Jump to content

Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 52

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55

Free media relevant to Obama and stimulus plan

I just took a look at the Recovery.gov copyright info page and it appears that all content on the site - even the content produced by third-party vendors - is either public domain or CC-BY. In particular there's a high-quality video on the front page that would be a great demonstration of Obama's oratory style. Might be other media to dig out of there too, for this article and for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act article. Dcoetzee 01:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's nothing new; a good proportion of our free content is PD-USGov. I'll take a look, to see if there's anything juicy. Maybe Obama's first weekly address? Sceptre (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Which, incidentally, turns out to be about the stimulus. Awesome. Sceptre (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Neurolysis kindly converted Obama's first weekly address to Wikipedia format. The image can be found here. Now, the question is: where to put it? Sceptre (talk) 02:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Awesome. Off the top of my head, I'd say either Presidency_of_Barack_Obama#Legislation_and_executive_orders or Presidency_of_Barack_Obama#Transparency. I'm not sure if it should go in this article too - if so I'd either put it in the section on his presidency, or add a section about his addresses and add it there. Dcoetzee 06:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The inaugural address is also public domain, also in HD, if you want an example of his crowd-working style. Bigbluefish (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Re Dcoetzee: part of this article, "Cultural and public image", talks about Obama's weekly addresses. Though I agree, it would also be suitable for the Presidency of... article. Sceptre (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

British citizenship

I WOULD SUBMIT THAT INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IN THIS ARTICLE IS APPROPRIATE. IT IS ACCURATE, NEUTRAL, INTERESTING AND SUPPORTED BY FACTUAL REFERENCE. IT IS IN NO WAY OFFENSIVE, DEFAMATORY OR PROFANE.

It does not dispute his USA citizenship or his entitlement to be president based on birth. In fact the proposed footnote says "Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC."

USA law does not prohibit dual citizeship (http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html). Supreme Court rulings in United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark (1898), Perkins v. Elg (1939), Mandoli v. Acheson, 344 U.S. 133 (1952), Kawakita v. U.S. (1952), Afroyim_v._Rusk 387 U.S. 253 (1967) and Vance v. Terrazas 444 U.S. 252 (1980), address citizenship.

Similar information is included in the William Henry Harrison article (and is usually included in any biography of President Harrison without controversy). It seems uncontroversal here as well.

The fact of the matter is that he held dual citizenship in the USA and the British Empire at birth. He lost the British citizenship on December 12, 1963 and became a citizen of Kenya. Thus from December 12, 1963 until August 4, 1982 he held dual citizenship in the USA and Kenya. He lost Kenyan citizenship on his 21st birthday.

Suggested Text:

Obama is the first President of the United States to have been born a British Citizen since William Henry Harrison.

Suggested footnote:

[2] When Barack Obama Jr. was born in 1961 Kenya was a British colony. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status and the citizenship of his children was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): "Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth." Therefore, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.

see also http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html & http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/British_Overseas_citizen

Natwebb (talk) 07:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The factcheck.org link that you provide does back up the gist of what you say. But you'd be more persuasive if you eschewed announcements in BOLD CAPITALS. Next question: Is this little matter of sufficient noteworthiness to deserve a mention in this article? Perhaps this article should be limited to material publicized in the mainstream media. (By the I mean newspapers that present news, not "Fox News", AM radio and so forth.) Has this been so publicized? If so, where? If not, what makes you think it's so important? Morenoodles (talk) 07:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Pass. You've got to have a reliable source to be able to include this stuff in Wiki. All you have is a link to a website that admits the Rocky Mountain News writer was wrong and some original research on your part, neither of which is sufficient grounds for inclusion. Newguy34 (talk) 07:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The website doesn't "admit" the RMN writer was wrong, it says he was wrong. It then goes on to say what Natwebb says above, pretty much. Where's the OR? Of course there are other objections to Natwebb's proposal. Morenoodles (talk) 08:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
He says "tomato", she says "round, fruitlike veggie". The simple fact is that the sole RS on the subject that has been produced by anyone is the since-retracted article from the RMN. If we had something from ABC, BBC, MSNBC, Fox News, etc. then we could consider. Newguy34 (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Uh, hello? The tomato is a fruit, so perhaps that wasn't the best rhetorical flourish. Here's what the RMN wrongly said: Holds both American and Kenyan (since 1963) citizenship. Here's one part of what the factcheck.org article says: at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC. Factcheck.org, which is a highly regarded authority (to my mind, hugely more so than "Fox News"), is quite persuasive about this. And it's something close to this -- and not some discredited silliness about how Obama is British now -- that Natwebb wants to add. His most recent addition of it has an edit summary THAT'S ALL IN CAPS, which of course isn't the right way to win friends and influence people. But its removal had an edit summary with a completely unjustified charge of tinfoil nuttery. Let's cut the crap: the US has a small but energetic minority of far-right nutballs who are so utterly bankrupt of ideas that they'll seize on the most trivial ambiguity about Obama in order to hang a loony conspiracy on it; also, Natwebb's addition is compatible with their rubbish (just as his use of capitals fits their rhetorical style). However, Natwebb has been polite, his addition was sourced, and the mere fact that what he wrote is compatible with far-right idiocy goes no more to prove it is either far-right idiocy or "tinfoil nuttery" than my occasional appreciation of the convenience of (Hitler-dictated) autobahns goes to prove that I'm a Nazi. This doesn't mean that Natwebb's addition should stay; indeed, I think it should go, as not of demonstrable significance. Nevertheless, we should read, or at least spend several seconds glancing at, what it is that Natwebb asserts. Morenoodles (talk) 08:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
What I proposed was the simple statement of fact, much like the simple statement of fact in the William Henry Harrison article. I agree that the lead is probably not the place for it. Early life was suggested and I expect that it is a better place. I note also that this proposal seems to have resulted in revision (vandalism) of the William Henry Harrison article. Additionally the level of vigilance given to this article seems sufficient to avoid the slippery slope argument (unlike William Henry Harrison).--Natwebb (talk) 04:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If there were a source that is more reliable and more to the point than those given, I think a brief mention of Obama's (possible) dual citizenship during his early life might be possible to include in "Early life". It's definitely not lead material or anything like that. But we need some sources that say this in clear, non-retracted, and factual manners... some WP:OR about what "must be true" is no good. LotLE×talk 08:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Factcheck.org says it, right here. (Please keep reading that page beyond the start, in which it debunks the sloppy newspaper article.) Never heard of factcheck.org? Here's Timothy Garton Ash praising it in the Guardian, and here's an approving citation of it by none other than Dick Cheney. (Well, that's the kiss of death for sure.) NB I'd like to see it stated somewhere else, and I'm not sure that it's all that important. Morenoodles (talk) 09:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
All very (slightly?) interesting trivia, worth perhaps 1/2 a sentence in a chronological account of the circumstances of his birth and childhood, if such can be integrated in a way that enlightens rather than distracts form a telling of the life story.Wikidemon (talk) 10:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
There are very few if any very reliable sources (I.E. ABC, CNN, NBC, AP, New York Times, Washington Times Post, etc) that mention his possible dual citizenship. The argument to include this boils down to this: we must include it so that people know that he had a dual citizenship. Boiled down even further and the true motives behind trying to include this is to enable those claiming the citizenship conspiracy is real. One thing that must remembered is that if something like this is included, then some person doing research, who is a little bit lazy, will come to this article and look at the information presented, then say that it is fact. Then we will start to see this in various places including news articles, editorials, etc because they saw it in Wikipedia. That is why we need at least a couple very reliable sources to back up the information before we even present it in the article. Just because it seems to you to be important, interesting, or recent, is not a good justification to include it into the article. Brothejr (talk) 10:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Washington Times a reliable source? Whew! You say: Boiled down even further and the true motives behind trying to include this is to enable those claiming the citizenship conspiracy is real. Maybe, maybe not -- either way, aren't we supposed to "AGF"? (Sure, my good-faith-assumption gland shrivels in the face of BOLD CAPS, but I try to be open minded. Yes, all right, "Obama was very briefly British too" is compatible with the obsessions of nutballs. But if you remove from Wikipedia everything that happens to be compatible with nutball obsessions, you remove some facts and material of value. However, I think you're right in one way: let's wait till this momentous fact (???) makes it to more news sources worth attending to (Die Zeit, Le Monde, NYT, Guardian, Washington Post, Reuter) before adding it to this article. Morenoodles (talk) 11:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is the old slippery slope. Analogous to the anti-abortion crowd who, having have failed to get abortion rights overturned outright, have gone pecking around the edges, proposing small bills to make things slightly more restrictive then build on that with more, etc... The citizenship conspiracy theorists, having failed utterly on the main front, are trying to slink in the side door, to try to establish that possessing dual citizenship can invalidate one from being a "natural-born citizen". What dual citizenship Obama may or may not have had...a citizenship lost at age 2 (British) and at then at age 21 (Kenyan)...is about as trivial as the left-handedness issue is. Summation; I cannot accept that this entry is being proposed in good faith. Bad faith does not automatically invalidate the proposed material, but that and the apparent trivial nature of the material is strike 1 and strike 2, IMO. Discussing the history of his birth and who his mother and father were is a natural part of history. Delving into the actually citizenship of any of the three is where ulterior motives here come into play. Tarc (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a bit of trivia too obscure to be worth mentioning. -137.222.114.243 (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - consider that the article is almost entirely sourced by references that deal with Obama biographically - that is, they assert some sort of notability to the facts even if implicitly. The source here very much approaches the subject from the perspective of slightly facetious trivia. Bigbluefish (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Tarc. this is the chipping away - if included, it will soon be followed by some whacked out 'you can't have had two citizenships and still be president' jazz, which is totally nonsensical in the face of the first dozen or so presidents, born before the start of the nation. This is the same racist right wing nonsense attacks we see all over the fringes of the net, and should be summarily rejected. Regrettably, we will spend the next 4 or 8 years dealing with this, as some people can't accept that a non-white person is president, or that he might actually succeed at fixing the economy. The rancor from the right is expansive, and will only grow over the next 4 years. ThuranX (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I share all yall's suspicion that the British thing is bogus, but we do decide things by reliable sources around here and not slippery slope arguments. To date I haven't taken any of this seriously enough to look at in detail but I suspect the honest sourceable truth may be that Obama originally had dual Kenyan citizenship or an opportunity for the same but chose by his actions to be solely a US citizen, which became irreversible at some point. If that's true and ends up being sourced to and not contradicted by plentiful major sources of the type we can accept around here (say neutral books about him, newspapers, whitehouse.gov, etc) then sure, it's worth a parenthetical or half a sentence in a chronological account of his life, something like "Born on xxxx in Hawaii to a Kenyan father and American mother, Obama was initially eligible for dual Kenyan citizenship but chose only to..." (totally made up - just laying out the kind of language that would be neutral, fair, and non-sensationalistic if true and sourced). Just from the look of things, one's citizenship trajectory even if a technical matter is of some nontrivial importance in one's biography. On the other hand any synthesis or digression into constitutional matters and eligibility for the Presidency belongs if anywhere on some article far removed from this one. If nobody seriously challenges his legitimacy (the conspiracy theorists so far do not count as serious, and it would be hard to imagine anyone will be serious) then all that stuff is trivia. Not a slippery slope, more like a gaping precipice of common sense and reason, with a cliff's rlim that's pretty clearly delineated. Wikidemon (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I had the same initial thought, right down to a similar premise for inclusion in a similar construction, but ultimately, without context to how it affected and shaped his thought processes, personality, and politics, it's just a wedge. IF such material can be found, then, and only then, could I accept inclusion, in the quiet manner you suggest. On its own, however, it's inflammatory material placed without context to create alarmist 'traitor president' nonsense. ThuranX (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
There seems an extraordinary willingness to see far-right nutballs at work here, and to do the reverse of "AGF". It's analogy time. Can we accept for a moment that Obama's middle name is Hussein? No doubt the Limbaugh-listening demographic likes to use this fact to suggest that Obama is Muslim, that Obama is going to bring on the Caliphate, that Obama is the antichrist, or I don't know what. But the compatibility of this fact with nutball delusions doesn't make it untrue or (in the minds of moderately educated and open-minded people) even make it unfortunate. And now, back to the matter, or non-issue, of childhood nationality. An article in factcheck.org asserts that, while Obama has always been a US citizen, he long ago also had one or other of two other nationalities. I have several reactions to this, among them: (i) "Oh, that's (very mildly) interesting, if true." (ii) "Hang on, this is the kind of thing that sells US newspapers. Why isn't it there as well?" And so I'm in no hurry to add it. On the other hand, I warmly suggest that people here don't assume that a fact (if it gets more evidence of being factual) is inflammatory material placed [...] to create alarmist 'traitor president' nonsense: of course some morons will take it that way, but the mere fact that Obama is neither "white" nor a crony capitalist is probably enough to set them off without this additional titillating tidbit. Wikipedia articles should not be dumbed down in an attempt to avoid any risk of inflaming fools. As for the call for context to how [any additional nationality] affected and shaped his thought processes, personality, and politics, this is quite unreasonable, as you must surely know; it's also utterly unlike the way in which Wikipedia works: consider Nicolas Sarkozy, which is an article that's sure to be policed; yet after a paragraph about the Hungarian half of Sarko's family tree, and a Hungarian half of a graphic representation of this tree, the article says Sarkozy's father Paul did not teach him or his brothers Hungarian. There is no evidence suggesting that there was an attempt to educate the Sarkozy siblings about their paternal ethnic background. Morenoodles (talk) 08:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

← I'm with Tarc and Thuran on this. I find it hard to see this as anything other than an attempt to back-door bogus citizenship questions. In addition, this factoid has not been shown to have any relevance to the man's life and career, which is what this biography covers. We make decisions all the time about what goes in here or not - and I mean valid, verifiable, well-sourced points of interest - because of space and weight concerns, and we have left out many items from this biography for those reasons. This is trivia, and unless some relevance can be attached to how it affected his life, his thinking, his educational and career decisions, etc., and unless we have good sourcing for it, it doesn;t belong here. We don't even have a source that verifies that he even knew about this at his 21st birthday or any time later until perhaps the recent intense interest in his birthright. For example, does he talk in his memoir about deciding not to affirm Kenyan citizenship? Has he acknowledged this anywhere? Did it have any impact on his life whatsoever? Tvoz/talk 10:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

And by the way - my reading of the factcheck piece is that it itself is what we would classify as synthesis - they don't quote sources that confirm Obama's actions, inactions, decisions, or knowledge of any of this - they take the facts about Kenyan law and make an assumption about Obama's status. That's not the kind of sourcing we would accept even if we wanted to include this. Tvoz/talk 10:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick point of order: We can accept the syntheses of reliable third party sources, and do on almost every article on the project. We are only perscribed from making those syntheses ourselves, instead relying on reliable 3rd party sources to make them for us. That said, I have no opinion on this. Possible backdoor arguments have no place in countering properly reliably sourced material. The true argument seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not a valid argument for non inclusion either.Die4Dixie (talk) 10:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
To add onto D4D's comment, this is also a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT argument. No reliable sources mentions his dual citizenship if he truely had one. To garner any such information from other sources would be synthesis and original research. Brothejr (talk) 10:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
This is an angle of the situation that I had not thought of. Perhaps we need to ammend the Harrison article to reflect this information. It is odd though to pick and choose sources to suit the POV. I wouldn't say that being born with dual citizenship would disqualify Obama, if the other articles on other presidents talk about it, then it should be added here.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
ThuranX wrote: [only with] context to how it affected and shaped his thought processes, personality, and politics [...] could I accept inclusion. I pointed out that such a stringent requirement is cruel and unusual, and showed how it's not observed--not just unobserved in this or that junky article but instead unobserved in the vigorously edited and carefully watched article on Sarkozy. So I thought I'd demolished that argument. But no, Tvoz followed up my comment with unless some relevance can be attached to how it affected his life, his thinking, his educational and career decisions, etc., [...] it doesn;t belong here. I'm perfectly willing to have my argument shown to be defective or wrong, but I sense that I am instead attempting in vain to argue with people who have already made their minds up. Morenoodles (talk) 08:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Under British law, he was a dual citizen. Since the USA does not abide by British law. The USA recognizes him as a Natural Born Citizen of Hawaii. It is a bit of interesting trivia that british law would regard him as a citizen until the early 80's, however since we go by US law in the US. It's not noteworthy. He was not born a British Citizen. He was born an American, seeing as how thats where he was born, in america. Had he been born in British governed land, then he'd be a British citizen. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This kind of analysis is unnecessary. For a start, as I understand it US law doesn't allow you to be recognised as a British citizen (except under the age of 21?). So the UK diplomatic status would be relevant anyway. But this is about the article, and there is no reliable source for anything about this subject so let it lie. Bigbluefish (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree, Wait until there is a reliable source.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
see British_Citizenship and British Overseas Citizen. The footnote I proposed makes it clear that this British citizenship was short-lived (as was that of William Henry Harrison) and I do not suggest it is an impediment to his presidency. What could be more reliable a source than reference to the laws of Great Britain on the subject? Frankly, as I composed the footnote it began much longer and was shortened as a three paragraph footnote seemed too much. It can also be footnoted to the text of the referenced British law: http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm and http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1965.htm (European Nationality law finder at http://uniset.ca/). I have kept this non-partisan and hope others can too. --Natwebb (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
DN's kind of analysis isn't merely unnecessary, it doesn't even merit the term "analysis". First DN seems to concede that Obama briefly was regarded by the British as a British citizen. Then DN suggests something very bizarre about US citizenship. I suggest that the US recognizes Obama has a natural born citizen because he qualifies as a natural born citizen, and not at all because the US doesn't abide by British law. Then DN says that "he was born an American", a fact that nobody here has questioned and also one that's irrelevant to whether he was ever additionally British. Look, if Y is a nation, the question of whether person X has Y nationality is a matter for Y to decide, and not for X, let alone for nation Z. If the British briefly regarded him as British (as has been asserted), then he was British. If it can be shown that he was British (and I'm not certain that it has), then we have an additional fact t consider. All sorts of facts about Obama are too trivial to go in the article, and it's arguable that a fact such as this (if it is indeed a fact) is trivial too. There is no reliable source for anything about this subject says Bigbluefish. I agree says Jojhutton. There is a reliable source, and it's called factcheck.org. Whether factcheck.org is adequate as a single reliable source for an assertion, if true, one would expect to find in other reliable sources--now that is a good question. Morenoodles (talk) 08:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Citizenship laws are very complicated when it comes to dual nationals because often laws conflict and new born babies can't choose their citizenship. As I've understood it, US law has allowed for its citizens to hold dual nationality with no problems (although officials can be petty - British politician Boris Johnson was born in New York and once when travelling home from the USA with his family he was told he had to travel on a US passport - I think he's since renounced his US citizenship because of this). When Kenya became independent Obama's British citizenship transferred to Kenyan. Kenyan law does not allow for its adult citizens to be dual nationals - they have to renounce their foreign citizenship or lose their Kenyan citizenship on their twenty-first birthday. Kenyan law cannot take away US citizenship, only Kenyan and vice versa.

Obama was born a dual national - US by birth (and by his mother), British colonial as the son of his father, with the latter converting to Kenyan when he was 2. When he was a child each citizenship was held without any regard to the laws governing any other, as is standard. But because he failed to renounce his US citizenship by the time he was 21 (i.e. old enough to make a choice himself), his Kenyan citizenship automatically lapsed.

Now a lot of people around the world qualify for more than one citizenship - for example a lot of Australians qualify for at least one European Union country citizenship on the parent or grandparent rule and many will take out the relevant passport for ease of travel. And many national football teams have exploited the grandparent rule to sign up talented players from their diaspora - the Republic of Ireland team got a particular reputation for this a couple of decades ago. And one could go on. Most of the relevant articles don't cover this unless the individual in question has made use of it. Unless Obama ever actually made use of his non-US citizenships then the matter is utterly trivial and has no place here. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Same for William Henry Harrison. He never made use of his British citizenship by birth. --Natwebb (talk) 06:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

LEAD

Why is the lead so short all of a sudden? An article of this size should have 4 bulky paragraphs. — R2 22:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not a good encapsulation of the article, per WP:LEAD. Majoreditor (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering this too and tracked it down to this edit, [1], which removed the third paragraph of the lead. I undid that edit, his explanation is that it would prevent further reoccurring debates but it seems to me it would be better to debate and change that paragraph than simply delete it, which made the lead far too short. WP:Lead section#Length says three to four paragraphs, so three well-written paragraphs could probably be enough, considering it would probably cause a good deal of debate over what to include in a fourth paragraph if one was written. There's nothing wrong with a debate over that though. LonelyMarble (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Just want to add two more things. First, a similar lead with that paragraph was in place during the December 2, 2008, featured article review in which the article was kept: [2]. Second, lead sections generally don't have to be sourced at all because the same information is sourced elsewhere in the article, which is the case for the paragraph I just restored. LonelyMarble (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Here's what LonelyMarble added to the Introduction:
As a member of the Democratic minority in the 109th Congress, Obama helped create legislation to control conventional weapons and to promote greater public accountability in the use of federal funds. He also made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. During the 110th Congress, he helped create legislation regarding lobbying and electoral fraud, climate change, nuclear terrorism, and care for U.S. military personnel returning from combat assignments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now everyone can easily decide if that should be in the Introduction. As long as it's accurate, I don't have a problem with it being in the Introduction. SMP0328. (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I found this archived discussion regarding the removal: [3]. My response to that is the lead section is a summary of what is in the article. Considering a large portion of this article is about what Obama did as a senator and what his various political positions are, it seems to me a paragraph summarizing this should be in the lead, which is what that paragraph is attempting to do. LonelyMarble (talk) 03:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Reading the achieved discussion I have to agree with user:Brothejr. If we go into to much detail here we could scrap the election articles.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't get how briefly summarizing main points in the lead that are covered at length in the article is going into too much detail. Most articles of this size have four bulky paragraphs, as the first editor said. The lead has too little summary, not too much. LonelyMarble (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that the lead can be lengthen but the paragraph in question was written before he became President and therefore it will just take up space for his near future achievements, (positive and negative ones).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Why not just update that paragraph to include a reference to Obama being President? SMP0328. (talk) 04:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I think might be a good layout of the lead:

  • 1st paragraph: brief intro, current one looks good
  • 2nd paragraph: summary of his career, current one looks pretty good
  • 3rd paragraph: summary of his legislation and achievements as both senator and president and also any key political positions (however, we should avoid adding too much, if any, detail about his presidency to the lead since it will be hard to sort out the most relevant parts since his presidency just began)
  • Additional 4th paragraph: summary of the last two sections of the article, the "Family and personal life" and "Cultural and political image" sections. Specifically, a summary of his unique cultural and political image should probably be summarized in a 4th paragraph. This could include a sentence or two about his presidential campaign, which also has a large section in the article. Remember, the lead should be a summary of the contents of the article. LonelyMarble (talk) 04:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the paragraph again. Per: WP:LEAD the lead is a very brief highlight of the major events on his career. It is not there to highlight his policy decisions or stances. Please keep the political stances and bills he has passed out of the lead. Plus to add upon this: while you may say that those things in the paragraph was very important that should have been in the lead, person X is most likely going to say that so and so other stance is more important then what's included in the lead. Because of this arguments will erupt as people argue over which is more important. Again, no political stances or bills due to the fact that they are not mile stones in his career. Getting elected as president is a milestone, being the first African American is a milestone, and so on and so on. Finally, wanting more paragraphs to lengthen the lead is a very bad excuse to add that paragraph back in. Before re-introducing any paragraph or material into the lead, place it here for discussion to build a consensus before adding material back into the lead. Brothejr (talk) 10:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Also to add on here: per WP:LEAD the lead should be brief and give an overview. Nothing in the policy says that the lead should be a certain length other then to say that it should be no more then four paragraphs. So conceivably the lead can be one or even two paragraphs. Also, something else to note: nothing in WP:LEAD says we need to cover current legislation, plus if we do try to cover current legislation it would violate WP:RECENT policy by not giving them a historical perspective. (I.E. waiting a long while before claiming it is a major miles stone of his career.) Finally we need to avoid topics in the lead that might lead to people saying that this position/act/etc would have been better in the lead or that act/etc. We need to avoid what we personally, as editors, feel as important and only focus on what the reliable sources have said are important. Wikipedia cannot claim that so and so is a milestone on it's own. Yet, if we have a variety of verified reliable sources that say that so and so was a milestone, then we can report it with refs to back that statement up. Brothejr (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:Lead says an article over 30 KB should be 3 to 4 paragraphs. This article is over 140 KB. It should have 4 good paragraphs. If you look at any other featured article of this length it will have three lengthy paragraphs at a minimum, but most likely four. If this was taken to featured article review right now the first thing to come up would be to lengthen the lead. So no, the lead could definitely not be one or two paragraphs. You can't take words like "brief" out of context, "brief" is relative to article size, as WP:Lead#Length explains. The main function of the lead is to give a summary and overview of the whole article, so naturally the longer the article is, the longer the summary will have to be. Right now the lead gives an overview of his early career and that's about it. I'd say at least 75% of the article is not summarized at all (not everything needs equal summary weight but there's still a large amount that needs to be summarized in the lead). The paragraph you are removing was attemping to summarize the political career section, which lists various legislation he passed and various things he did in the senate. Taking this paragraph out because people might argue over the contents is silly, why not let arguments happen, which would hopefully lead to a better summary (and I check this article from time to time and that paragraph had been there for a long while, so I don't think it is that contentious). Maybe that paragraph should simply be rewritten, but there needs to be a summary paragraph of his political career, which probably includes important legislation, and also somehow summarizing the political positions section with a sentence or two would be nice because these are large sections of the article. And like I said in the proposed layout above, a fourth paragraph about his political and cultural image would be good too. A quote from WP:Lead which I think this article fails to do at the moment: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." LonelyMarble (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:Lead says an article over 30 KB should be 3 to 4 paragraphs. This article is over 140 KB. It should have 4 good paragraphs.
You can't and shouldn't "force" the lead to 4 paragraphs just because of the above. Extend it? Yes! But only with high quality, not just recent but up to date important issues that will "stick" for more than a few days or even weeks. Brothejr made a very good point above that I approve.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the removed paragraph possibly had some things that should stay, such as mentioning the two main bills Obama's name was attached to while he was senator. Summarizing what he did as a senator is certainly not a "recent" thing that won't stick, at least not for a long while. But, instead of arguing over having that paragraph inserted again I will attempt to rewrite another one or two paragraphs to add on to the lead and present them here. Or anyone else that wants to take on that task is welcome to as well. I'll probably work on that more tomorrow, I don't have much time tonight. I also just noticed Jayron32's recent addition to the lead. I think it's a good start, but I would like the fourth paragraph to mention his unique cultural/political image. And mentioning Hillary Clinton and the amount of electoral votes he won is probably too specific for the lead, but at least it's a start. LonelyMarble (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Even so I see a good point from your side although I think that Obama's time as a senator should (and is?) covered in a sub. Here in his bio we need to focus more on his presidency (as I stated earlier at some point) since it is now the main factor on how he is "judged" and "valuated". Although, from my point of view have no problem and won't reject some lead edit of his time as a senator as long as it is very short and briefly. So a rewrite (proposed here on talk if possible) would be a good thing to do. I now I'm going a bit for-and-backwards about this but it is just not a simple decision.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
One more thing before I have to go, I still think it is silly to delete a longstanding paragraph and have to prove why it should be there rather than the opposite. The paragraph summarizes his senate career, which is a big part of the article, which is what the lead is for. Thanks to Jayron32 for attempting to be neutral, but is mentioning the committees he was on any more neutral than mentioning the major legislation that he helped pass? My vote would be to add back in the removed paragraph with Jayron's new sentence about committees added at the end of it as well. Is there any better way to summarize his time as senator (and while doing so it shows his political positions as well)? Are you disagreeing that these things shouldn't be summarized in the lead? Because they are a big part of the article body. Where we disagree is I don't think the paragraph is perfect, and I'm open to having it improved, but I also don't think it is forced. I think it is a necessary paragraph that could be argued over for what content to use for the best summary, but shouldn't just be deleted. LonelyMarble (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
About "longstanding paragraph": December last year Obama wasn't President so changes from then to now are and where naturally to expected. What was then (important) is not anymore. I think I said something similar before.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

