Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:32, 4 October 2010

Click to manually purge the article's cache

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 is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barack Obama article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84Auto-archiving period: 25 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

Template:Community article probation

faq page Frequently asked questions 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.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government 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 supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). Template:USP-Article United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections. Barack Obama (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. U.S. Congress High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) person(s). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Illinois High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hawaii Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Kansas Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Kansas 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.KansasWikipedia:WikiProject KansasTemplate:WikiProject KansasKansas Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chicago Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Columbia University Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Indonesia Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. [REDACTED] African diaspora Mid‑importance [REDACTED] 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Africa: Kenya Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Kenya (assessed as Low-importance). Spoken Misplaced Pages 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 Template:WPCD-People

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Jose Antonio Vargas (August 17, 2009). "The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph. Alison Stewart, Rachel Martin (2008-04-03). "'Round the Clock: Obama, Clinton Wiki-Warfare". The Bryant Park Project, NPR. Brooke Gladstone, Bob Garfield (2008-04-04). "Editors in Chief". On The Media, NPR. Eve Fairbanks (2008-04-09). "Wiki Woman". The New Republic. Jesse Brown (2008-04-10). "Hillary's Wiki Defender". Search Engine, CBC Radio One. Tom Foreman (2008-04-11). "Misplaced Pages Wars". This Week..., CNN. John J. Miller (2008-04-21). "Liberal Web". National Review. Kelly Heyboer (2008-05-28). "Clinton's entry in Misplaced Pages has a watchdog". The Star-Ledger. Paul Murnane (2008-05-28). "NJ Man Appoints Himself Misplaced Pages Watchdog". WCBS Newsradio 880. Noam Cohen (2008-11-09). "Updating a Reference Site on the Fly". The New York Times. Adrian Bridgwater (January 22, 2009). "Obama Misplaced Pages page under possible security attack". ZDNet. Aaron Klein (March 8, 2009). "Misplaced Pages scrubs Obama eligibility". WorldNetDaily. Joshua Rhett Miller (March 9, 2009). "Obama's Misplaced Pages Page Distances President from Wright and Ayers". Fox News Channel. Mark Coleman (March 10, 2009). "Barack Obama 'receives preferential treatment on Misplaced Pages', report claims". The Daily Telegraph. Noam Cohen (July 19, 2009). "Misplaced Pages May Be a Font of Facts, but It's a Desert for Photos". The New York Times.

	Barack Obama is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
[REDACTED]	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 4, 2008.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 12, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted August 18, 2004 Today's featured article Main Page January 23, 2007 Featured article review Kept July 26, 2007 Featured article review Kept April 15, 2008 Featured article review Kept September 16, 2008 Featured article review Kept November 4, 2008 Today's featured article Main Page December 2, 2008 Featured article review Kept March 10, 2009 Featured article review Kept March 16, 2010 Featured article review Kept A news item involving this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on November 5, 2008. Current status: Featured article

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84

Special discussion pages Article probation, Incidents Historical diffs, Weight, Race

This page has archives. Sections older than 25 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Obama's Faith

I ran across this article and thought it might be an appropriate source identifying Christianity as Obama's declared faith. It also mentions that he draws from Eastern religions, Islam, and Judaism. I hesitate to plop it into the article right away, though, so I thought I'd bring it up here. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It is from an interview with a notable journalist (Cathleen Falsani) in a notable publication (Chicago Sun Times), so it should be OK as a source for the article.--JayJasper (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a very good interview, and outlines what many have suspected Obama's beliefs were, put into writing with his own words. No particular dogma or exact 'brand' of Christianity, just Christian. I'm sure people who are religious/spiritual but have college degrees can relate. As for using it as a reliable source, I have no problem with it. Dave Dial (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to the FAQ above, it would POV to not mention ANY muslim connection to his family roots. Granted he is christian, fair enough and it should be given greatest emphasis, but considering most of his family is Muslim that ought to be mention too.Lihaas (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone making edits or reverting edits regarding Obama's religion views/position please reference this talk page, its FAQ, and this section for discussion prior to further edits. Thanks --Topperfalkon (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Obama is a NIGGER. Thats all that needs to be said that he shouldnt be in office. He is not runnning this country properly because he is a NIGGER. It would be bad enough if he was a NIGGER that was born in the States, but he was born in the African Safari to a NIGGER TRIBE. How he ended up in America is unknown and truly remarkable. AMERICA SHOULD BE SCARED....REALLY SCARED BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY IS BEING RUN BY A DAM APE, I MEAN NIGGER. WELL WHATS THE DIFFERENCE, HE MINE AS WELL BE AN APE.

