Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:::::If someone quits going to St. Francis Xavier because he doesn't like the priest, does he stop being a Catholic? Unless Obama says he's no longer UCC, we have no business saying anything else. ] (]) 21:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::If someone quits going to St. Francis Xavier because he doesn't like the priest, does he stop being a Catholic? Unless Obama says he's no longer UCC, we have no business saying anything else. ] (]) 21:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
:If someone starts going to church solely to use such attendence as a vehicle for social or political power, do they become a christian?] (]) 12:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::(Back.) Bugs, you are correct, the media's use of ''Mainline'' seems to coordinate with mention of the UCC. (Sure, he's also classed in general as "liberal Christian" but such a label is too nebulous for our encyclopedic classification of Obama's religious subgroup, IMO.) ] 21:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::(Back.) Bugs, you are correct, the media's use of ''Mainline'' seems to coordinate with mention of the UCC. (Sure, he's also classed in general as "liberal Christian" but such a label is too nebulous for our encyclopedic classification of Obama's religious subgroup, IMO.) ] 21:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HawaiiWikipedia:WikiProject HawaiiTemplate:WikiProject HawaiiHawaii
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
To view the response to a question, click the link to the right of the question.
Family and religious background
Q1: Why isn't Barack Obama's Muslim heritage or education included in this article?
A1: Barack Obama was never a practitioner of Islam. His biological father having been "raised as a Muslim" but being a "confirmed atheist" by the time Obama was born is mentioned in the article. Please see this article on Snopes.com for a fairly in-depth debunking of the myth that Obama is Muslim. Barack Obama did not attend an Islamic or Muslim school while living in Indonesia age 6–10, but Roman Catholic and secular public schools. See , , The sub-articles Public image of Barack Obama and Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories address this issue.
Q2: The article refers to him as African American, but his mother is white and his black father was not an American. Should he be called African American, or something else ("biracial", "mixed", "Kenyan-American", "mulatto", "quadroon", etc.)?
A2: Obama himself and the media identify him, the vast majority of the time, as African American or black. African American is primarily defined as "citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa", a statement that accurately describes Obama and does not preclude or negate origins in the white populations of America as well. Thus we use the term African American in the introduction, and address the specifics of his parentage in the first headed section of the article. Many individuals who identify as black have varieties of ancestors from many countries who may identify with other racial or ethnic groups. See our article on race for more information on this concept. We could call him the first "biracial" candidate or the first "half black half white" candidate or the first candidate with a parent born in Africa, but Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source which reports what other reliable sources say, and most of those other sources say "first African American". Readers will learn more detail about his ethnic background in the article body.
Q3: Why can't we use his full name outside of the lead? It's his name, isn't it?
A3: The relevant part of the Manual of Style says that outside the lead of an article on a person, that person's conventional name is the only one that's appropriate. (Thus one use of "Richard Milhous Nixon" in the lead of Richard Nixon, "Richard Nixon" thereafter.) Talk page consensus has also established this.
Q4: Why is Obama referred to as "Barack Hussein Obama II" in the lead sentence rather than "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr."? Isn't "Jr." more common?
A4: Although "Jr." is typically used when a child shares the name of his or her parent, "II" is considered acceptable, as well. And in Obama's case, the usage on his birth certificate is indeed "II", and is thus the form used at the beginning of this article, per manual of style guidelines on names.
Q5: Why don't we cover the claims that Obama is not a United States citizen, his birth certificate was forged, he was not born in Hawaii, he is ineligible to be President, etc?
A5: The Barack Obama article consists of an overview of major issues in the life and times of the subject. The controversy over his eligibility, citizenship, birth certificate etc is currently a fairly minor issue in overall terms, and has had no significant legal or mainstream political impact. It is therefore not currently appropriate for inclusion in an overview article. These claims are covered separately in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.
Controversies, praise, and criticism
Q6: Why isn't there a criticisms/controversies section?
A6: Because a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praise and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per the Criticism essay.
Q7: Why isn't a certain controversy/criticism/praise included in this article?
A7: Misplaced Pages's Biography of living persons policy says that "riticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." Criticism or praise that cannot be reliably sourced cannot be placed in a biography. Also, including everything about Obama in a single article would exceed Misplaced Pages's article size restrictions. A number of sub-articles have been created and some controversies/criticisms/praises have been summarized here or been left out of this article altogether, but are covered in some detail in the sub-articles.