LonelyMarble, just a quick comment, before too much of this inclusion fest gets fussed over or trimmed, according to my toolbox Page size stats, the article size is currently only 32 kB (5293 words) of readable prose. Thus, per the lead guideline, this size translates to only two or three lede paragraphs. Modocc (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC) To anyone that wants to add the page size function to your toolbox, create a User:username/monobook.js page with the following added to it: 

importScript('User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js'); //[[User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js]]

Your User:username/monobook.js page can be created by going to the Skins under your preferences, clicking on the monobook's Custom JS and saving the new page. --Modocc (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Most important is making sure the lead gives an overview of the whole article. It's right around 32 KB and 30,000 characters in readable prose. Three or four paragraphs seems good to me. I think the confusion of the contents of the lead is that it's not necessarily a brief overview of Obama's life, it's a brief overview of the contents of the article. These two things differ somewhat. LonelyMarble (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

President Obama

He is multiracial. His mother was caucasion. See NNDB for details.fjw75@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.65.17 (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Understood and agreed. This information is already included in the article. However, judging by the majority of sources we've seen and discussed here, history will record Obama as America's first African American president (or black president, depending on where you are) - not multiracial or biracial. Please see the FAQ at the top of this page for more information. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Part of Christianity

What sect of Christianity is Obama part of? I know that he used to be part of the United Church of Christ but right now it doesn't seem like he's really a part of any of them. Could someone elaborate on this? I know this might have been answered in the archives but I haven't a clue on which section it was. My President is Black (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Obama used to be a member of UCC, since leaving the church he has not yet made a choice publicly.With that I mean there is no news article or press release or anything that we could use, that says he choose one, he might have chosen one personally.So i guess that means that at the moment Obama is not part of any sect.Durga Dido (talk) 10:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I see, thank you, I'm hoping to find out if he does end up joining the same sect or if he chooses something different. My President is Black (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The term is denomination, not sect. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Unless it's a cult. PhGustaf (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
That was my next comment. "Sect" is a cousin to "cult" as a pejorative. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Law school instructor (Constitutional law)

Note that in a recently archived discussion the contribution of a similar designation to the infobox was objected to for the professed (no pun intended) reason that it was unsourced (I think; it was hard to follow the objector's reasoning) -- so I've finally got around to adding "law school instructor (Constitutional law)" with a note. It's interesting/useful IMO to mention politicians' academic occupations, those who've had them (eg Moynihan as a scholar in sociology, Gingrich as a historian/untenured history prof, etc.). ↜Just me, here, now … 17:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Tvoz has now improved the phrasing and, rightly, also removed the footnote, since the assertion is already documented lower down in the article's text. I'd only included a ref to forstall another claim that it hadn't been documented adequately: In the archived thread I'd argued, "[A]s for [the contention] 'It's expected that prominent lawyers lecture' I hope upon reflection you'll admit this undocumented line of attack is a bit bizarre!" -- the response to which was, "[T]hat's funny considering you accused me of violating WP:OR after deleting your addition of unsourced content. You are the one with the bizarre thinking[...]." ↜Just me, here, now … 04:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

To be clear - the exchange above was not with me. That he was a constitutional law professor has been in the article for a very long time, well-documented, and I see no need for a footnote in the infobox on this point, although I understand why Just put it in. This is not in contention by anyone who can read. I am not 100% convinced that we really should be listing all of these items in occupation, but I'm not strenuously opposed, so I can go along with it. Tvoz/talk 07:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Tvoz; your sentiment seems reasonable.
(In any case, if all here agree on the appropriateness of an occupation blank in politicians' infoboxes, what would remain to be decided is whether O's career in legal education was notable enough to be included there, right? (Not Tvoz's but... ) the user in question's argument was, "Bill Clinton just has 'Attorney' as his previous profession, And I guarantee you he has given lectures[...]."
(But such reliance on a corollary listed at Wikipedia:Other stuff exists logically actually fails since a quick click over to Bill Clinton shows no career in legal education notable enough for mention! Whereas clicks to the bios of pols who have had notable careers in post-secondary education show such phrases as at Daniel Patrick Moynihan, in its lede, "an American politician and sociologist," and on down the page, "In addition to his career as a politician and diplomat, Moynihan worked as a sociologist" -- and at Newt Gingrich, in its lede, "college history professor, political leader, and author," and on down the page, "Gingrich taught history[...]".) ↜Just me, here, now … 09:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Yet if someone were to argue, "We shouldn't mention Moynihan as having a career as a 'scholar,' since such a policy wonk as Bill Clinton isn't mentioned as having one, separate from politics" -- a good response might be, "But the historical record shows that along with Moynihan's long and distinguished career as both a governmental policy advisor and legislator, Moynihan also conducted and directed academic research on sociological and policy issues as a tenured professor at Harvard, hence there's ample evidence for Moynihan's career as a scholar distinct from his career as a politician and until we document similar circumstances for Clinton, to set up the two cases as being purely parallel would be faulty." ↜Just me, here, now … 19:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
That's quite right - Moynihan was well-known long before his political career as a scholar. Tvoz/talk 21:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

State legislator: 1997–2004 - repeated inappropriate and disruptive edits

Kauffner's latest repeated inappropriate and disruptive edits to an Obama-related article:

An out-of-context State legislator: 1997–2004 section sentence:
While serving in the state senate, Obama voted "present" 129 times out of the 4,000 votes he made as a state senator.[4]
of Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008#South Carolina trivia
that has been discussed in Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 13#"Present" Votes.... Again
and included in the South Carolina section of the Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 article
has been inappropriately and disruptively repeatedly added 6 times by Kauffner to this WP:Summary style article:
  1. 11:38, 6 February 2009
  2. 06:17, 7 February 2009
  3. 15:53, 14 February 2009
  4. 02:51, 15 February 2009
  5. 03:53, 16 February 2009
  6. 16:42, 20 February 2009
and reverted 6 times by Newross[5][6][7][8], Scjessey[9], and Brothejr[10].

Kauffner's only other contributions to Obama-related articles have also been repeated inappropriate and disruptive edits to The Audacity of Hope, Dreams from My Father, and Project Vote.
See: Talk:The Audacity of Hope#Reception - repeated inappropriate and disruptive edits

Please immediately cease and desist making repeated inappropriate and disruptive edits to Obama-related Wikipedia articles. Newross (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree, I think the place for this is Kauffner's own edit page, WP:AN/I, or the administrator he just called a troll for warning him to stop edit warring at Audacity of Hope. I think he's been warned enough times and shown that he won't quit.Wikidemon (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikidemon is (as often) right about this one. Don't bring it up here but where s/he suggested.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I notice here a total refusal to engage in the issue and a focus on attacking me personally. If you read the archive discussion, you'll find that most of the participants favored some mention of Obama's present voting. We now have a situation where the article can discuss whether or not Obama is a distant relative of Jefferson Davis, but one of the top issues in the primary elections is tagged as too trivial to include. Kauffner (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps because it'd be more relevant to an article about the primaries or the candidacy of Obama, rather than the main biographical article? Tarc (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Is there a candidacy/senate article? I have looked through Kauf's suggestions and have concluded there is some merit, though his trollish history is definitely a turn off. It is true Obama was tardy 100+ voting days out of a possible 4000, but so were other Senators: Obama's voting record and John McCain's voting record. I'm reviewing through several Senators and none seem to have the record of Obama, but I still don't think this is a "critical" point for the article. I do endorse senate voting summary (including # times voted) if there isn't already in there. I do not understand the reasoning behind the resistance, it really isn't a *huge* deal. However, I predict Kauf will get blocked/banned before anything matriculates...lol. My sources however could be wrong and I don't feel like looking at 100 senator profiles. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
There is an article, Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama, and it is not presently in that article. If true and sourceable it would have to be worked into that article in a relevant, neutral way in due proportion to its significance to the subject. Wikidemon (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Is it just me or does that article read like a promotion? Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought I'd notify some of the page regulars... The link about his smoking is broken. It was here but the url doesn't seem to work. I removed it and replaced it with a cn. --Happyme22 (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is he in the category "german-americans"?