I don't agree with Lihas. Obama's beliefs are his own, and have no connection with other family member's belief. The article is about Obama. To bring in the fact that some of his family have different beiliefs would skew into POV. I mean, if for instance, in the same couple of sentences the article states "Obama is Christian" then next to that "But some family members are Wikipedian" seems to be an attempt to skew toward some sort of POV. Thanks. (This is the first time I have edited on the Obama aritcle.) ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 08:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Steve Quinn (Welcome, Steve!). The religious beliefs of Obama's relatives are of little consequence when compared with Obama's own stated position, just as his "mixed" race heritage is of little consequence compared with his personal identification as an African-American. Frankly, I'm uncomfortable with some of the calls to note Obama's tenuous connection with Islam, as if that's a bad thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Presidential Polls

Just wondering: should we include a presidential job approval graph like other presidential articles have had?--Schwindtd (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Have other presidential articles had that? I just don't remember one for Bush and Clinton predates Misplaced Pages so I am guessing one was never added to his. If it was ever on Bush's article, it isn't now. I personally am not a fan because there are too many varying surveys that could be used and choosing what data to use and how to weight it would only lead to considerable conflict. However, if such a graph were to be used it certainly shouldn't be used here, it should be used in the article about his presidency. It doesn't make sense to put a graph of his approval ratings into his bio. I could see referencing it in the article if the generally acceptable numbers hit notable highs or lows at particular points. But that's just my thought on it.Jdlund (talk) 05:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't his full ethnicity African-American/Caucasian be included?

Why isn't there anything in here about him being African-American and Caucasian? The terms denote ethnicity, not skin color, and so should both probably be included so as to not give a false impression, as we would write the same thing for someone of two African-American parents, but he is different and so we should use another term to portray that.

Inclusive, I also spoke to someone the other day that didn't even know President Obama was Caucasian and African-American, which[REDACTED] seems to be perpetuating by not saying at the beginning that he's African-American and Caucasian. He's equally both so we should include that. Otherwise you should just say he's the first dark-skinned president? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatzup45 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you see Q2 in the FAQ at the top of this page? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Signing the closing of threads

I ask again that all editors sign their names when closing a thread here on the talk page. It's courteous and also enhances the historical record. Some of you have been really good about doing this, but please, everyone do this. Ikilled007 (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama nao nasceu no Kenya??

Bom minha duvida eh essa, se ele eh um presidende afro-americano, pq eh que colocaram q ele nasceu em Honolulu Hawaii, que pertence aos EUA, sendo que ele mesmo diz em outras reportagens, inclusive postadas no youtube que ele nasceu no Kenya? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.92.225.183 (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You would be better off at pt:Talk:Barack Obama. But the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii and not Kenya is accepted by everyone except a select group of people. Grsz 19:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You can find more information about this at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and in the FAQ sections at the top of this page. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"The Iraq"

I don't have an account and the page is locked. Someone want to remove the definite article "the" from the captioned picture in the "Iraq War" section? Not that we don't appreciate your contributions, Miss South Carolina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.137.31.108 (talk) 11:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Good eye. I've changed the caption. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"Cultural and political image" addition

This new addition seems to go overboard in the strength of its claims ("without precedent in modern history" - what about Kennedy?), the laudatory tone, and WP:WEIGHT. It's also out of chronological sequence, and unsourced. We already have two paragraphs on the positive international opinion of Obama from his first year in office, so I don't think we need more. It might make a little sense to have an image to illustrate how Europeans or others think of him, but why this particular image by Jorge Rodriguez-Gerada? The person who added this is editing from a new single-purpose account that has done nothing but expand the article about the artist, and add mention of him to this and three other articles. Under the circumstances I think we should remove the whole thing from this and the other articles, and issue a WP:COI notice to the editor. Any thoughts? - Wikidemon (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like self (or atleast friendly) promotion to me. Axe it WD. Grsz 16:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Iraq War

The article states, "On August 31, 2010, Obama announced that the U.S. combat mission in Iraq was over."

But this is not true.

On September 5, 2010, Associated Press reported, "Days after the U.S. officially ended combat operations and touted Iraq's ability to defend itself, American troops found themselves battling heavily armed militants assaulting an Iraqi military headquarters in the center of Baghdad on Sunday. The fighting killed 12 people and wounded dozens."

On September 7, 2010, CNN reported, "An Iraqi soldier opened fire Tuesday on a group of U.S. soldiers in northern Iraq, killing two and wounding nine others, the U.S. military and the Iraqi military said."

The article should be corrected to reflect these facts.

