T) 05:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

How's it work? What versions of MediaWiki do you need? 76.66.198.171 (talk) 05:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

For getting it work here, I'm not totally sure. My MediaWiki skill aren't that high up yet. Check Special:Version for the plugins we use. rootology (C)(T) 05:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

But I can;t get it to work. BOO. Did I make a mistake? Tvoz/talk 05:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll look at your talk page. rootology (C)(T) 05:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama still hasn't released a valid Birth Certificate

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Please read FAQ entry #5

This sentence still needs to be changed. "Barack Obama was born at the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu, Hawaii,[4][5] to Ann Dunham, a White American from Wichita, Kansas.[6][7][8][9] Obama's father was Barack Obama, Sr., a Luo from Nyang’oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya."

Where Barack Obama was born is highly under dispute. It should be changed to say "may have been born." I'm fully supportive of the information having the hospital listed, for people who don't really care where he was born, and to indicate a likely place that he may have been born, but to say that he was born in Hawaii at a particular hospital, is definitely unproven. The most Barack Obama has released is a "certification of live birth", which is not a Birth Certificate, and which does not prove he was born at any hospital. Until the court cases are finished, and settled, where Barack was born should not be taken as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik Stone (talk • contribs) 09:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Highly under dispute or just an obsession with the tin hat brigade? Why does Obama have to release something every time some fringe commentator demands it?

While we're on the subject can we see Dubya's birth certificate? And how about Ann Coulter's to settle her age once and for all? Timrollpickering (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a non-story that a few conspiracy theorists are still trying to keep alive, it seems. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, we even have an article about the tinfoil hatters. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I would add two points to this: 1) My own children's birth certificates - way newer than Obama's - are called "Certification of Live Birth" as well. They are certified (complete with raised seal) from the jurisdiction in which they were born. I assure you they are valid. 2) More to the point, it doesn't matter what you or I think about the title of a document. We need to remember that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. If the New York Times, Washington Post, and a couple of other reliable sources were to start reporting that Obama was born on Mars, it would be appropriate for us to do the same. (Certainly, that would lower the status of such sources from "reliable" to "ignore" and a debate would ensue that would ultimately remove the information, but...that's another story.)  Frank  |  talk  14:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we just point such users to FAQ entry #5 and be done with it? I honestly do not see anything to be gained by rehashing this for the 8491st time. Tarc (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2009 (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.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Barack Obama

Considering the relatively large number of articles in Category:Barack Obama, and that for at least the coming four years Obama is going to be a top-profile topic, I wonder why Wikipedia:WikiProject Barack Obama hasn't been started yet. Now, please don't tell me to do it myself since I have no intention of being very active in this particular area, but I see that some are, and I think they might be able to better coordinate and streamline efforts to achieve and maintain the highest quality coverage possible. 78.34.145.131 (talk) 10:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

An interesting proposal, as there seems to have been a de facto Obama project developed over the last year, with many articles, templates, etc. I've got another idea for the project name, which I'm fairly sure won't fly: "Obamamania". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well... :) obviously, the project would attract sympathisers, but what is wrong with that, as long as their efforts are directed towards expanding and improving our coverage? I've always felt fan enthusiasm is a perfectly legitimate motivation to be active in a particular area, as long as it translates into encyclopedic enthusiasm. 78.34.145.131 (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad idea... rootology (C)(T) 14:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The First Puppy?

I don't want to put a lot of work into creating and referencing an article if it's sure to end up deleted. Should there be an article on Obama's election promise to get his children a White House puppy? Other White House pets have articles eg Socks (cat), and his promise to do so and subsequent discussion of breed etc has generated enormous "and finally" media coverage. Obviously there will be an article once the puppy enters the White House; in the unlikely event they never do get a puppy we'll never hear the end of it. What do you think? ciphergoth (talk) 12:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a somewhat ongoing debate as to the notability of all the past presidential pets. I think what's currently on List of United States Presidential pets and under Sasha and Malia in Family of Barack Obama is enough until that's sorted out. Bigbluefish (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Barack Obama

Based on a suggestion on Talk:Barack Obama, a new baby Wikiproject has been formed:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Barack Obama

Please check it out, watchlist it, join and sign up. Let's get some GAs and FAs going out of this! :) rootology (C)(T) 20:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Citations of debunking website(s)

Among the first few citations is a direct citation of Obama's birth certificate, and FactCheck.org's "Born in the U.S.A.", which debunks conspiracy theories about his birth. While such citations may be suitable for Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, shouldn't this article instead cite mainstream media news articles that don't even mention the conspiracy theories to avoid undue weight? Andjam (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"If we could, we would. However, "patriotic" Americans insist on arguing every time we don't cite out the wazoo for his Birth, and they scream 'ebil conzpirasy theeries' about how a 'sikrit muzlin terarman' is our president. So, to minimize the idiocy, we have to pre-preemptively cite to stop the arguments. ThuranX (talk) 12:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What Thuran says. It's needed to keep disruption, trolling, and pointless conspiracy theories at bay that are by definition wild fringe theories held by only a tiny little minority of people. rootology (C)(T) 14:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(Sarcasm)But teh nirth certificate is a fake!1! FactCheck is owned by Soros!1!(/Sarcasm). Are we also using them to cite things that aren't disputed by the conspiracy theorists, such as his date of birth and the name and ethnicity of his mother? Andjam (talk) 08:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(sarcasm)ZOMG Soros haits 'Murika, he bot all the lekshins and heza prins of darkess!(/sarcasm) I wish you guys well. I couldn't possibly deal with all the WP:BEANSiness and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT you put up with. arimareiji (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

why in Lede: "the first President born outside of the continental United States"

How does this trivia end up in the lede, never mind the second sentence? This belongs well down in the bio area. What is the significance of it at all? Looking at about 50 biographies (not hagiography official ones, but various news ones) this is well down if mentioned at all -- and for good reason -- it is trivia.71.252.89.208 (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, can someone please move it out of the lead? --BlackMath77 (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Borderline trivia. More important, it cannot be true. None of the first presidents, i.e. those born before US independence, were born in the United States, continental or otherwise.--Yumegusa (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Damn your Vulcan logic, Spock! ;-) arimareiji (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, that it's just trivia and doesn't belong in the lead. rootology (C)(T) 01:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sworn in second time

BBC World Service radio has just stated that Obama has been sworn-in a second time because of a missing word in the main ceremony. However, I haven' seen in the online textual press yet. —Sladen (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Already put in the article an hour ago. Ward3001 (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it really worth mentioning in this article? Grsz¹¹ 02:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. 207.237.232.51 (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Why? It's mixed up all the time, it isn't even really required to be recited. It's mentioned in the inauguration article and perhaps the Presidency article, but it seems petty here. And, you should probably come up with better arguments. Grsz¹¹ 02:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I still think it's notable enough to be given weight of one line. However, I'm not crazy about the wording "Because there were technical problems with the way the oath was taken". I would rather see, "...with the way the oath was administered and taken...". Especially since, per http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/21/oath-is-administered-once-again/?hp , "During a luncheon after the ceremony, Mr. Roberts could be seen on camera telling the president that the mistake was “my fault.”" 207.237.232.51 (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No. However, it is cited and written well enough, so it is not the end of the world that the material remains here for a while until it fades into obscurity. Wikidemon (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"No"? Not citing any wikipolicy or reason? No intent to come to consensus? Wow. 207.237.232.82 (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Leaving it in until recentism fades makes the most sense. It's idiotic trivial, seized upon by the far right to delegitimize his presidency, and it's not worth leaving in long-term, but for now, inclusion will slow down the attac kedits and ridiculous conspiracy additions. ThuranX (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I'm wrong, but no need to go on the attack here. I guess all facts must be idiotic trivial to you.... So why are you even helping an encyclopedia? It's my bad that the far-right wing conspiracy that I must be apart of is committed to keeping all facts accurate. Shall I make it my goal to watch and make tlc that it remains.--65.78.167.201 (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's all remain CIVIL. If we can all live with the one-line of weight as appropriate for the time being, I think this matter should be closed. 207.237.232.51 (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's worth noting SOMEWHERE, because it answers a question that keeps turning up. Maybe it would make more sense to put it in the related Constitution sub-article on the subject, such as the Article 2 page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe the article on the inauguration? Andjam (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be a good place for the specifics, as per this item: [9] It could also be mentioned in the appropriate Constitution article, along with the various other flubs. The flub is a non-issue, as I see it, because if it were an issue it would get to the Supreme Court, and Roberts would say, "Yes, I did it good enough. Go home." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely worth noting as a permanent sentence that he was sworn in twice. It JUST happened, and is clearly historic, as out of 44 Presidents only 2 before had this happen. If it takes up 3-4 sentences today, so what? We can trim it back down to a one-sentence passing note in a couple months. rootology (C)(T) 14:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Official portrait crop is better, good call

Good idea. rootology (C)(T) 18:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - it's got more punch. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Precisely  Marlith (Talk)  19:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually dont like the cropped picture. For one thing it takes away the the true value of the original. The one before was The Official Presidential Portrait and I think people should be able to go to this article and see the official portrait, not some cropped photo. I also think that the flag is not a distraction from the portrait because every single presidential portrait has had a flag in the background and it just so happens that this one is distracting, ok. Look at the George H.W. Bush portrait, if you dont mind I think I will crop his flag out because his portrait is a lot more distracting then this one. This is a historical photo and I dont think a cropped version is necessary for this article. Chasesboys (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

My understanding has always been that we use the official portrait, not a cropped version - might ask over on the wikiproject for presidential bios. I'd go back to that one. We put up with all kinds of bad pix just because they're the official portrait - like HIllary's which I hope will be redone for her new post. So I think that's the norm here. Tvoz/talk 23:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, There is a reason why they chose this as the official portrait. So I dont think it should be cropped just because some people dont like it. I personally think the picture is very good the way it is. 68.255.109.167 (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, thirded. In the interest of accurate coverage, we should stick to the full version of the official portrait. 78.34.143.199 (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Time Person of the Year

Need to add that the person of the year award is "a title awarded to someone who the editors believe 'for better or for worse,... has done the most to influence the events of the year.'" Only fair, since this is added to the article on George W. Bush.

Hitler was Time's man of the year one time. Stalin was very jealous. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

obama has made history because he is the first african-american to be president —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.247.116 (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"Only fair"? This is not a tit-for-tat game, this is an encyclopedic project. Nothing should be added into this article unless and for any other reason than that it improves this article. 78.34.145.131 (talk) 07:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

What would be most "fair" is to ensure that if the Time honor is to be listed on some of its honorees' pages, then it should be listed on all of them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a great idea. Someone should get on that. In the meantime, we can begin with the inclusion of this honor in this article, hmm? 207.237.232.82 (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Professor

Not to be picky, but I currently am a graduate student and have learned good deal about the academic system in America and around the world. Under the profession section of this article it includes the title "Professor." Barack Obama was not a professor, technically. His formal title at the University of Chicago was "Senior Lecturer." Here is an article that investigates this claim: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html. The article itself is ambiguous, but does explain that he was not a professor, assistant professor, associate professor, etc. - Jan 22, 2009 11:29 Eastern Standard Time, Username: mparenti1984 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mparenti1984 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly when, but this has been discussed numerous times in the past, and I believe that U of C even released a statement that Obama was considered a professor. Grsz¹¹ 04:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In the USA, the term "Professor" can be used generically in a more informal way than the formal ranks of professorship (full, associate, assistant) to refer to anyone with a university academic position. Ward3001 (talk) 04:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The source you cite includes the quote from UC saying they considered him a professor. Doesn't sound ambiguous to me. PhGustaf (talk)

And for those curious to search for more, see here. rootology (C)(T) 05:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ward3001's opinion can be defended. Teachers in universities are commonly, if informally, called "professor", just as the commanding officer of a naval vessel is informally called its "captain" regardless of rank. Tom129.93.65.41 (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. You wouldn't say, "Excuse me, Senior Lecturer Obama, I had a question." Grsz¹¹ 00:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

People with PhD's are often called "doctor", as are optometrists and dentists, but that doesn't make it a good reason to say doctor is their profession. Professor in other departments always means tenured if used as a formal title, otherwise there is another name. If law schools dilute the term to lecturers even then they probably should be called "Law professor" instead to separate them from real professors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.128.204.207 (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You have some misconceptions in this edit. "Doctor" is not a profession; it is a degree. "Physician" is a profession. Many non-physicians have doctoral degrees. And although your comment "formal title" is correct, it does not apply to informal use of the term "professor", which is much more common than the formal use. It would be rare to address someone as "Associate Professor Jones" or "Lecturer Smith". "Professor" is commonly used informally for all the ranks. Ward3001 (talk) 02:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course doctor is used to describe the profession. It is used interchangeably with physician. And strictly-speaking the degree is doctoral, or a doctorate. It makes one a doctor--of whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.128.204.207 (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Your comments have no internal logic. First you argue that calling someone "doctor" does not always mean the person is a physician. Then you say "Professor in other departments always means tenured". No, it does not always mean tenured. Just as someone calling a person "doctor" does not mean he is always referring to a physician, calling someone "professor" does not always mean he is referring to a tenured full, associate, or assistant professor. He could be referring to anyone with an academic position. Ward3001 (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It can be irritating arguing with a person who always starts by accusing you of being confused in some way or other. If you don't see the logic perhaps the next step for you should be to think more carefully what the logic might be, rather than arguing against a point you admittedly missed. Anyway you seem to have actually got the point I was making but somehow reached the opposite conclusion. In both cases it would be misleading to imply the informal title was formally correct which is what you would do if you went by what people are "commonly called" as the argument I responded to says. Hence "doctor" is an example of why you shouldn't use what someone is informally referred to as their profession or you will be misleading. Is the point here to be as accurate as possible or paint the subject in as positive a light as possible? Why not put "messiah" as his profession; he's been called that too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.128.204.207 (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If anyone else can sift through the convuluted jumble of words immediately above, please be my guest. In the mean time, I'll be talking to "Tenured Associate Professor Helms", or as we called him (undoubtedly out of profound ignorance), "Professor Helms", my former linguistics professor (oops! my former tenured associate professor of linguistics) to see if he can make sense out of it. Ward3001 (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

So I've gone from having misconceptions, to lacking internal logic, to finally speaking in a convuluted [sic] jumble of words. Or maybe you're just an asshole. Anonymity does that to people I notice. Part of why the wikipedia is often such garbage.

Obama is left handed

I added this fact to the last line of the first paragraph without discussion. It is mentioned on left-handed activist sites and elsewhere on Wikipedia, such as on the article on left handedness. I hope no one minds the lack of discussion before my edit. Mystyc1 (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding trivia like this to the first paragraph doesn't seem appropriate, so I have removed it. Also, the comparison with other recent presidents wasn't referenced, and seemed unlikely as stated. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, atleast 3 of the last 4 US Presidents are left-handed. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That is correct, according to this article. However, it is trivia, as stated by Silly rabbit, and does not belong in the intro paragraph.--JayJasper (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that left-handed doesn't belong in lead, but I wouldn't mind seeing it as a short clause somewhere low in the article. LotLE×talk 21:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it used to be in there somewhere - clearly not in the lead. He made a reference to it when signing the first Executive orders, so there's probably even a source. No big deal in or out, but not in the lead. Tvoz/talk 00:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a source: [10] "Mr. Obama signed them at the swearing-in ceremony with a left-handed flourish." I don't really care either way, although I have to say, "left-handed basketball player" yields a whopping 387,000 hits on Google. Tvoz/talk 00:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

In case anyone is interested . . .

The name Barack (more commonly spelled Barak) is Arabic, and means "blessed". The Hebrew name Barak or Baraq, which I'm told is not related to the Arabic, means either "glittering" as an adjective or "lightning" as a noun, and occurs in the Bible. Gratiano129.93.65.41 (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It's come up a few times before see here, and it didn't look like there was consensus to include it. It's a little too-trivia. rootology (C)(T) 01:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be fair to include it in the family page, and keep in mind it was his father's name that was "Blessed" originally. The President is merely "Son of Blessed". That's kind of an exotic name, but not as exotic as having a mother named Stanley. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

All things relative on the name thing, though. It might be exotic to Westerners, but could be totally run of the mill. Stanley... well, yeah. rootology (C)(T) 14:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, was there any good sourcing to this effect in the archives? I'd like to add this to the early life article, perhaps, but couldn't find something solid with the search. rootology (C)(T) 16:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This was in the article for a long time - I don't remember when or why it was removed. It was right before the Bernie Mac/Margaret Thacher comment:

Speaking to an elderly Jewish audience during his 2004 campaign for U.S. Senate, Obama linked the linguistic roots of his East African first name Barack to the Hebrew word baruch, meaning "blessed."<ref>{{cite news | first=Ron | last=Kampeas | title=Obama, Democrats’ Rising Star, Known for Harmony with Jews | date=[[August 6]] [[2004]] | url =http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/23183/edition_id/462/format/html/displaystory.html | work =Jewish News Weekly of Northern California | accessdate = 2007-09-30 }}</ref> Tvoz/talk 00:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet another list: policy decisions?

Since Obama is off to a running start with the reversal of two much talked-about policy decisions: the (planned) closure of Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and the rescinding of the Mexico City Policy. Is it too soon to start a list? It should help to bleed off contentious bloat from this main article. If desired, we could include "laws signed" and other categories that involve a string of items that help to define elements BHO's presidency.--Spellage (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say give it another week, to see if more come through to make a list justification easier, but much of that will be on his Presidency article anyway in the end. rootology (C)(T) 02:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, now I see: Presidency of Barack Obama. Well, I would hope that we would try to keep the structure between GWB and BHO (and Clinton, etc.) as similar as possible as soon as possible. I would hope that the project remembers what it learned from past consensus efforts and not have to re-invent the overall structure.--Spellage (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested edit

The article says Obama will be sworn in at noon. That is wrong, he will be sworn in at 11:56 AM [11] and become president 4 minutes later. 207.241.239.70 (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think about.com is a reliable source, All the reliable sources i can think of say its at noon, also your link says "Approximate" time 11.56. Durga Dido (talk) 07:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, every source I've heard says he'll take the oath at 11:56 (or just before noon). But he won't become President until noon either way. Parler Vous (edits) 07:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right, the sites/news simply "fool" you and compresses the oath together with the actuall transfer of power that it becomes unclear,only when they talk about the schedule is when you see that there is actually a difference, still about.com isn't a reliable source imo. Durga Dido (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Please also see the official media guide, page 14.[12] (pdf link from here). It gives the same timings. 207.241.239.70 (talk) 08:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hah! The thing actually ran around 10 minutes behind schedule, amazing since it looked to be choreographed like a ballet. By my reading of the US Constitution, Bush's term ended at noon, but Obama didn't become president until he completed the oath at around 12:06, which means the office of President was actually vacant for about 6 minutes. If this is correct and reported someplace cite-able, I hope it is mentioned in the article. 207.241.239.70 (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

From what I'm looking up,(It's very hard to find anything that actually says yes or no clearly) it seems that the person becomes president at noon regardless of whatever happens, however in order to actually do any of things that the president can do, he has to take the oath, so in other words, he becomes the president but he does not gain any powers until he takes the oath. Durga Dido (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I also noticed that Malia birth year was listed as 1998. Malia's birth year is 1999. It is located in the brief summary under the pictuer with bio and stats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.27.190 (talk) 07:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Bush's term expired at noon, by which time Biden had already been sworn in, and Katie Couric stated that technically Biden was President for about 5 minutes until Obama was sworn in. However, on reflection, technically that's not true - it's the similarly-false David Rice Atchison argument. If something had happened to Obama, Biden still would have remained VP until he was sworn in as President. But it's reasonable to assume that's why they swear in the VP first. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Another edit that should be made is an external link to the inaugural speech: http://www.educatedearth.net/video.php?id=3762 . That one is in playlist format with 2 parts.Nova420 (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

What languages does Barack Obama speak, and how well?

From the article I can only gather that he speaks some Bahasa (Indonesian). Surely it should be mentioned that he also speaks a little Hawaiian because of his birth, and in several presidential campaign tv ads he demonstrated a fair knowledge of Spanish. What more? His mother took a Russian language class (where she met her future husband), his father was a native Kenyan speaking Dholuo. Did any of these languages to any minimal degree stick to Barack Obama?

Do we have an RS for any of this? It would be an easy and useful one sentence addition. rootology (C)(T) 05:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I never heard anybody else allege that he speaks any Hawaiian "because of his birth." I doubt that very many people in Hawaii, with the exception of some ethnic Hawaiians, speak any Hawaiian--any more than most people born in Nebraska or Arizona of non-NativeAmerican parents would be expected to speak (respectively) any Dakotah or Navaho. It would be reasonable to suppose the President speaks a little of whatever language he was exposed to in the Indonesian schools he attended as a young child, but even that shouldn't be stated as a fact without some evidence.

Or should it be mentioned at all? Is it relevant? How many articles on Ralph Nader bother to point out that he speaks fluent Arabic which he learned at home from his immigrant parents? None. And why should they? It's had no effect on his life. Ditto Obama's knowledge or possible knowledge of some Indonesian language or another. Tom129.93.65.41 (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's quite appropriate to mention languages spoken by public figures, especially world leaders. It's more than just an interesting fact. It provides some insight into this person's ability to understand what is going on in the world. The USA is woefully inadequate in its citizens' knowledge of other languages (I'm an American by the way). I think when one of our major leaders has that kind of knowledge, it's worth mentioning. My only concern is with reliable sourcing. I even have some concerns about the source used to document Obama's knowledge of Indonesian; it looks like a blog to me. Ward3001 (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ability to speak other languages is certainly relevant in a biographical article about a world leader. Reliable sources only, please, not original research from a Youtube clip where he says 5 words in Indonesian. I can say that many words in Russian, Polish, Japanese, Mandarin, Hebrew, Italian and Latin, and definitely speak none of those languages. Edison (talk) 05:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This is obviously along the lines of original research -- but: Obama's sister told my friend (an aspiring documentary film maker who himself studied and speaks Indonesian) at a campaign event in San Francisco something to the effect that her brother, unlike her, is not fluent in Indonesian but understands it quite well. Which would seem reasonable to believe -- since Barack moved away from Indonesia when he was still quite young.... So, since it's been said he'd studied Spanish some, maybe Obama's minimally sorta-kinda conversant in two second languages? ↜Just me, here, now … 17:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)