Q8: But this controversy/criticism/praise is all over the news right now! It should be covered in detail in the main article, not buried in a sub-article!
A8: Misplaced Pages articles should avoid giving undue weight to something just because it is in the news right now. If you feel that the criticism/controversy/praise is not being given enough weight in this article, you can try to start a discussion on the talk page about giving it more. See WP:BRD.
Q9: This article needs much more (or much less) criticism/controversy.
A9: Please try to assume good faith. Like all articles on Misplaced Pages, this article is a work in progress so it is possible for biases to exist at any point in time. If you see a bias that you wish to address, you are more than welcome to start a new discussion, or join in an existing discussion, but please be ready to provide sources to support your viewpoint and try to keep your comments civil. Starting off your discussion by accusing the editors of this article of having a bias is the quickest way to get your comment ignored.
Talk and article mechanics
Q10: This article is over 275kb long, and the article size guideline says that it should be broken up into sub-articles. Why hasn't this happened?
A10: The restriction mentioned in WP:SIZE is 60kB of readable prose, not the byte count you see when you open the page for editing. As of May 11, 2016, this article had about 10,570 words of readable prose (65 kB according to prosesize tool), only slightly above the guideline. The rest is mainly citations and invisible comments, which do not count towards the limit.
Q11: I notice this FAQ mentions starting discussions or joining in on existing discussions a lot. If Misplaced Pages is supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, shouldn't I just be bold and fix any biases that I see in the article?
A11: It is true that Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and no one needs the permission of other editors of this article to make changes to it. But Misplaced Pages policy is that, "While the consensus process does not require posting to the discussion page, it can be useful and is encouraged." This article attracts editors that have very strong opinions about Obama (positive and negative) and these editors have different opinions about what should and should not be in the article, including differences as to appropriate level of detail. As a result of this it may be helpful, as a way to avoid content disputes, to seek consensus before adding contentious material to or removing it from the article.
Q12: The article/talk page has been vandalized! Why hasn't anyone fixed this?
A12: Many editors watch this article, and it is unlikely that vandalism would remain unnoticed for long. It is possible that you are viewing a cached result of the article; If so, try bypassing your cache.
Disruption
Q13: Why are so many discussions closed so quickly?
A13: Swift closure is common for topics that have already been discussed repeatedly, topics pushing fringe theories, and topics that would lead to violations of Misplaced Pages's policy concerning biographies of living persons, because of their disruptive nature and the unlikelihood that consensus to include the material will arise from the new discussion. In those cases, editors are encouraged to read this FAQ for examples of such common topics.
Q14: I added new content to the article, but it was removed!
A14: Double-check that your content addition is not sourced to an opinion blog, editorial, or non-mainstream news source. Misplaced Pages's policy on biographies of living persons states, in part, "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims." Sources of information must be of a very high quality for biographies. While this does not result in an outright ban of all blogs and opinion pieces, most of them are regarded as questionable. Inflammatory or potentially libelous content cited to a questionable source will be removed immediately without discussion.
Q15: I disagree with the policies and content guidelines that prevent my proposed content from being added to the article.
A15: That's understandable. Misplaced Pages is a work in progress. If you do not approve of a policy cited in the removal of content, it's possible to change it. Making cogent, logical arguments on the policy's talk page is likely to result in a positive alteration. This is highly encouraged. However, this talk page is not the appropriate place to dispute the wording used in policies and guidelines. If you disagree with the interpretation of a policy or guideline, there is also recourse: Dispute resolution. Using the dispute resolution process prevents edit wars, and is encouraged.
Q16: I saw someone start a discussion on a topic raised by a blog/opinion piece, and it was reverted!
A16: Unfortunately, due to its high profile, this talk page sees a lot of attempts to argue for policy- and guideline-violating content – sometimes the same violations many times a day. These are regarded as disruptive, as outlined above. Consensus can change; material previously determined to be unacceptable may become acceptable. But it becomes disruptive and exhausting when single-purpose accounts raise the same subject(s) repeatedly in the apparent hopes of overcoming significant objections by other editors. Editors have reached a consensus for dealing with this behavior:
Efforts by established single-purpose accounts to introduce such poorly-sourced content will be summarily deleted.