I never heard, that Barack Obama is german descent. His sister from Kenya lived many years in Germany and speak perfect German. 77.22.172.233 (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably someone making a point about his white side. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
His heritage is German-American as much as it is African-American. rootology (C)(T) 16:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think his white side is 100% German. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
What do we do on other BLPs as precedent if someone is say (using parents>grandparents as a vector) 50% one thing, 25% one thing, and 25% as another, but self-identifies as one? rootology (C)(T) 18:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually he's primarily of English descent, the assumption is, as a majority of Caucasians in the Americas, he is of German descent(like myself), but his mother was actually of clear English descent, Ann Dunham, as can be seen there, so if you were going to include "primary" descent, he would be under "English-Americans" I suppose. Revrant (talk) 04:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Looking at Obama_family#Extended_family_-_maternal_relations, I'd say just the English American cat is justified, but the underlying source describes itself as a first draft, neither authoritative nor exhaustive [32] and anyway seems to be from a freelance genealogist. Is there a better source establishing his mother's heritage that we could use to more definitively determine which cats belong?--chaser (away) - talk 05:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Details of his ancestry aren't important enough to include. So Obama had a German great-grandparent. So do I. But she was dead before I was born; his was likely so too. In any case, neither Obama nor I were raised in a German culture, and neither of us have an identifiable Teutonic weltanschaaung. The $COUNTRY-American categories are for people who identify with, or were acculturated to, $COUNTRY. His mom's family has been in the US for a couple centuries; mine too. Virtually every such family has ancestors from many countries. But this has nothing to do with who I am, or who Obama is. (Well, actually, if my Mom's very doubtful research is sound, my great^n-grandmother was thrown out of Dorchester, Massachusetts, in 1680, for "entertaining gentlemen in the evening". I've survived that bad gene.) PhGustaf (talk) 06:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Nonsense, if they weren't important there wouldn't be an entire article dedicated to just that subject, as Chaser pointed out. I have to say, now that I am being made fully aware of the Obama Family article, I don't think it's necessary to include it, as it is already covered in depth via aforementioned article. Revrant (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change to wording of HLR election

ought to flow better


  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Harvard Law 1990 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Scott, Janny (May 18, 2008). "The story of Obama, written by Obama". The New York Times. p. 1. Retrieved June 15, 2008. Obama (1995, 2004), pp. xiii–xvii.
  3. ^ Robertson, Geoffrey (2008-06-28). "Obama's law: what it tells us". The Age. pp. Insight supplement (p. 9). Retrieved 2009-02-22.

Ottre 14:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The sources say nothing about Obama's editorial focus being upon black women in history, do not say it was "volitive", do not say that is why he made headlines, nor do they say that it lead to a publishing contract. What they do say is that him being the first black president of HLR is what made headlines and that his presidency of HLR, his background, and being a good writer is what attracted the publishing contract. The Age article does mention a review of a biography of Fredrick Douglass being critical of the biographer's failure to mention black women, but the writer of The Age article acknowledges that Obama is not bylined anywhere in the HRL edition and that he suspects a hint of Obama in the review. You're also focusing on what is probably a couple of sentences or paragraphs in a book review that is part of an almost 2,000 page journal edition. Your wording is so incorrect it makes me wonder if you even read the sources.... --Bobblehead (rants) 19:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I read the article months ago. Would you care to suggest an alternative summary? Ottre 23:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
The one that's there now is concise, clear, and encyclopedic. Your suggestion is worse in every possible way. Leave it as it is. PhGustaf (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
That's outrageous.
* Turgid prose: "elected first black president... which gained national media attention"
* Points to an article which has nothing to do with legal history
* Does not even attempt to promote a worldwide view RE the HLR: circumstances of his election "led to a book deal about race relations" -- Why not go into some detail here, and give a topical overview of his editorship? Have you read the Age article?

Ottre 13:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The referenced articles are great; thanks, Ottre. ↜Just me, here, now … 16:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

British citizen

I just removed some "material" about him being a british citizen. This is probably the usuall nonsense. If so, can somebody please delete this section as not being a forum or advise such and I will delete this myself, thanks in advance. --Tom 17:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessarily nonsense, but I was going to revert it because it is entirely original research. It might well be true - seemed reasonable enough to me - but we need cites, not a collection of links to piece together. If it's printed elsewhere in a reliable source, it's OK...but not as it was presented. Note that the text stated he was "born" a British citizen, not that he is a British citizen. Nevertheless, still original research as it was presented.  Frank  |  talk  17:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I actually equate OR to nonsense, but thats just me :) --Tom 17:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Obama's status under the laws of a country where he has never resided is not relevant. If the claim is true, then every child born of a British citizen is (in the eyes of the UK) a British citizen, a common and not terribly notable curiosity. Likewise, every child (of a Jewish mother?) is eligible for Israeli citizenship. There are a number of these things.Wikidemon (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
See above, asked and answered, consensus was NO. ThuranX (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
OR does not equate to nonsense, nor vice versa. However, there can be significant overlap. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
This was discussed in item 8 above. I do not understand why it upsets so many people here. It is a simple fact. no more or less controverial than the fact that George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson and William Henry Harrison were at birth British citizens. Why is the FACT that Barack Obama was at birth a U.S. & G.B. citizen. That fact does not have any bearing on what is so obviously under the surface in the minds of those who keep removing this information. The "original research" in the foot note is mainly there to support the simple statement of fact (more than just interesting trivia in my estimation) and not because original research was needed to find this information. The fact of the matter is that if Prince William of Wales and some future bride were visiting the USA when she went into labor and The child bron in the USA would be both a US & GB citizen. I suspect such child would NEVER use the US citizenship, but I would bet it would be mentioned in any biography, including a wikipedia article. --Natwebb (talk) 05:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Wikidemon makes a really excellent point and analogy above. Who Britain may or may not consider a citizen is really of little weight to Obama's life, having never done anything to claim or utilize that citizenship to which he was (purportedly) eligible. The analogy with Israel is a good one here. Their laws give automatic citizenship to "Jews" (defined under a specific religious theory of what that means). Who would editors feel about adding to the Al Franken article that he "Has automatic Israeli citizenship" (even though he has no particular association or allegiance with that country)? It just wouldn't seem remotely relevant there. In any case, the citation for the British citizenship claim is a bit weak. We only have one source, which isn't a terrible one, but seems to be engaging in a bit of amature lawyering. If the British Government had made some official statement that Obama, specifically, was formerly a citizen, and sources reported that, it would be quite a bit stronger. But what we have is a source giving its own (not unreasonable, but not legally binding) interpretation of British (and Kenyan) law. Moreover, there aren't any wealth of other source rushing in to mention the importance of this same "fact". It doesn't add up to something currently worth including. LotLE×talk 05:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hence it may be a fact or it may not be, but it is not a notable fact either way. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Let's be honest here, this is completely non-notable. Is there a reason you (Natwebb) want to include this information other than the fact that it's annoying (understandably) to have your edits reverted? LonelyMarble (talk) 06:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but I smell a conspiracy camel trying to get its nose in the tent. PhGustaf (talk) 06:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
That was my initial assumption also. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Factually, I am right. On some emotional level some of the people undoing here cannot accept a simple well documented fact. All I can conclude is that there is a lot of worry from those who fear "a conspiracy camel trying to get its nose in the tent." And I thought I had drafted this to simply state a simple fact WITHOUT REFERENCE to any of the controversial things that have been on the internet (birth certificate, Phillip Berg (aka Nut Job), birthplace, Indonesian citizenship). I thought I made it non-controversial. I give up! Have it your way. Let me know if you collectively change your minds. --Natwebb (talk) 07:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith --Natwebb (talk) 07:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Even if you are right factually, which is by no means certain, you have yet to demonstrate that this bit of trivia has any notability. And given all the recent sockpuppetry here, you should be sensitive to concerns about the conspiracy theorists that continually pop in here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Natwebb, don't you realize it is a bit offensive to call someone born in Kenya around that time a British citizen? Kenya was a subject of imperialism, they don't necessarily even want to be associated with this. Why does this have any relevancy to Obama? If anything an argument could be made about Kenyan citizenship, but British citizenship is just completely irrelevant. LonelyMarble (talk) 07:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I never said he was born in Kenya. Never even implied it. --Natwebb (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'll take it on faith that you're not trying to weasel a conspiracy theory angle here, and that it's just an interesting bit of trivia. Which it may be. First, where's the evidence that no one else since W.H. Harrison had "theoretical" British citizenship. Second, assuming that's true, you need to prove it's true for Obama, which so far is questionable. Third, and perhaps most important, you need to demonstrate why it matters. If verifiable sources don't think it matters, neither can we say it does. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Comment: isn't this the same as when including genealogical information? Trivia may be difficult to relate to the political biography for some time, but it is almost certainly of interest to future generations (especially in regards to genetics) and so government records (?) are sufficient? Ottre 14:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
If there's any evidence that he is or was theoretically a British citizen (which is questionable at this point), then maybe it could be casually mentioned in the family page. Since he's never tried to do anything with such alleged citizenship, putting it in his bio page is inappropriate. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