71.182.189.126 (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is correct that this is Obama's announcement. Given length constraints and the difficulty agreeing on things around here, it is not practical to update this parent article constantly to stay fresh with the news of the day. There is probably more room for that in the various articles about the war and about Obama's foreign policy. After some amount of time, say a few weeks from now when we know whether things are quiet or the skirmishes continue, we can look back and decide whether it's worth adding a parenthetical note that despite the announcement the fighting continued for a while (or got worse, or better, or whichever way it happens). - Wikidemon (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Hi Grundle. "The combat mission is over" means just that; what the troops were there for is at an end, and they can/will be withdrawn from the theatre of operations. That doesn't magically mean that hostilities end or that they will not defend themselves when attacked. Tarc (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Recently, I was with some veterans of Operation Dragoon, who admitted surprise when told that their campaign ended on 15 Sep 44. One remarked, "Someone forgot to tell the Germans" who kept shooting at him. While Presidents, Generals and historians may make pronouncements about when something has ended, that doesn't mean people stop shooting.... --Habap (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Exeternl links

I dont know if this ahs been said, but WP:Consensus can change and WP:EL[REDACTED] is not a repository of links, so the lsit needs to be cut.

1. certainly dont need a whole list of bios, some can be cited in here (and if they can be then theres no need for EL's)
2. news articles dont need to be here, or if a link to a search fo obama 1-2 can suffice
3. in linewith the above, directories/news searches can be cut too (some 1-2 combined)
4. official sites re the links to have, so this seems good.Lihaas (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Article size

WP:Article size means this page is way too long and takes forever to load, now there already are split off pages, yet at least 2 section still go on for para's on end. A summation and a link to the main page is the point of a split so those 2 can be cut down to size somehow. ill leave it to the page monitors to decide, because this is "their baby" instead of fightingLihaas (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Readable prose is well within the proper limit. The physical size of the page is large because of the large body of references (a higher standard/frequency of sourcing prevents disputes on BLPs that can attract controversy). -- Scjessey (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ownership of article

This article seems to have WP:OWNERSHIP issues here with various editors promptly removing anything added they dont like. to cite this blatant ownership: says added by "article by new editor" If he means that im a new editor them that is not true, if its to this article then that doesnt mean people are restricted from editing articles on wikipedia. this is an open encyclopaedia and furthermore he blindly reverted EVERYTHING in the edits which is ground for either pov or vandalism (take your pick).

is written from an WP:RS with the clear caveat that he was accused not that he is or making an affirmation. the editor's own insecurities of an attack are more suited to a weblog.

Furthermore, when challenging the edit he has not mentioned a word here on talk. If this protecting page by some whitehouse staff members continues it needs to go for admin control.

i have also already posted above to discuss my edit BEFORE revert, yet Newross reverted the tags (in addition to EVERY other edit in between including the cleanup) without saying anything on talk

To explain then the other part of the sub-section merger, all the biographical data was put to a logical one section instead of being spread around the page. I just made it a seperate subsection as a reward of recognition to whoever editor took the time to write it. (maybe that was unwarranted too) (Lihaas (talk) 11:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)).

I support the reversion made by Brothejr (diff) that you mentioned above. You (Lihaas) made some massive changes to the article by moving some sections and more. In the middle of those changes you introduced a paragraph starting 'He was accused of heading to the "dark side"...' which was correctly reverted because it was someone's opinion written as fact, and it used some inappropriate language (dark side?), and is undue. Re your comment about "admin control", please see the "This article has been placed on article probation" note in the header at the top of this page. Your complaints are unfounded. Per WP:BRD it is up to you to explain why your bold edits should prevail rather than the established version. If you are going to reply to yourself, please leave your original signature because it is confusing to see indented comments when they are all from the same person. Johnuniq (talk) 12:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

There are definitely overreactions to content in the article. Two issues though; it is a featured article and very controversial. The revert removed SmackBot fixes and a bot-added link to the Aymaran Misplaced Pages as well. Difficult to revert the intermediate edits but better care should have been taken. The revert in was from an opinion piece and cannot hold its own in a BLP. I don't consider you a new editor but Newross may have assumed you didn't know how controversial, BLP and featured articles are treated. It is always best to discuss edits here, particularly if they are large. As far as ownership, there is a group of editors that prowl the Obama and other liberal/conservative pages. Some look more like SPAs and others are legitimately around to help control the quality of articles.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, the article is actually not too long, so I have removed that tag. Article length is judged by "readable prose" as noted at WP:SIZE. Tarc (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• I will say that I agree that (11) was probably incorrect, but (12) was definitely correct. But I would suggest to you that if you are going to make edits on controversial articles that are on probation, you should be aware of the history of changes on the article and accept that your edits may be challenged. Especially if you sandwich edits like this in between what I consider article improvements, while also making bizarre accusations and diving in head first defending a banned sock puppet that has over 75 socks over the last month or so and has been adding the same tired bullshit over and over. You are going to meet resistance to your edits if you are going to come in making these kinds of edits. So I would suggest that instead of making sweeping changes to the article, and unfounded accusations on the talk page, you restart and take a more collaborative tone. Dave Dial (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the talk page section again per WP:DENY, and suggest we close down this one as well for the same reason. There is zero chance of any of this getting into the article in this manner. I already moved this discussion] to the talk page of the editor who asked the question to answer any question about socking or the history of the article. As fond as I am of the sock in question, taking his troll bait here will only encourage him. Aggressively demanding that we take the bait here is not good. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive massive change to article organization