On the second such attempt, the source in question will be immediately reported to the reliable sources noticeboard for administrative assistance.
New editors who wish to engage in discussions on previously rejected content are encouraged to ensure that their sources do not violate any of Misplaced Pages's policies and sourcing guidelines.
Other
Q17: Why aren't the 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns covered in more detail?
A17: They are, in sub-articles called Barack Obama 2008 presidential campaign and Barack Obama 2012 presidential campaign. Things that are notable in the context of the presidential campaigns, but are of minimal notability to Barack Obama's overall biography, belong in the sub-articles. Campaign stops, the presidential debates, and the back-and-forth accusations and claims of the campaigns can all be found there.
Please skim this page first (and ideally the FAQ) before starting a new discussion on the "president elect" designation, or Obama's race/ethnicity. You'll probably find there's already a section there where you can add your comments. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The "Race/ethnicity" section has (presumably by "Wikidemon", the self-styled "owner" of this page) not just been consolidated or shifted to another already existing section: it has, in effect, simply been removed. The contents are no longer available unless one presses a special link to enter the "archive". Misplaced Pages guidelines explicitly forbid tampering with other contributors' material on a Talk Page. The current treatment of the "Race/ethnicity" section (rendering none of the contributions visible on the main Talk Page, effectively "hiding" it all inside an "archive") is a violation of these guidelines.Jakob37 (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Anything that can be done to speed the loading of this talk page up, I'm all for it. It's taking forever to load, and old issues that have been discussed ad infinitum don't need to be here. It's hard enough to discuss current issues as it is. Dayewalker (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
In that case, there are several other "overly large" sections that could be archived. If User#1 thinks that Topic X is too long and boring, then that user may, without further ado, hide its contents inside an archive. But then User#2 thinks that Topic Y is too long and boring, so that user hides Topic Y's material inside an archive, although User#1 thinks it should stay visible. Is that how it's going to work?Jakob37 (talk) 05:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
In regards to the issue of African-American, mixed race, Black, designation by oneself vs. by others, etc., this talk page has spiraled completely out of control. I was rather miffed a day or two ago to find that my contributions, along with others, on the subject had, without any consultation, suddenly been stuffed into an archive, and now I am doubly miffed to see that the same subject has grown another head, even much larger than the material subjected to archiving, and yet nobody is archiving it this time -- quite UNFAIR. In any case, the more important point I would like to raise is that 95% to 99% of the contributions on these interconnected topics have no PARTICULAR connection to Obama; these issues are part of the socio-political nature of American (U.S.) life. Since there seems to be no lack of Wiki-editors who love to manipulate other people's contributions, may I suggest that all this material, instead of being archived (effectively out-of-sight, out-of-mind), be used to construct a separate article on "race attitudes in the U.S." or something to that effect (cf. my comment in "Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama" ). The Obama article itself should contain an appropriately brief discussion of Obama's relationship to these issues, followed by a hyperlink to the (proposed) article where these issues are described/discussed in the larger context that they deserve. And the Obama Talk-Page will then hopefully return to a focus on Obama himself. The way that Obama has dealt with these issues is not so different from the way thousands or even millions of other people have done.Jakob37 (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
69.134.20.90 (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC) i have come to notice that some of the people on this board are extremely racist and wont admit in the text of the article that obama is half white ..i understand the importance to some of the people on here that he be considered black but face facts he isnt.. he is listed as the first african american when in fact ,he isnt ..he might be the first half african american ever elected then when a true african american is elected you wont have to undo all the lies you have spouted about this one.this is afterall,a place where people come for knowledge not some general idea that is put forth by some people
69.134.20.90 (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC) bugs , nice brush off if i am so offbase then why isnt it mentioned anywhere in the text about his white hertitage..people are wanting to claim his citzenship but not the people who gave him the right to that citizenship his black father was not a citizen so why is everyone harping on his race and wont acknowledge the white side ..maybe if this source were more fair to other people there wouldnt be the rage about how a man with dual citizenship got elected president or about where he was born when anybody can have a birth certficate made up with about 30 minutes planning just a little research i can be anybody with a legitament birth certficate if you want to fair to the readers and to the man himself at least make it fair
Have you bothered to read past the first paragraph? Like where it states that his mother was white? Oh, and have you found any reliable sources that don't call him "the first African American President"? Of course he's African American. He's also English American. But that last part is hardly news, as most every President has been European American. Baseball Bugs16:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
69.134.20.90 (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC) yes i read the entire article and have seen lots of things about his life not published or ignored but the point i am making which you seem to be dodging he is only half and should be noted that way.. it is not as if it is hidden by him or anybody else if you were half italian 1/4 english and 1/4 russian would you want to be considered just russian ..he is english arabian and kenyan
We describe him the way the reliable sources describe him. And this has been already discussed at length. Your comments bring nothing new to the discussion. Baseball Bugs16:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
69.134.20.90 (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC) so you need to change the slogan from "the 💕" to the free " follow the masses rumormill" if you cant post truths about somebody
First rule: Misplaced Pages bases its information on reliable sources, not on the "rumormill" and not on someone's opinion of the "truth". Second rule: Kindly put your 4 tildes at the END of your comments rather than the beginning. Baseball Bugs17:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
my apologies for posting incorectly ,but back to the main argument so you are saying that it isnt a reliable source that he is half white. if it is a reliable source it should be noted in the lead paragragh instead of half way down on one line69.134.20.90 (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Since I'm a bit intimidated by the attention this article receives, I'm not going to repeat an edit I've had to make several times in the past without some feedback. In the "Cultural and Political Image" section, it states: "With his Kenyan father and white American mother". This is a minor issue, but I think that "white" should be removed, simply because it is unnecessary. That he is of mixed ancestry is well-documented throughout the article. Originally, because I hate the whole concept of race, I wanted all mention of "black" (instead of Luo) and "white" (instead of English/American) removed, but as I am mostly satisfied with the White American article in how it addresses race perceptions in America, it works. The restating of it in the Cultural and Political Image section seems redundant if not obsessive. —Godheval19:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the removal of the term "white", just as I wouldn't use "black" to describe Obama or his father. Since we are talking about the "Cultural and Political Image" section, I think describing his mother as European American would be appropriate. --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking it was redundant to mention ethnicity again at all - his father is listed simply as Kenyan, so the mother should be American. If there is need to mention ethnicity again, then either the used White American or European American are fine.—Godheval20:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Alma mater
Woodrow's Wilson's listed alma maters include Davidson, from which he transferred to Princeton. Working on that logic, should Occidental not be added to Obama's?--203.129.60.245 (talk) 06:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
There is a case in the Supreme Court's docket to investigate whether or not he is qualified to become POTUS, because of the "natural citizen" requirement of the Constitution. According to British law, which applied in Kenya at the time of his birth, he would be born a dual citizen, because he was born in Hawaii, but to a minor mother, and Kenyan father. He would not be a natural citizen, according to some people's definitions. A natural citizen is someone born in the country to two citizen parents. His parents weren't citizens. However, he would be a citizen, because of the 14th ammendment, but not a natural born citizen. The Supreme Court has been called to decide. Shouldn't that be mentioned?