There are two issues here which must both be addressed. First is notability, which is being debated above, but the more important issue is verifiability. We must keep in mind that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. The most recent restoration of this point is a series of breadcrumbs leading a reader on a path of original research, which is not appropriate for any Wikipedia article, much less a high-profile one. Even if we accept the breadcrumbs at face value, it's simply not enough, because the first reference is not independent, the second is a Wikipedia page, and the rest are citations of law which would require us as editors to be asserting that we are qualified to interpret applicable law, which we not only aren't qualified to do, but are not allowed to do under existing policy. This tidbit may be true, and it may be interesting...but it cannot be included in the article as it is currently written.  Frank  |  talk  14:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there a RS that calls Obama a British citizen? --Tom 20:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
This is closer[33]. It says everything that has already been implied, but is by the BBC (reliable source). Although rejected by the court to be too British, it does put the pieces of the puzzle together that he was a British citizen at birth.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
All that source says is that D'Onofrio impugns British citizenship to Obama. We knew that already. PhGustaf (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought that would be the reaction, although i was a bit hopeful that there could be some agreement. What type of source would be preferable? And what must it actually say?--Jojhutton (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe a neutral source that would actually evaluate D'Onofrio's opinion, as opposed to simply reporting that it is his opinion. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, there is one source that is not exactly nuetral, but Ill let you all decide. [34].--Jojhutton (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
If it's considered a reliable source, then it's what I was referring to. So, where to put this info, if anywhere? He was born both a U.S. citizen and British citizen, apparently - and it expired when he turned 21, if I'm reading that right. So he was not a British citizen when he was elected President. So, why does it matter? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a minor trivia point and I wouldn't think it is particularly "worthy" enough to be mentioned in the main article, particularly in the manner Natwebb is trying to get it included. Obama has never acted upon his British or Kenyan citizenship and they have had no impact upon his biography, so if they are to be included, I would think the best way of doing so would be as a footnote in his early life article and then only mention that he qualified to be a British subject at the time of his birth and then qualified to be a Kenyan citizen in 1963 when Kenya became independent, but lost his Kenyan citizenship when he turned 21. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Yeah. Note that most of this discussion has concerned notability, and that most editors are arguing "no" on that issue. Should we point out in the lede that he's the first President to speak Indonesian? For all I know, he's the first President to play the euphonium. Should we mention that, if it's true? PhGustaf (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Most Editors? Who, name them. I can look up and down the talk page and see that there may be a split on this issue. I am aware that consensus is vital, but do not claim consensus when there is none.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
One note, Obama did not lose his status as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (UKC) when he turned 21, he lost his Kenyan citizenship. UK allows dual citizenship, so he would still qualify to be a UKC by virtue of his father having been one at the time of Obama's birth. Claiming that Obama was the first president born a British citizenship since Harrison would be OR because it is not verifiable. It may be true, but there isn't a reliable source that says he's the first since Harrison. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) Also it may not be 100% clear that other Presidents in the interim weren't notionally British citizens under the parent and, I think, grandparent rules. Remember that it wasn't so well codified in the nineteenth century. It is amateur lawyering to retroactively apply the laws, especially if none of them ever availed themselves of any such entitlement. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

There is one possible area that this is of interest, and that is that it's just another example of one of the most multi-cultural Presidents we've had. Multiple ethnicity, multiple citizenships at birth, world traveler at a young age, etc. I wonder if any good sources have picked up on that point? He does have one flaw though - he apparently learned to dance through a correspondence school. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
This is why OR is a problem. To begin with, what evidence is there that Barack Obama Sr. was a British citizen? Assuming that we can take Wikipedia articles at face value, he was probably either a British subject or Commonwealth citizen. Kenyans living in Kenya would have become Kenyan citizens at independence. Did this apply to Kenyans living outside of Kenya? Well, if Obama had (and lost) Kenyan citizenship, then presumably Kenyans living outside of Kenya at independence also became Kenyan citizens at independence. At best, and this seems doubtful, he might have been a British subject at birth, but chances are that would have ceased when he was 2 years old. Guettarda (talk) 06:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Prior to 1983, British subjects allowed for those that were citizen's of other countries, i.e. a citizen of Australia was also a British subject. So Obama didn't lose his UKC citizenship when Kenya became a country. The Kenyan constitution also granted Kenyan citizenship to everyone that was born in Kenya and to all the children born outside of Kenya if their father met the criteria to be a Kenyan citizen, so Obama would have also been a citizen of Kenya starting 1963. However, Kenya does not allow dual citizenship for those over 21(understandable considering they wanted to break their ties with the UK), so Obama's father did lose his UKC in 1963, but as a minor, Obama would have technically qualified to be UKC, Kenyan, and American. But when Obama turned 21 and didn't drop his American citizenship, he lost his Kenyan citizenship. But all of this is OR as I doubt there is any reliable sources that will say anything other than Obama lost his Kenyan citizenship when he turned 21. --Bobblehead (rants) 07:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Obama's place of birth

Collapsed due to WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE. Not even worth discussion. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

As has been said previously, Wikipedia is not a place to discuss politics and your opinion of politics. The fact is that it has NOT been verified that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, and has not been verified in which hospital he was born in. This is what all those pending lawsuits concern. I move that the text claiming him to be born in Hawaii is invalid and should be removed until undeniable proof has been brought forward that he was born there. Do not point to the "Certification of live birth". That document has been proven by Dr. Ron Polarik to be a fraud. If Wikipedia truly exists to be a hub to receive factual information, only valid information that has been proved and is irreputable should be valid on this site.

Tom, with all due respect, the concern about him being a citizen with inherited loyalty to the British Crown, and being a citizen to the jurisdiction to the Crown, is valid. To suggest otherwise would be an example of political views interfering with an article. Not putting such a thing on here is not a good execution of NPOV.

Read right below the edit box. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". Him being born in Hawaii in the hospital mentioned is not irreputable, and for all intents and purposes, and to remain pursuant to Wikipedia's policies, should be removed unless proven to be accurate verifiable.

Refusal to do so would be to voluntarily break Wikipedia's Terms of Service.

--Axmann8 (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Caps on "2008 presidential election"

As "presidential" is not a proper adverb, the first letter shouldn't be capitalized. It's not capitalized elsewhere in the article, so, let's go for some stylistic consistency here with the subsections. --Kudzu1 (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the caps. It was probably collateral damage in Scjessey's reversion of your previous edit. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I wish Twinkle wasn't so heavily used; it's really a pretty flawed gizmo. Thanks Bobblehead. --Kudzu1 (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry you don't like twinkle, it's actually quite nice when dealing with vandalism and people who just "feel/know" that so and so information "has" to go into the article. Also, I removed both additions due to A) they were not first added to the presidential article and B) they smell of politics then substantive/important additions. This article is written in summary style. What that means is that it only summarizes what the daughter articles go into detail. So that means all the trivia, all the smaller things, any recent actions, etc first go into the daughter articles. Then the information is posted on the talk page where it can be debated to as if it is important enough by consensus to be added to this article. Please do not try to re-post the information without discussing it here first. Brothejr (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
One of the more annoying things I've noticed about certain editors on this article is that when they complain about an addition not being in one of the child articles, they just remove the content from this article and don't move it to the child article. Is it really that difficult to cut the content from this article and paste it into the appropriate location in the child article. ;) --Bobblehead (rants) 18:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
And the same can be said for those who add them in the first place, including those who also over look them. Brothejr (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Barack Hussein Obama II

I'm sorry, but, is that actually his real name? It seems like vandalism to me (considering all the fake rumors about him being a terrorist), and I was about to revert it, when suddenly I saw that, in the edit history, several recognizable editors (clearly not vandals) made constructive edits to the article while ignoring the name. I would like to know whether this is vandalism or otherwise. Thanks in advance, DogcowsaysmoofTalkGuestbookBarnstar GallerySandbox 00:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ther is a lot more that you may not be aware of too, but you can't read about it here. I actually learn more about Obama from reading the talk page than from the article.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is his name. Grsz11 00:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
See the article Hussein for a discussion of the many interesting and reputable people who have carried that popular name. Dcoetzee 06:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent reversion