In the first-ever edits to this article by User:Lihaas on September 17, 2010:

• It was inappropriate to make a WP:BRD massive change to the organization of this contentious, on-probation, featured article with absolutely NO prior discussion whatsoever, and it was inappropriate to immediately reinstate the same WP:BRD massive change after it was reverted.
  • It was disruptive to move the long "Family and personal life" (trivia) section from the end of the article and insert it into the middle of a chronological account of Obama's career between his work in New York City at Business International Corporation and the New York Public Interest Research Group from 1983–1985 and his community organizing work in Chicago as director of the Developing Communities Project from 1985–1988.
  • It was disruptive to move the stale, extraneous "Political positions" section from near the end of the article and insert it into the middle of a chronological account of Obama's career between his work as a civil rights attorney from 1993–1996 and his service as Illinois state Senator from 1997–2004.
    • As has been discussed several times () in the talk page archives, the stale, extraneous "Political positions" section does not belong in this article, and should have been removed when a "Presidency" section consuming 40% of the article was added which covers Obama presidential administration political policies.
• It was inappropriate "drive-by tagging" to add "{long|section}" tags to a featured article with no prior (or subsequent) discussion on this talk page about which sections you thought were too long, why you thought the sections were too long, and what material you would suggest removing.
• It was inappropriate (and ignorant) to add a {fact} tag with an edit summary "was before ,mayube after -- bnut NOW?" saying a citation was needed in the infobox to establish that Obama has a private residence in Chicago, Illinois;
  • there is an entire paragraph (with citations) about Obama's Chicago, Illinois house in the "Family and personal life" section (that was apparently moved without being read);
  • Obama stayed in his Chicago, Illinois house on his 49th birthday last month
• It was inappropriate (and silly) to add a paragraph based on an op-ed column "Obama edges to the dark side" posted that day on Aljazeera.net by history professor and rock guitarist Mark LeVine—and simultaneously add a {long} tag to the article.
• Re: "different titles for sections doesnt mean one can violate the essence -- and why are the refs all lsited here and not inline?"
  This article uses shortened footnotes with separate "Notes" and "References" sections; see WP:CITESHORT.
• It was unrealistic to begin editing this article with an inappropriate WP:BRD massive change with absolutely NO prior discussion whatsoever, followed by a consecutive series of further inappropriate and uninformed edits, and expect an editor attempting to expeditiously undo the consecutive series of inappropriate edits to preserve the last edit (that removed 11 external links) in the series of edits.

Newross (talk) 02:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Newross, for taking the time to write this up. I agree with your analysis. Tvoz/talk 05:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Overall I agree. However, this page isn't a good place to go over editor behavior. Could we close this down and take it elsewhere, if at all? - Wikidemon (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

A question of Race

Some trivial info

The paragraph about his smoking and some of the details on the teams he supports should be removed to the sub-articles as they're just trivia and don't belong in the main article. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class biography articles
• FA-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Low-importance
• Unassessed United States presidential elections articles
• Unknown-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• FA-Class U.S. Congress articles
• High-importance U.S. Congress articles
• WikiProject U.S. Congress persons
• FA-Class WikiProject Illinois articles
• High-importance WikiProject Illinois articles
• FA-Class Hawaii articles
• Mid-importance Hawaii articles
• WikiProject Hawaii articles
• FA-Class Kansas articles
• Mid-importance Kansas articles
• WikiProject Kansas articles
• FA-Class Chicago articles
• Top-importance Chicago articles
• WikiProject Chicago articles
• FA-Class Indonesia articles
• Low-importance Indonesia articles
• WikiProject Indonesia articles
• FA-Class African diaspora articles
• Mid-importance African diaspora articles
• WikiProject African diaspora articles
• FA-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• FA-Class Africa articles
• Mid-importance Africa articles
• FA-Class Kenya articles
• Low-importance Kenya articles
• WikiProject Kenya articles
• WikiProject Africa articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles