Talk:Early life and career of Barack Obama/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Edward Said

The report that BHO studied with ESaid at Columbia seemed worthy of inclusion to me, when I learned it today. My edit to that effect, though, was reverted as "too minor a detail; he had lots of professors." I doubt he had many professors of the stature of Said; on the other hand, we don't know how significant the interaction was with a high-profile professor; on the third hand, though, the context in which the fact came up -- an examination of Obama's autobiography, of his father's writing (when the autobiography stresses the importance of the father in the son's thinking), and of BHO's political stance in 2010, particularly as to anti-colonialism and neo-colonialism, subjects certainly of interest to Professor Said, and socialism, a subject certainly much discussed relative to the President and his policies; plus ESaid was not just any professor, he was a professor within BHO's major of international relations, a smaller universe -- all seemed to give the fact more than routine significance. A serious potential presidential rival picked up some of the analysis, as I noted. Ban it from Wikipedia? Seems overly narrow, to me. Swliv (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Two conservative talking heads still pushing both the birther and the "Obama is a socialist!" angles? Whodathunkit? Tarc (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I know you don't like the source of the info or the uses made of that and other info by DD'Souza and (I guess you mean, as to the second "talking head," the person I characterized for what it's worth, yesterday, as a "serious potential presidential rival") NGingrich. But would you nonetheless be willing to endorse the inclusion of ESaid in the account of BHO's education?

I feel the discussion of the President's writings and his relationship to his late father and his late father's views (father and views much celebrated in the autobiography), and of his education, is productive regardless of the immediate politics. Just as I did for a recent bit about the previous President from MDowd which I incorporated here. And I'll add that I thought, it probably won't surprise anyone, that MDowd and her first page of commenters missed pretty badly today on the D'Souza/Gingrich subject. Though usually I like her work. To divert slightly from ESaid to another aspect of the D'Souza piece also addressed by Dowd today, in order to affirm further my point, I find the whole bumpy but real route of Hawaii and Alaska into the national political dialogue pretty darn interesting, too. Wow! Who could have predicted? But can anyone really be surprised that it is sometimes a bumpy route? Can't the encyclopedia handle pretty much as many of the complicated details in these (two) discussions (paternal/schooling influences and places-of-upbringing) as we can gather? Or did I handle this one (ESaid) re: BHO wrong? Or these two, adding the movie reference re: GWB?

Thanks for your interest. Swliv (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a key line in your first post - "we don't know how significant the interaction was with a high-profile professor". If something isn't notable, it shouldn't be in the article. Stating that something might be notable isn't enough - to include this you need something from a WP:RS that this is notable, and a book disguised as a hatchet job probably isn't that RS. I see you've added this to the Said article as "may have been amoung Said's students". Insinuation does not belong in a BLP article. Ravensfire (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Actually this whole line of questioning 'relationships' is an insult to the intelligence of people, and more along the lines of 'Skull and Bones', Truthers, Birthers, Bill Ayers, etc... Innuendos and synthesis by conservative opinion writers and politicians seem more the subject for another conspiracy theory article than an article based on actual facts. Dave Dial (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry it's so hard to integrate a new fact into the record. For what it's worth, I found this follow-up: "Forbes Article Spurs Media Soul Searching" from the Times today interesting. No questions about the ESaid mention.

For what it's worth, I did improve I hope -- following the appropriate critique from Ravensfire above -- the ESaid article; also there expanding with another report the sense of a relationship between the two gentlemen. As to the insulting nature of exploring relationships: well, I guess I don't know what to say. We're all independent of all others? Influences (even those we trumpet in our memoir titles) are not to be considered? What are you saying? (I really don't think this is a witch hunt. Maybe by DD'Souza, though it's not my impression. (Have you read the Forbes piece?) Not a witch hunt by me. An effort to understand, I'd call it; and, via Wikipedia, to broaden understanding. And I read the memoir back before the election; found the new look by D'Souza worthwhile in a number of regards, including that we now know the man better for a couple of years of intense scrutiny of his exercising of significant political power. What's the problem?)

Any more insults to sling? (Not a very pleasant exchange here, I have to say. Oh, but that's right. I'm the one who was being insulting. Well ..., another apology: I'm sorry, I don't mean to insult anyone's intelligence. ... On we go, may I say?) Swliv (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a "new fact"; it is an off-the-cuff one-liner couched within a larger critique of Obama and the presidency. Read WP:REDFLAG; those 3 bullet points are all coming in to play here. Let's see some other reliable sources that discuss the polygamy claim first, rather than this D'Souza-penned piece. Tarc (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzled. Is there some polygamy argument I know nothing of relative to ESaid? I can't tell if any of the above comment refers to the ESaid edit. I'll await an answer before going further responding. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I was mixing up your edit attempts with those of InaMaka. It's hard to keep you people straight some times. My bad. The general sentiment of the response still fits, though. Tarc (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

photo Barack_Obama_Sr_Jr.jpg

The venue of this photo is San Francisco International Airport (not Hawaii!), as seen from the previous, uncropped version of the file: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/e/e8/20080925235329!Barack_Obama_Sr_Jr.jpg. — Klimenok (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it is signage for a departure gate? The source of the image is http://obamabarack.blogspot.com/2007_03_24_archive.html, captioned "Barack Obama Sr. during his only visit to his son while growing up in Hawai'i.". Tarc (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no place in this article for ANY birther discussion, pro or con

The fringe dispute over Obama's birthplace came about much, much later in his political career. Yes, the dispute itself is about his birth and early life, but trying to tie it in directly to his early life is problematic and a bit synth-ish. Tarc (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Then where should we place the link? It logically belongs somewhere in this article. Should it be in the See also section? -- Brangifer (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it should be anywhere, honestly. It is a controversy regarding an alleged dispute on the facts of his early life, i.e. place of birth, but it really isn't about his early life. That sounds awkward, but I cannot think of a better way to say it at the moment. Tarc (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not an "alleged dispute", it's an actual dispute. Whether or not there is any reasonable basis for the dispute, it exists. I have a problem seeing the difference between this and, e.g., the 9/11 conspiracy theories or the JFK assassination conspiracy theories, both of which are not only linked in the primary topic articles but even have (very small) sections there acknowledging them. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about the other articles, and I think there should be a link somewhere(the 2008 Presidential election the best place imo), but I have a problem with the way it was inserted here.

== Childhood years ==

See also: Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

Which, to me, makes it seem as if an explanation of Obama's 'Childhood years' can be found on that other article. I'm sure people may support a link to the article in with appropriate context, in the right article. Dave Dial (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

While they originated during the 2008 campaign, they survive two years into his presidency with, if polls are to be believed, a fairly large number of people giving them credence. I'm not sure I even know all the WP articles about Obama, but off the top of my head this one seems the most likely candidate for a link, since the theories seem to center on either his birth or events of his childhood. I see your point about the placement of the {{See also}} template; perhaps we should look to those other articles as a model, inserting a (miniature) == Conspiracy theories == section at the end, consisting of the see also template and a paragraph to the effect of:

Various fringe conspiracy theorists have advanced propositions questioning Obama's eligibility for the presidency based on their interpretations of the facts of his birth and early life.

Fat&Happy (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I just don't see what this has to do with a narrative of the man's life, that is the point; if it has any place for a 'see also' or whatnot, it'd be an article on the 2008 primaries, general election, and perhaps the inauguration, given that that was the height of the 11th-hour protests. There's also no mention in this article of Obama's associations with Rev. Wright, Rezko, or Bill Ayers? Why not, these were people with whom he had some connections to in his "early life and career", right? The thing is, their significance/importance to Obama is not within the context of his life and career; they are connected to him via later scandal and controversy allegations. That is why they have their own articles which originate from where they are important, i.e. the primaries and general election. Tarc (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Link to citizenship conspiracy theories article