24.21.94.80 (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
This has been discussed at great length and determined not to be a valid addition to this biography. Please see the archives. Tvoz/talk02:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I believe Berg v. Obama is still active in the Supreme Court, but Donofrio v. Wells and Wotnowski v. Bysiewicz have been denied so far. --Bobblehead03:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
While the petition for cert. in Berg v. Obama is still pending, it alleges he was born in Kenya. It does not involve the duel or "primary" citizenship argument/analysis addressed by 24.21.94.80 above. Berg contends that Obama was not born in the U.S. --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
The real conspiracy is the attempt to get people to donate money to fund these 'vital investigations'. Follow the money. (I'd prefer Misplaced Pages not be used as the enabler in this scam, but I guess some fools have to learn by experience.) Flatterworld (talk) 06:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
The other issue is that if your parents are citizens of a different country, even one we dont like, and you are born in the U.S. , You're a Natural Born Citizen. You don't automatically become an Unnatural Born Citizen when its politically convenient for those who are afraid of you. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 08:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Constitutional scholars are not settled on whether one is a "natural born" US citizen or a US citizen, under the scenario described; see also dual citizenship. But, in this case, unless some other "informnation" comes to light, it's safe to assume that Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen. Newguy34 (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
??? Is there a reliable source that says so? Actually, for something as controversial as this in a BLP, there should be several reliable sources that say so before it becomes a candidate for inclusion. Newguy34 (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Tin hat wearersAgain, no. Some wingnuts did a phone interview with Obama's grandmother. Between the bad connection, a bad translation, and confusing and leading questions, they thought she said Obama was born in Kenya. She later straightened people out. Their equally bad recording was their 'smoking gun'. You have to love conspiracy theorists. They will never accept that they are wrong, no matter how much evidence or how many court decisions go against them. Priyanath18:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
You forgot that they apparently edited the recording in order to eliminate the step-grandmother correcting them once she realized they were asking about whether she saw him being born in Kenya rather than saw him when he visited Kenya. --Bobblehead19:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I think Alan Keyes has a suit too, which appears to have more merit and his statements of facts are substantially different than the "tin hat" crew's arguments.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
What you think of the case really has no relevance here, though. It is no more or less notable/fringe/conspiratorial than the previous ones. Tarc (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
The problem with the other cases is not that they are fringe/not notable/or conspiriatal, it is that the parties initiating the action lack standing. Alan Keyes does have standing, and his suit is notable and has been widely reported. I'm not sure what your definition of "notable" is. Appartently you think that your thoughts on note worthyness belong on the talk page, so I hardly see how mine would not.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Quick and easy test on Alan Keyes' suit:
Does the mainstream media generally lend any credence to it? (Yes/No)
Do law scholars lend any credence to it? (Yes/No)
If the answer to either question is yes, then it may be of significant impact to Obama's life, ergo suitable material for his BLP. If the answer to both questions is no, then while it is notable for the sheer amount of noise it has generated, it doesn't belong in this particular article until the unlikely event that the Supreme Court sides with Keyes. --GoodDamon20:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
17 individauls and groups suing an indiviadual or filing suit against him is notable. If 17 individuals sued me in federal court, of course it would be notable to my life. Perhaps the analogy is bad? As far as lend creedence, they acknoledge and report that he has been sued. Reporting it means that they must believe the suit exists, or perhaps I missed your drift.Die4Dixie (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Er, Dixie, since when does legal standing confer notability? That Keyes may have standing (quite debatable, though) does not elevate his suit above the other kooks. Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories is where this subject matter resides, it really has no place in the main article. Tarc (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Er, Tarc, since it was reported widely in the media by reliable third party sources. "When" something becomes notable is established by this bar, not when narrow editors decide what is or is not notable. Perhaps there is some other policy under which grounds you object to this material, and not notability?Die4Dixie (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
You made the claim that since (in your opinion) Keyes has more standing than previous litigants, that that elevates his case above the others, that it is more notable. I find that claim to be rather ridiculous, and see no basis for it in Misplaced Pages policy. Tarc (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
That is not what I said. What I said is that the suit is notable, which you said was the bar for inclusion. The wide reporting of the existance of the suits is evidence of its notability. Perhaps, if you cannot understand why the suit is notable, I could break it down real slow on my talk page for you, if you like.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