I've added a "see also" link to the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article. That article links to this one; it was also created specifically to keep birther nonsense out of this and other articles. I suggest that, given the disruption that we're seeing on a virtually daily basis (and now from the WorldNetDaily nuts), it would be useful to channel the birthers away from this article. And contra Scjessey's view, it's hardly "unrelated" material. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• I strongly object to ChrisO's contentious addition of this article's first section template:
  • a prominent See also: template link at the beginning of the Childhood through high school section to the WP:FRINGE article Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories they created on December 9, 2008 as an outgrowth of the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 10#Obama born in Kenya discussion.
• The contentious addition of a prominent See also: section template link to a WP:FRINGE conspiracy theory article is undue weight and a violation of WP:NPOV policy, which is especially egregious in a WP:BLP.
• It may be appropriate for a WP:FRINGE conspiracy article like Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories to have a Main article section template link to this WP:BLP article at the beginning of its Early life of Barack Obama section.
  That does not make it appropriate to add a prominent See also: section template link to a WP:FRINGE conspiracy article like Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories at the beginning of this WP:BLP article's Childhood through high school section.
  It is not appropriate.
• The burden of gaining consensus for any contentious addition to a WP:BLP rests on the editor adding the contentious material.
  If there is no consensus, the contentious material must stay out of a WP:BLP.
• ChrisO says the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article they created was "created specifically to keep birther nonsense out of this and other articles."
  How does adding to this article a prominent See also: section template link to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories "keep birther nonsense out of this article"?

Newross (talk) 05:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not censor the truth by attempting to marginalize those who are exposing it. Terms like "birther nonsense" and "conspiracy theory" are used only by those who do not have evidence to back up what they wish were true. Even the State of Hawaii does not accept the Certification of Live Birth that is displayed in the article with the erroneous label of "Birth Certificate." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.241.20.170 (talk) 02:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• It's a fringe theory, and -- while not complete "nonsense" -- it's hardly credible, and barely notable. I think that even a link on this page overweights the issue, given its lack of credible coverage in legitimate sources. Unitanode 02:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"by those who do not have evidence to back up what they wish were true. Even the State of Hawaii does not accept the Certification of Live Birth that is displayed in the article with the erroneous label of "'Birth Certificate.'" Oh, the irony. Hawaii doesn't accept its own COLB? Please. Weazie (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

To ChrisO: You will not be pleased to know that your 'See also' link has been removed. And the prior edits here are old, from 2009. The issue comes up again in 2012. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Certificate of Live Birth and Birth Certificate vs. Certification of Live Birth

There are significant differences between a certificate of live birth and a standard birth certificate both in form and function. The former is a short document that only lists parents, birthdate and time, birthplace, and a few other minor details. A birth certificate goes into much more detail. For this reason, certificates of live birth are generally unacceptable when it comes to registering a child for school or sports, for getting a driver's license or passport. The additional detail provides many more facts that can be verified to prove authenticity. That's why a standard birth certificate is being sought and that's why I specifically identified the document in question as I did. Please don't change it unless there's a good reason to do so. A COLB is not a standard birth certificate and is generally not accepted as such. Furthermore, Hawaii would accept registrations of babies not born in Hawaii. That is one possible explanation as to how a certificate of live birth can be issued by Hawaii that seems to suggest birth in Hawaii when it really is not the case. Frotz (talk) 03:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the argument that is often used by the fringe theorists who like to claim Obama was not born in Hawaii. A birth certificate can take many forms - it varies from state to state and from country to country. In this case, the "certificate of live birth" can be regarded as synonymous with a "birth certificate". This is especially true because the term "birth certificate" is used by the vast majority of the reliable sources that have referred to this particular document. Continued attempts to change this established terminology will be viewed as disruptive. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Scjessey (or anybody else who knows this), does Hawaii issue both certificates, ie live birth cert. vs plain vanilla birth certificate? TIA --Tom 15:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ask them. Incidentally, even the Hawaii Department of Health referred to the document as a birth certificate: source. This really is getting silly, people. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You have their number? Just kidding :). If there is no difference between these two documents, then the image caption as is is correct. If there are two different certificates, then they should be "labelled" as such. --Tom 17:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a picture of the long-form. Like the short-form one issued to Obama and publicly released months ago, it is titled "Certificate of Live Birth". It really is exactly the same thing as it would be if it was titled "Birth Certificate". There is no difference between a Certificate of Live Birth and a Birth Certificate, these are just different names for the same thing. And as wikipedia's article on birth certificates notes, where a State includes the names of the parents on the short-form, it is as acceptable as the long-form in all the situations noted above (registering for school, getting a driver's license or a passport, etc). I hoped this and all the other conspiracy theories would end once the election was over. Guess not. --The Bruce (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• This issue is now notable for inclusion, multiple reliable sources http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/12/anti-obama-frin.html http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/12/obama-birth-cer.html and [more http://news.google.com/news?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hl=en&tab=ln&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1277730331] Patcat88 (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No. It is only notable for inclusion if the bullshit allegations turn out to be true. The story is about fringe theorists and their stupid activities, not Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The image in this article is neither a "Certificate of Live Birth" nor a "Birth Certificate," so the above is irrelevant. What is represented in the picture is a "Certification of Live Birth" and it is significantly different than a "Certificate of Live Birth." From the website of the State of Hawaii: http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl

The primary documents used to show you are of age and a qualified native Hawaiian are: * A certified copy of Certificate of Birth; * A certified copy of Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, including testimonies; or * A certified copy of Certificate of Delayed Birth. ... In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.

Therefore the label under the photo is absolutely incorrect and misleading. Simply by looking at the image of the document you can see the heading on the document itself reads 'Certification of Live Birth.' This cannot be disputed, so I'm correcting the label to accurately reflect what is represented in the image. --Kactas (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

All of your original research aside, your point is moot. Different states have different names for what is commonly called a birth certificate (just as a driver's license often actually says "License to operate a motor vehicle") . The fact that Hawaii's birth certificates are called "certification of live birth" across the top is irrelevant. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Plus, in reading the quote, it seems to say that this "Certification" versus "Certificate" point only means that the certification was generated to represent a valid certificate, so yes it is the same as a "certificate of live birth" and therefore a birth certificate. 24.21.10.30 (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If you would read more closely the Hawaiian government website, it becomes clear that it's not a matter of different names for a birth certificate. A "Certificiation of Live Birth" and a "Certficiate of Live Birth" are two distinct documents. A certificate is more legally binding than a certification. From http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl : "This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL." To extend your driver's license analogy (though somewhat imperfectly), it like the difference between a learners permit and a driver's licence -- they are related, but of different legal weight.

This is all besides the point of what is clearly visible in bold type when looking at the image -- it is labeled 'CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH' not "certificate." For what it's worth, it also happens to be in the image name. This to me makes the matter rather cut and dry. It cannot be argued that in the image, the document itself is labeled 'CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH.' Why then should not the image label accurately reflect this fact when there is according the a State of Hawaii a substantial, legal distinction? --Kactas (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Both long form (what Hawaii calls "certificate of live birth") and short form (what Hawaii calls "certification of live birth") documents are "birth certificates", see birth certificate. Per above, precisely what these documents are called varies by state. Are they different documents? Yes. Is it wrong or incorrect or misleading to identify this image as a "birth certificate"? No. Anyone who looks at the image who knows the difference can readily see it is a short form document. On the other hand, is identifying this image as anything other than a "birth certificate" (including what it is technically called by the state of Hawaii) misleading? You betcha. It creates the distinct impression that this document is NOT what would generally be called a birth certificate. Since this document is exactly what is generally called a birth certificate we wouldn't want people thinking otherwise, would we? -- Rick Block (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning the difference is trivial. It would be equivalent to providing an image of Obama's Driver's License and then noting "This is distinct from his 'license to operate a motor vehicle'." If the distinction serves no useful purpose, mentioning it serves no useful purpose, and thus omission is warranted.

The only way to argue otherwise is to prove that there are MAJOR differences between the two forms, and that both serve very different purposes. I see no proof of that. There are allegations that a 'Certification of Live Birth' is not acceptable to parties requesting a "birth certificate" in a great number of cases here--but no proof. If you can find proof, then the distinction should be given some thought. Otherwise mentioning serves no useful purpose, except perhaps to subtly subvert the legitimacy of the provided document through baseless innuendo in order to let fringe theorists get their foot in the article's door. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.162.125 (talk) 07:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

From HRS 338-17.8 http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm -- There's a clear distinction here for children covered by this law, and whether a long-form birth certificate (including birth location and delivering doctor) would be available, or merely the 'certification' that has been released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.146.199 (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

HRS 338-17.8 was not in effect when Obama was born. Weazie (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The whole COLB/BC distinction is irrelevant, because the short form lists the location of birth as being in Hawaii, so he's a natural born citizen regardless of what doctor delivered him or whatever. The only defense to this is to claim that the "Short Form" or whatever contains false information despite being an official Hawaiian document. 98.236.191.219 (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Although George Romney was born in Mexico, he himself was a naturalized citizen because his parents were citizens. [1] What about the mother of Barack Hussein Obama? Was she an American citizen? If so, then BHObama was a citizen also. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly. In order to become president, Romney would have needed to be a natural born, not a naturalized, citizen; the common understanding – disputed by some at the natural born citizen article – is that someone who is a citizen at birth is a "natural born" citizen. However, according to U.S. law in 1961, if Obama had been born in Kenya (or Indonesia, or Pakistan, or even Canada), he would not have been a citizen at birth because his mother was not old enough at the time to have lived in the U.S. for five years following her 14th birthday. Unless she was not legally married; if she was an unwed mother, IIRC, the five-year residence requirement did not apply. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of his name

I had posted this edit that promptly got deleted as "original research":

His first name, Barack, is an Arabic given name which has the meaning "blessed one", derived from the Islamic concept of baraka - the beneficent force from God. His father's birth name was in fact 'Baraka'. The middle name, Hussein, is an Arabic name as well, meaning "good", "handsome" or "beautiful".

These are plain meanings of his names. I don't see how it can be seen as original research. This info is fully referenced with links to entire articles that go further in explaining the name meanings. I'd like to see a consensus here to re-add this info.

And it should also be noted that Hussein, aside from its meaning, is a name shared by Obama's ancestors, including his paternal grandfather among other close relatives.--Tdadamemd (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this should be added. Acceptable citations would be Arabic dictionary entries, particularly Arabic dictionaries of names. prat (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

References

CIA Reference Justification

I am responding to the recent reversion of the dual-sourced reference to the fact that Obama's first employer out of university was and is a known CIA front company. The sources given were:

• The New York Times: "CIA Established Many Links To Journalists in US and Abroad". New York Times. December 27, 1977.
• Article by William Blum, published author of a History of the CIA, former State Department employee, historian and foreign policy critic: William Blum (July 3, 2012). "The Persecution of Julian Assange". Retrieved July 5, 2012.

I am re-adding the information with this talk section added for any feedback as I am unclear how you can come to the conclusion that the New York Times and a published historian with domain expertise are 'Wikipedia:FRINGE' and not reliable.

I must also state that I found the reversion of this well sourced content without a well reasoned explanation (only broad links to Wikipedia policies, with no explanation as to relevance) or attempt to contact me on my talk page to be rather overzealous and contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia's inclusive community.

Please discuss further changes here before committing them to the article.

Kind regards, prat (talk) 02:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC), Wikipedia administrator.

Your edits are BLP violations, an attempt to push fringe theories by innuendo. Also, here is another link for you, BRD. That's Bold, Revert, Discuss. Not Bold, Revert, Revert, forbid any changes, discuss. Dave Dial (talk) 03:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for the oversight on procedure, which is not my forte. Either way, here we are at talk, and I note you have pointed at procedure (again - not explaining how BLP was violated?) instead of answering the query. So please, explain, how can you come to the conclusion that the New York Times and a published historian with domain expertise are 'Wikipedia:FRINGE' and not reliable? prat (talk) 03:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a pretty awful edit. What does it have to do with Obama? Volkswagen was originally founded by a Nazi trade union. Do you propose to add that tidbit of information to all the biographies of people who have worked for the company? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I can see that for the short version on the main Obama page, that's maybe a tad tangential, and would accept if it were removed on these grounds. However, in this entire article devoted to his early life and career, it seems pretty evident that extremely notable (possibly the most notable), publicly documented information regarding the very first company he worked for is relevant. prat (talk) 03:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I would further add, in good faith, that Nazi references are loaded, and that the number of years between said revelations and Obama's joining the organization is far fewer than the present and Nazi germany. prat (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

So why are you attempting to add something that may have happened fifty years ago? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Because (1) is it is only a few years before Obama joined the organization (2) it is perhaps one of the most notable things about the organization (3) it is an undisputed fact, as far as public sources go (4) it is the first organization that he joined after his education (5) the article is about his early life and career. prat (talk) 03:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