The suit is NOT notable. The "wide reporting" of anything does not necessarily make it notable. Of course, the story weaseling its way into wikipedia at all is intended to try to add some false legitimacy to this nonsense. Baseball Bugs22:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Presidents have scores of lawsuits filed against them. That is not notable, neither are the individual lawsuits, unless there is some merit. The coverage of all of these suits is about their kookery, which is their only notability. That's why they are being covered in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. So regarding Keyes, the (tinfoil) hat still fits. Priyanath21:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I like to monitor the Rush Limbaugh page from time to time, to see how the other half lives. As usual, the page is replete with turning every molehill he can find into a mountain, as regards Obama and the Democrats. Yet not a word about this so-called "controversy". Why? Because it's nonsense, and he knows it. The "controversy" exists only in the fantasies of die-hard conspiracy theorists and a few who somehow think they can steal another election for the GOP. There is no controversy. The fact that wikipedia even mentions these fairy tales is more than generous. Baseball Bugs22:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
BB, Limbaugh has covered this issue. He speculated on air that the reason why Obama visited Hawai'i at the end of the election cycle was not because his grandmother was sick, but because he was going to "update" his birth certificate to show that he was born in the US. Granted, that was before Obama's grandmother died, but he has covered the issue on his show. --Bobblehead22:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and he repeated that theory on his page also. That was late October, and at that point he was trying to make a mountain out of that particular anthill. And when she actually died, a day or two before the election, he dropped that theory like a hot potato. The story has no substance, and he realized that. He may be a prevaricator, but he's not a total idiot. Baseball Bugs22:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Is there a WP:SANITYCHECK tag? I guess not, it comes out red. Ask yourself this, though: If there were any objective hint that these allegations were true, don't you think that the FBI, the CIA, the Republican National Committee, the McCain staff, whatever bureau watches elections, or the New York Times wouldn't have jumped on it by now? Do Berg et al have better information sources than all those guys, or did they all conspire to get Obama elected? Sheesh. PhGustaf (talk) 01:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
What happened to the threshold of inclusion being notability and verifiability? You can say what you want, but what it all boils down to is it is negative so therefore it cannot be added to his biography. If a case made it all the way to the Supreme court questioning Mccain's citizenship it would be in the lead sentence. If something is related to Obama, notable, and can be verified by reliable third-party sources then it should be allowed in the biography. There sure have been a lot of changes made to policies for this article, and as long as the article is owned by a couple dozen die hard Obama fans nothing will change. I voted for Obama myself but I leave my POV out of this, there isn't one single negative thing in the entire article. The whole thing reads like a campaign ad, and a big praise section. Have any of you actually compared this article to other articles on political leaders? Like regarding the issue of Obama's race, nearly all of you base your argument on "Obama says this and Obama says that therefore we must say the same thing" when the truth is Obama's opinion isn't even relevant. All that matters is what the sources say, and they report it both ways. Go back and look at the straw poll, nearly every vote was based on what he self-identifies as. I know that WP:RS doesn't exactly apply to this article but... "Primary sources are not considered reliable for statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion." Obama's race is what makes his election historic, and more notable than usual and sources can be found in large number referring to Obama's mixed heritage. None of you will even entertain the idea of a neutral, factual lead such as what I suggested. WP:NPOV exists for a reason and you should not be able to pick and choose which articles it applies to. You act as if Obama being biracial is the opinion of such a minute minority that it would violate undue weight to include it. There are a lot of firsts regarding this election, including how our policies are applied and interpreted. Landon1980 (talk) 04:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
First, the lawsuits are only notable because of their absolute fringieness. That makes them notable as a fringe movement, or for the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article. That is how reliable and mainstream sources are covering the issue, when they do cover it—and their coverage is not nearly as heavy, for example, as the George Bush shoe throwing incident. Which is also notable only for it's wackyness, and not for the George Bush bio article. Regarding the African-American issue, didn't you read the reliable sources quoted above? They are all emphasizing that aspect, often in the first sentence, like this article. The issue of how Obama self-identifies is barely secondary, if at all. The reliable sources are nearly all leading with 'first African-American' or 'first black' to be elected president. So there are no double standards here, only the standard of reliable sources, notability, and Undue Weight. Which is why this is a featured article. Maybe if other politician bios were as well-edited, they too could become featured articles. Priyanath04:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Can you think of another article of such a well-known person that there isn't even one negative thing in it? There is a big picture of the man playing basketball, and talk about him quitting smoking, etc. 67.48.121.203 (talk) 05:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
And his drug use, and his relationship with Tony Rezko. I just looked at the George Bush article for comparison, and it's about equal to this one. Don't worry, after 4-8 years in office, there will be plenty of mud to throw at Obama, if not shoes. Priyanath06:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
As with bringing in that Warren guy to do the religious service. (A Christian, not a Muslim - surprise, surprise - but that's another fringe theory.) Baseball Bugs09:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Yesterday AP reported: "Individual justices and the entire court have turned down emergency appeals over Obama's eligibility at least seven times in the past six weeks." I'm just sayin'.... Flatterworld (talk) 08:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I know you all love Obama. But this page is crashing my PIII 700. Keep it lean. There was no valuable info lost after fat trimming. Just a lot of lard. Thanks -Spotsbooks342 (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with loving or hating Obama. This is a featured article that is carefully edited by a large group of editors, and it is not appropriate to unilaterally make large edits in the way that you did without discussing them here first. If you want to present arguments for the edits you think will improve the article, please do so here. But note that the length of the article is within guidelines and given the significance of the subject, we think it is warranted. Tvoz/talk04:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the time you've all taken to consider my changes to the page. Frankly, I can no longer continue working with you on this particular page, because it literally will not load on my machine: WinXP PIII 700 ~390 MBytes RAM. I leave you with my existing edits. I appreciate your attention. -Spotsbooks342 (talk) 05:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I has an extra computer if u need 1. I am in PA so let me know on my talk page if you are near me. It is P4-2.4 Northwood with 1gb ram. The Obamanator probably can get a better one for free, but this is all I got. Testmasterflex (talk) 07:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
If your PC is crashing, you definitely should not be editing large Misplaced Pages articles. You're more likely to do harm than good. SHEFFIELDSTEEL18:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I like compacting the notes section. Can we keep that, please? Much of the article length comes from that, and the only downside is not being able to see the note section all at once (but one has to scroll anyway). Conveniently, with notes compacted, clicking on a note still takes you directly to it even in the collapsed note section. No downside, plenty of upside.--chaser - t19:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Unless they switched without telling me, they're members of the United Church of Christ, but not affiliated with any particular congregation. PhGustaf (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
It used to say that, and someone removed it on the grounds that they had resigned from their most recent congregation, which stands to reason as they are moving soon. Baseball Bugs16:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Do we have a source for the characterization "Mainline Protestant"? I see that UCC is considered such, but I wonder if we're not teetering on OR with this unless there's a source connecting Obama with the term. Tvoz/talk20:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
UCC is considered Mainline Protestant, and he was in the UCC. That seems like the backwards approach, though. Maybe someone could find out what is the actual denomination he considers himself to belong to at present, if any. Baseball Bugs20:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I changed the template back to UCC. Barring a reference saying that Obama has repudiated the denomination as well as the congregation, I think that's correct. Of course somebody who can't tell a belief system from a building is going to change it tomorrow. PhGustaf (talk)
I think putting UCC back was correct, and that its removal was based on a misunderstanding of the concept, as you're suggesting. Now, if he joins a different denomination when he moves to DC, that would compel a revision, presumably. Baseball Bugs20:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll Google this. Yes, Mainline Protestant at present would teeter on original research, e.g.,
"...Since Barack's policy postions tend to be socially liberal one could surmise that Barack continues within the Mainline and traditionally Calvinist, "Evangelical" tradition and related sects (read: some branch or another of liberal Protestant Christianity) and hasn't given much indication he'd recently verged into his being a generic Movement "Evangelical" or an adherent of related, conservative sects such as Charismatic Evangelicalism (read: some branch of conservative Protestant Christianity)!"
If he's still in the UCC, then by definition he's Mainline Protestant. However, if he's still in the UCC, then he can simply be listed as UCC. Baseball Bugs20:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
If someone quits going to St. Francis Xavier because he doesn't like the priest, does he stop being a Catholic? Unless Obama says he's no longer UCC, we have no business saying anything else. PhGustaf (talk) 21:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
If someone starts going to church solely to use such attendence as a vehicle for social or political power, do they become a christian?Die4Dixie (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
(Back.) Bugs, you are correct, the media's use of Mainline seems to coordinate with mention of the UCC. (Sure, he's also classed in general as "liberal Christian" but such a label is too nebulous for our encyclopedic classification of Obama's religious subgroup, IMO.) Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply …21:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Is "Community Organizer" a profession?
I added it as one in the infobox, and got reverted with the good-faith assertion that it was not a profession but a job. I don't know of any wiki standard for "profession" vis. "job", but I do think it makes good sense to place it there, because community organizing was a major element in Obama's career, and the text says "community organizer" two inches to the left anyway. So I ask for input. And yes, this is no big deal. PhGustaf (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't even know if it's a "job", rather sounds more like a "job description". In fact, he was "director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP), a church-based community organization", for three years. Does 3 years really qualify it as one of his "profession"s, and what would that profession be called? I think it's best left off. Priyanath00:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
view · edit Frequently asked questions