(1) 1983 - 1960 = 23. "Few" years - uh huh. (2) This article isn't about the organization. (5) Are you now implying that Obama was involved with the CIA in his early career? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

That's good, why don't we include that figure with the information to give additional context? prat (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely unacceptable: please read WP:SYNTH, for instance. You're taking unrelated material and drawing a conclusion in Wikipedia's voice. Please don't do that again. Acroterion (talk) 03:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

How is citing a fact regarding the organization that is publicly sourced from reputable sources 'drawing a conclusion in Wikipedia's voice'? prat (talk) 03:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You're making an innuendo that Obama was somehow associated with the CIA, something that requires a specific high-quality reference that directly states the conclusion, not vague hand-waving that Person A was associated with Organization X, which was in turn associated with Organization Y, which implies that Person A had a connection to Organization Y. That's a synthesis, and it's not permitted anywhere on Wikipedia, much less in a biography.Acroterion (talk) 04:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point, however, it is actually very common on Wikipedia (most history articles, lots of biography articles, etc.) and is not always a bad thing. Merely stating specific facts about one subject and doggedly rejecting anything else would make many more complex articles unreadable except to experts. Within the context of politics and Obama's early career, this information, properly sourced and phrased, seems relevant. prat (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Synthesis is not common and not permitted. Taking specific facts out of context from cherry-picked sources to draw or imply a conclusion is not acceptable. Acroterion (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

OK well perhaps we have different understandings of synthesis. Be that as it may, this is a notable fact regarding his first employer as far as the public record is concerned, and is therefore clearly relevant within the context of an entire article about his early life and career. Meaningful claims otherwise would require alternative mainstream media coverage of the company, on the level of the New York Times and preferably at least one secondary, published historian, that dispute this fact. Your own judgement of the fact's relevance is not meaningful, what is relevant is what is cited and available in the public record. Furthermore, it is not my wish or intent to imply anything, and I resent that suggestion. I am all for proper, clear wording. I am not an American nor do I have an agenda to push. prat (talk) 12:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, please read WP:RS. Countercurrents, who "welcome[s] articles from writers, activists, journalists and also from our readers who have no prior experience in writing" does not seem to qualify. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Countercurrents merely republished from the author, who remains a published historian on the matter. prat (talk) 03:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who writes about 9/11: 'New York skyscrapers apparently "collapsed essentially because of a controlled demolition"' needs to be treated as a WP:FRINGE source at best. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

That is a characterization and your opinion (quite possibly wrong - who knows?), I do not want to get in to tangents. Please remain focused in discussion. prat (talk) 03:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not a tangent. This is about you not understanding BLP: "Be very firm about the use of high quality sources." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion of high quality sources is your own. The fact is, an author of a book on the history of a subject is a more reputable source than almost any other. If you can argue the point without resorting to character aspersions, it would be more persuasive. prat (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia references to mainstream sources. While fringe theorists can be mentioned in due proportion, the fact that the source advocates conspiracy theories makes their use as a source in this case inappropriate. Please read WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP. You're trying to insert a fringe point of view. Since you appear to be an administrator, I expect you to have a better grasp of policy and the manner in which it is presently enforced. . Acroterion (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I have asked before, and I will ask again: how can you possibly say that the New York Times is a 'fringe' source? That an author who has published an entire history on a subject is a 'fringe' source? I am not trying to insert a point of view, at all. To claim that is the case is patently false and not in the spirit of constructive contribution. I inserted a publicly recorded fact, well referenced, and it was removed under two counter-to-policy claims, neither of which have been adequately justified despite repeat requests. Apologies but it really looks some of the responses here are the ones with an agenda. Pointing to policies without clearly identifying which portions you believe are being violated and in which way, suggesting or accepting the discussion of any more constructive outcomes than "just go away and we'll delete the contribution, thank you very much" is counter to Wikipedia spirit. I note that you have still failed to justify the initial two claims regarding policy, and are yet again making character references (this time, to myself). Please, be objective. prat (talk) 13:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Holy crap, you're right! prat, I strongly suggest you not advertise you're an admin until you firmly grasp how Wikipedia has changed over the years. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This is still synthesis: you are leaping from the decades-prior history of the company, to the time when Obama started to work there; as well as undue emphasis, apparently to cloud the subject's reputation. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Apologies but I am absolutely not pushing an agenda. I added relevant facts, they were removed, and I am awaiting justification. That justification still has not come, despite repeated requests. What has come is further baseless character accusations which, quite frankly, are preposterous. Whether information is popularly liked or not is irrelevant: if it is a publicly cited fact from reputable sources, then it deserves a place on Wikipedia. prat (talk) 03:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The justification has come, you're just not listening. At this point, it's better to see consensus is against you and move on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

"if it is a publicly cited fact from reputable sources, then it deserves a place on Wikipedia"

Can you point to the policy or guideline that says that?

This article, from an unarguably reputable source, publicly states that Obama had eggs, bacon, toast, and grits for breakfast at a local diner yesterday morning. Help me out here... exactly where in Obama's biography should I insert this particular information that is clearly a publicly cited fact from reputable sources – I'm deciding between his personal life and the 2012 campaign unless you have a suggestion for a better alternative. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It does have a place on Wikipedia: it should be in the article about the company, and it's there.--NapoliRoma (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely right. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The first company that Obama worked for after leaving university was one with well documented CIA connections. The claim has been made that the documented connection was too early for it to relate to him - on this I do not take a position, rather encourage the addition of relevant information to the reference so that readers can view such information within the proper context (had the management changed? I have no idea; though I doubt it). It still stands that, any way you look at it, particularly given that he is currently president, that information remains relevant to an article on Obama's early life and career as it would have been one of his formative experiences. prat (talk) 03:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

And there's your WP:SYNTH. You really don't see that?

As someone else already pointed out, this is like trying to make any connection for someone who worked in the rank and file of Volkswagen in 1969 to the Nazis.

"had the management changed? I have no idea; though I doubt it" -- Well, Eldridge Haynes had been dead for 8 years, so I'm guessing he was out of the management loop by then. But that's admittedly WP:OR.--NapoliRoma (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Something to think about: The Drudge Report and WND is trying to assert that Obama worked for the CIA in Packistan for a year while he was in Columbia Univeristy. I have a sneaking suspicion that Prat is pushing for a CIA guilt by association in an effort to help prove the Drudge Report and WND article(s) right. (As in start another conspiracy theory.) I suggest this be closed as it is apparently going no where and the proposer has a hidden motive whether he/she admits it or not. 74.79.34.29 (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Fine, close it. I do not have any hidden motivation. I disagree with the conclusion. But fine. At least it's on record with reasoning. That's a good thing. prat (talk) 12:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Frank Marshall Davis

Why is there no information on the relationships of poet and journalist Frank Marshall Davis with Obama or his mother and grandparents? There appears to be a lot of controversial material, but no mention of any of it on wikipedia for some reason. Redhanker (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a wild guess here, but perhaps a complete absence of reliable sources might be a contributing factor... Fat&Happy (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this reliable? Redhanker (talk) 13:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Frank Marshall Davis, alleged Communist, was early influence on Barack Obama New details about a black poet in Hawaii who was a key early influence in Barack Obama’s life can be revealed by The Telegraph. By Toby Harnden in Washington 12:19PM BST 22 Aug 2008 Although identified only as Frank in Mr Obama’s memoir Dreams from My Father, it has now been established that he was Frank Marshall Davis, a radical activist and journalist who had been suspected of being a member of the Communist Party in the 1950s.

Article scrubbing

While living in Indonesia, Obama went under the name "Barry Soetoro", there are sources in this article that verify that. In fact, this article used to flat out state it. Why was this removed? I think a President having had another name at one point of his life is something worth mentioning. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing has really changed since you tried this last year. Tarc (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Tried what exactly? Adding information to an article with many valid sources? The mention of this fact was in the article before. It's now been scrubbed. I want to know why. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a proposed change, and an explanation of how it is relevant and improves the article, around here somewhere? Fat&Happy (talk) 02:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't be absurd. Obama didn't have another name, he had a nickname. It's not a big deal and I have no idea when/why it was removed or if it should even be there. Your obsession with this trivial thing seems to be the problem. Scrubbing.....Absurd. Dave Dial (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I could very well say it's your obsession (or that of others) with removing it. The news articles state it was a name he went by. If several reputable news sources state this, I certainly think that's a fact worth repeating in an article about the man. They do not say "nickname" - that's a word of your invention. From TIME "he was once known by his Indonesian stepfather's surname". NOT A NICKNAME. [2] -- Erroneuz1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC).

Yes, it was essentially a nickname, never a legal name. I grew up in a household with a step-father (let's say "Mr. Smith") as well but legally retained my birth name ("Mr. Jones"). People in the neighborhood did refer to me as "Joe Smith" just because of the association with my step-father. Nowhere else was it ever used. You keep coming back every few months trying to slip this just-a-nickname in, and it simply isn't going to work. Tarc (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, no. The articles do not say that "Barry Soetoro" was a nickname. Barry, sure, but not with the surname. You are not the central Obama authority here. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 05:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the reasons why this will not be in theses articles is because of the innuendos and complete lack of intelligence of the 'birthers' and others who wish to equate Obama having a nickname, and using his step-fathers surname, as some sort of 'alias' used to cover up something. As long as that remains true, and reliable sources do not expand on this, it should not be in the article because of undue weight. Dave Dial (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything like that at all. All I'm saying is that a number of articles clearly state he did go by another name, and there's no reason to ignore something like this. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting the sources. Same as you did last year. This is a settled topic as far as I am concerned. Tarc (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that, particularly if this is something people argue about and sources such as Time have published the notion, then there should at least be a mention of this issue incorporating sources on both sides of the equation. prat (talk) 13:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

INCREDIBLE! So, Barry Soetoro has vanished into the Memory Hole at Orwellian "wikipedia". Wow! Just, WOW! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.165.227 (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Too many addresses

Why is the number and street listed of every flat that Dunham and her parents occupied when she had Obama? I've never seen so much attention given in an article to listing every address. It makes this really tedious to wade through. If editors really want such data, please put it in notes, so that the content can focus on more important elements of Obama's childhood than addresses.Parkwells (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree - I deleted the most trivial; perhaps putting into a note might work although it's difficult to see how most of such addresses could be noteworthy. rewinn (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Early Life in Seattle

Would be extremely nice if you folks at Wikipedia gave credit where credit is due to History Link, The Online Encyclopedia of Washington State, and researcher Phil Dougherty [3] for insightful exploration of President Obama's year-plus as a Seattleite. Ann Dunham, a resident of King County for five additional years; following the spring quarter at the University of Washington it is possible Ann was employed in one of the support roles occasioned by the then-running Century 21 Exposition (The Seattle World's Fair), although this remains speculation. And for the birthers out there, no, he was not born in either Washington or British Columbia; have checked the indexes. Genehisthome (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not said which names were looked for in the checking. Obama's birth might have been registered under "Dunham" or some other name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.205.224 (talk) 11:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It might have been registered under "Rumpelstiltskin". But it was registered under Barack Hussein Obama, II, as clearly shown on his birth certificate and confirmed multiple times by Hawaiian state officials. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2014

Obama was a Senior Lecturer not a Professor. As Politifact explains, senior lecturer is a position with professor like status. See Politifact and University of Chicago Clarification on Obama's title. 72.193.222.245 (talk) 03:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Please search through these discussions. If you still want to change it, please open a new discussion to get consensus. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Das oppos du mooching

I inserted the text "A pun name based on the word "mooching," flipped backwards, to indicate the opposite, a reference to Hawaii being under capital pressures with regard to land rights and user rights." It was good faith reverted, and the records are in the history. (revert). Strange though that there seems to be a redundant copy of the above text. -Akuniyo (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Please provide a citation for the derivation of "choom" from "mooch". Also, I think that you may have inadvertently inserted your text in a citation title on your first edit of the article, which would explain the apparent duplication. Peaceray (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

That does not seem to be indicated in the hard fort copy. I actually looked at the diff before the revert was made. Can we compare the versions in El Espanya fort, with those in the Iceland district? - -Akuniyo (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see diff of Early life and career of Barack Obama where your comment was added to the source title. Scroll down to reference #42 to see its effect. Peaceray (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)