I reverted some apparently unnecessary changes by Bratz angel14. Most reliable sources refer to Obama's earlier occupation as a "lawyer", and not an "attorney"; moreover, shortening Hawaii to "HI" would confuse non-Americans. These are typical of the changes I reverted. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for edit

Under "Family and personal life," it says: "in 2005 the family moved from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house"... no longer "their current"! Perhaps it should read "to a $1.6 million house"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.17.176 (talk) 08:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they still own the house, and, from what I've read, they plan to move back in there when Obama's presidency ends. Since they do not own the White House, the house in Kenwood is, in fact, their only house. Tad Lincoln (talk) 08:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Hrm. I guess I see "their current house" as being closer to "the house they currently live in" than to "the house they currently own," though... 169.231.17.176 (talk) 08:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I took a pass at it per this section, and also edited the material on the involvement of Tony Rezko in the transaction (which seemed a lot more relevant as a campaign issue than it does today). Wikidemon (talk) 08:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I see there is some edit warring going on.[35] (X2) When I condensed the Rezko material I did not realize it had recently been expanded - had I caught that I too would have reverted it to the early consensus version. That consensus version was already a compromise reached during the election, to settle a dispute with tendentious editors wanting to expand information disparaging of Obama, most of whom turned out to be sockpuppets. There is a question as to whether a mention of Rezko belongs in the Obama article at all given that the issue was mostly an unsuccessful election year attempt to discredit Obama and has almost no lasting bearing on Obama's life or career. Also, I do not see anything wrong, and think it adds some useful encyclopedic understanding, to expand the Senate primary slightly. Per BRD and consensus we ought to stick with the status quo version (i.e. the pre 2/9 Rezko and primary sections) if there is reasonable opposition to expanding them, and that should remain pending reaching a new consensus. Unless there are dire objections I'm going to restore these to the prior state, and anyone who wants to change them can propose that here on the talk page. Wikidemon (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Obama Assasination Atempt

While on visit in a middle east country, a man approached the white house gate saying he needed to see Barack Obama(he really did not). When the security asked the man to step out of the car, a pistol was found in the back of his trunk. Sources: Despierta America (On Univision) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.86.77 (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The closest backup source I can find is this. It seems like there was never any serious attempt. Another source: [36]. All this happened last August. Dcoetzee 21:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
And sadly, none of it belongs on this article. Brothejr (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree. I don't see the notability in it, unless shots were fired.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

born in "hawaii" or "oahu" ?

. . .

aloha nui loa,

excuse my ignorance as an outsider, but was Obama born on Hawaii?

Or on Oahu?

Under American practice, it is quite normal to refer to the state name as a birthplace, e.g. Alaska, Alabama.

But in an encyclopaedic reference, should there be tighter reference in the introduction to his actual birth island?

Even if all that means is saying he was born on Oahu, Hawaii ? I note that the Wikipedia entry for Abraham Lincoln refers to http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Hodgenville,_Kentucky, not just Kentucky?

i mua,

jason

avaiki (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

. . .

ps: please excuse my poor formatting - wikipedia confuses me, apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avaiki (talk • contribs) 16:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

We note that he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii and wikilink the word Hawaii to the article on the state of Hawaii (not the largest island.) Kind regards, --guyzero | talk 00:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Outsourcing

The article needs to mention Obama administration's strong stance against outsourcing and its possible consequences. The issue has already been covered extensively by international media [37] [38] [39]. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This is Obama's biography. You are probably looking for the Presidency of Barack Obama article, as this information would not be appropriate here. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Point taken. But this article has an entire section on his political positions and this piece of information is definitely relevant to that. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
In comparison to the rest of Obama's biography and political positions, India getting their knickers in a twist over limits on H-1B visas doesn't warrant mention in this article. Please see WP:NOT#NEWS. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Huh? If India is getting annoyed over the outsourcing policy of Barack Obama, then that piece of information is relevant to the articles on Foreign policy of the Obama administration and Indo-American relations, not this article. Why would I raise that issue here? My point was regarding his policy on outsourcing in general, and not on India's reaction to it. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear but still, isn't this a matter of common-sense? --128.211.201.161 (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I do realize that this article has limited scope and cannot cover every aspect of Obama's political and economic position. Therefore, I rest my case. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Rezko consensus wording and references

How Rezko should be included was THE most contentious issue in the history of this article. An (imperfect) compromise consensus was reached in mid-July 2008 (see Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 30#Rick's opinion). The consensus wording had remained completely unchanged for 7 months and the cited references had remained unchanged except for some pruning.

The consensus on wording and references was upset by an inaccurate, contentious February 9, 2009 edit by ChildofMidnight, a February 21, 2009 expansion by Happyme22, and a February 25, 2009 slight condensation by Wikidemon, the net result of which was a longer, less accurate, and more contentious Rezko section with an additional dated reference.

I attempted to restore the wording to the February 9, 2009 pre-ChildofMidnight 7-month-old consensus wording and references (except changing "their current $1.6 million house" to "a $1.6 million house" and changing "Rezko's indictment and subsequent conviction" to "Rezko's subsequent indictment and conviction" for clarity), but my attempt to restore the consensus wording and references was reverted three and a half hours later by Tad Lincoln saying the "Rezko section had just been condensed prior to" my "unexplained reversion."

  1. 08:40, 13 July 2008 Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (use more length appropriate Rick Block version (per support of large majority of editors)

    Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. The purchase of an adjacent lot and sale of part of it to Obama by the wife of developer and friend Tony Rezko attracted media attention because of Rezko's indictment and subsequent conviction on political corruption charges unrelated to Obama.

  2. 02:39, 9 February 2009 ChildofMidnight (→Family and personal life: clarification and trim extraneous)

    Applying the proceeds of a book deal, in 2005 the family moved from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. The purchase of the property was coordinated with Tony Rezko, a major political contributor to Obama, who later sold part of the adjacent lot to the Obamas. The transaction attracted media attention because of Rezko's later indictment and subsequent conviction on political corruption charges for unrelated activities.

  3. 22:29, 21 February 2009 Happyme22 (→Family and personal life: copyedit: wording, placement)

    Applying the proceeds of a book deal, in 2005 the family moved from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. The purchase of the property was coordinated with Tony Rezko, a major political contributor to Obama, who bought an undeveloped lot adjecent to the Obama property on the same day as Obama, and later sold part of the adjacent lot to the Obamas. The transaction attracted media attention because of Rezko's later indictment and subsequent conviction on political corruption charges for unrelated activities. Nonetheless, Obama later said that the deal was a "mistake on my part and I regret it."

  4. 08:53, 25 February 2009 Wikidemon (→Family and personal life: condense Rezko material but retain substance - in hindsight this is unduly long and not terribly relevant)

    Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to a $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood, where they lived until moving into the White House. The purchase transaction, which Obama called a "mistake" on his part, later attracted media attention because it was coordinated with Tony Rezko, a fundraiser and contributor to Obama's political campaigns, who bought an adjacent undeveloped lot on the same day. and later sold part of the adjacent lot to the Obamas. Rezko was later indicted and convicted on political corruption charges for unrelated activities.

  5. 18:08, 25 February 2009 Newross (→Family and personal life: revert to 9 February 2009 pre-ChildofMidnight Rezko consensus; "their current" --> "a"; "indictment" --> "subsequent indictment")

    Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to a $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood, Chicago. The purchase of an adjacent lot and sale of part of it to Obama by the wife of developer and friend Tony Rezko attracted media attention because of Rezko's subsequent indictment and conviction on political corruption charges that were unrelated to Obama.

  6. 21:38, 25 February 2009 Tad Lincoln (Reverted edits by Newross -- Rezko section had just been condensed prior to unexplained reversion; primaries should only be briefly mentioned)

    Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to a $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood, where they lived until moving into the White House. The purchase transaction, which Obama called a "mistake" on his part, later attracted media attention because it was coordinated with Tony Rezko, a fundraiser and contributor to Obama's political campaigns, who bought an adjacent undeveloped lot on the same day. and later sold part of the adjacent lot to the Obamas. Rezko was later indicted and convicted on political corruption charges for unrelated activities.

  7. 15:36, 26 February 2009 Wikidemon (→Family and personal life: restoring stable version of Rezko material per talk page)

    Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to a $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood, Chicago. The purchase of an adjacent lot and sale of part of it to Obama by the wife of developer and friend Tony Rezko attracted media attention because of Rezko's subsequent indictment and conviction on political corruption charges that were unrelated to Obama.

Concur

I concur with Wikidemon latest edit; I would consider adding "fundraiser" to the sentence, if there is consensus to do so:

developer and friend Tony Rezko → developer, friend and fundraiser Tony Rezko

Newross (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I am in favor of either LotLE's 13 July 2008 original consensus wording above. or Wikidemon's 26 February 2009 slight improvement above to the last sentence which is still consistent with the consensus version. I do not want to revisit the rest of this as the discussions were arduous and nothing has changed. I do not favor any of the other versions. Tvoz/talk 01:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

First off, I apologize, for I was unaware of the numerous discussions that have taken place regarding this issue. That said, I do feel that the version that I saw on the page before I changed it (apparently ChildofMidnight's version) glossed over one huge detail: that the transactions ocurred on the same day. We do not know the fine-print details, but it is nonetheless one of the most important aspects of the story.

So may I propose this compromise:

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to a $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood, where they lived until moving into the White House. The purchase transaction later attracted media attention because it was coordinated with Tony Rezko, a fundraiser and contributor to Obama's political campaigns, who bought an adjacent undeveloped lot on the same day and later sold part of the lot to the Obamas. Rezko was later indicted and convicted on political corruption charges for unrelated activities.

I took out the "mistake" part, because I think that is what may have been frusterating people. Looking at it from another perspective, I could see how it may add a little unnecessary weight to the passage. That said, it is only two sentences, and I don't see the above proposal as having a weight problem. I hope that this compromise will satisfy all parties.

I hope that my good friend Tvoz, of all people, will believe me when I say that this is not an attempt to slander Obama at all, whatsoever. He is my president now, I wish him well, and I hope he succeeds. But the Rezko deal was a major story and, like it or not, is apart of Barack Obama's biography and always will be. That is why it should be told, not excluding major details. I hope editors consider my words. Thanks in advance. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy, I did not and do not think you were editing in anything but a good faith manner, as you always do - and I did not intend any implication otherwise. But your proposed wording includes several things that I wouldn't agree to - like "coordinated", and the more vague "unrelated activities", the characterization of Rezko and removal of his wife, and maybe a few other things that go over ground that we covered at length last year. The debates that we had over this were difficult, as I said, and I for one really don't want to go through it all again. But I forced myself to look back at the link from the archives that Newross provided (and thank you to Newross for that comprehensive summary above which was very helpful), because I didn't recall the details - and I see that each word was carefully parsed, and the placement of the word "subsequent" was a matter of some discussion. In fact I was the one who added it before "conviction", because some editors felt strongly that we be clear that the media attention came before the conviction. I have changed my comment above, and only support a return to Rick Block's consensus wording from 13 July 2008 that LotLE had posted then. As for the weight this is given in this biography, I still agree with the consensus decision that because the wikilinked article on Tony Rezko goes into great detail about this matter, this is sufficient for his biography and more detail will give it too much weight. (I actually think that this story is not and will not be nearly as significant in Obama's whole life story as some tried to portray it during the campaign, but that's just opinion.) As for the "moving to the White House" - the Chicago house is still their home, so I think the wording is fine as it was - I guess it's ok with me to remove "current", but I don't think even that change is necessary. So - I would like to return to the consensus wording that was hammered out last year and which stood for seven months in this article, despite the pressures of the political season (an amazing feat, for such a contentious few sentences). Nothing has changed regarding this matter so I see no reason to have changed the text now. Tvoz/talk 06:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Political positions section

...is stale, given that Obama is now in office. What he said he would do if elected is kind of moot now that he is in office, right? That he seemed to change his position during the campaign on withdrawal from Iraq does not matter much compared to what he actually does. A quick look shows that half to three quarters of this section is surplus at this point, and could be replaced carefully by a discussion of his actual political positions as opposed to campaign posturing. Wikidemon (talk) 08:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think half to three quarters is a little high an estimate. A lot of these issues are yet to be given the attention that will define his actions. Certainly things like his position on healthcare are stale, but I think in general these positions are a much more definitive account of how the next 4 years might play out on these issues than the events of the last month. I think individual improvements to particular paragraphs would go by fine without too much laborious discussion. Bigbluefish (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there's plenty of precedent for this. Any "political positions" page for a currently active politician is going to be a work in progress. That doesn't mean it isn't useful. marbeh raglaim (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I should perhaps be more explicit. As I commented a few months back there is a significant distinction between: (1) political ideology, espoused or held; (2) positions taken publicly on issues; (3) campaign promises and platforms; and (4) legislation and other official actions taken in office. Conflating them, and giving too much emphasis to the campaign, gives readers a skewed perspective. Wikidemon (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree. However, we have to work from the material that exists. You're right that his legislative actions, as well as his statements before he began running for president, should not be given short shrift. But because his presidential campaign took up nearly three-fourths of his term in the U.S. Senate, a great deal of his public record at this point consists of what he said during the campaign. marbeh raglaim (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Unexpected landslide victory in March 2004 Illinois U.S. Senate primary election

Obama's unexpected landslide victory in the March 2004 Illinois U.S. Senate primary election:

  • prompted the creation of this Wikipedia article
  • immediately started major newspaper speculation about his prospects for becoming President of the United States
  1. The morning after Obama's unexpected landslide victory in the March 16, 2004 Illinois U.S. Senate primary election, page 2 of the March 17, 2004 Chicago Sun-Times said:

    Some of those voters may have been thinking what I'm thinking: that Obama has the potential to be the most significant political figure Illinois has sent to Washington since Abraham Lincoln. Even as I look at those words on the computer screen before me, I realize that seems a little outlandish. It takes in a lot of territory, maybe too much too soon. But that's an honest assessment.

    If he is elected in November, Obama will immediately replace Colin Powell as the person most talked about to be the first African-American elected president of the United States. That's a heavy load to put on any 42-year-old. Everybody who goes to the U.S. Senate thinks he's going to be president someday. Obama is one of the handful who really could be. [40]

  2. One day after Obama's unexpected landslide victory in the March 16, 2004 Illinois U.S. Senate primary election, this Wikipedia article was created.[41]
  3. Three days after Obama's unexpected landslide victory in the March 16, 2004 Illinois U.S. Senate primary election, page 4 of the March 19, 2004 USA Today said:

    Partisans in Washington consider him a shooting star in the November elections. A few whisper about a presidential future. "He's the real deal," says Sen. Jon Corzine, D-N.J., chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.[42]

Wording

  • For over two years, this article noted the number of candidates in and the landslide margin by which Obama won the March 2004 Illinois U.S. Senate primary election.
  • For over four years, this article at least noted the landslide margin (29%) by which Obama won the March 2004 Illinois U.S. Senate primary election.
  • On February 21, 2009, Happyme22 deleted mention of the landslide margin by which Obama won the March 2004 Illinois U.S. Senate primary election, leaving the article to say only: "He won the March primary with 52% of the vote."
  • On February 25, 2009, using wording and references from the United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004 subarticle that this article is supposed to summarize, I restored mention that Obama finished 29% ahead of his nearest Democratic rival and restored mention (from two years ago) that Obama's 53% of the vote was in a seven-candidate field, saying: "In March 2004 he won a surprise landslide victory with 53% of the vote in a seven-candidate field—29% ahead of his nearest Democratic rival—in the most expensive U.S. Senate primary in history."
  • My edit was reverted less than two hours later by Tad Lincoln saying "primaries should only be briefly mentioned."
  1. 21:26, 21 December 2004 143.195.170.60

    He won decisively in the March primary, dispatching the other six candidates easily, and winning more than 50 percent of the vote.

  2. 12:21, 5 October 2006 HailFire (→Senate campaign: condensed section; added missing references)

    From a crowded field of seven candidates, Obama received over 52% of the vote in the March 16, 2006 primary, emerging well ahead of his Democratic rivals.

  3. 20:57, 25 April 2007 HailFire (→Senate campaign: Minor rewording; condensed and merged paragraphs)

    Obama received over 52% of the vote in the March 2004 primary, emerging 29% ahead of his nearest Democratic rival.

  4. 22:46, 21 February 2009 Happyme22 (→2004 U.S. Senate campaign: copyedit: wording, placement of words, flow)

    He won the March primary with 52% of the vote.

  5. 19:43, 25 February 2009 Newross (→2004 U.S. Senate campaign: re-expand 21 February 2009 over-condensation by Happyme22 of sentence about the most crucial event in Obama's political career)

    In March 2004 he won a surprise landslide victory with 53% of the vote in a seven-candidate field—29% ahead of his nearest Democratic rival—in the most expensive U.S. Senate primary in history.

  6. 21:38, 25 February 2009 Tad Lincoln (Reverted edits by Newross -- Rezko section had just been condensed prior to unexplained reversion; primaries should only be briefly mentioned)

    He won the March primary with 52% of the vote.

References

  • The original reference for the March 2004 primary election sentence was added October 5, 2006 by HailFire, who replaced the dead link original reference on September 30, 2007 with a March 17, 2004 New York Times article and See also: to an August 2006 occasional paper by a SIU visiting professor.
    • The March 17, 2004 (early East Coast-deadline) Monica Davey New York Times article with incomplete results was followed the next day by a March 18, 2004 Monica Davey New York Times article with complete results and an appraisal of their significance.
    • The August 2006 occasional paper by an SIU visiting professor is non-contemporaneous, unauthoritative, incomplete and misleading (e.g. claiming a couple of "early" polls in mid-February and a couple of polls in early March are very indicative of the progression of the race).
  • On February 25, 2009, I replaced these references with references from the equivalent sentence in the "See also:" United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004 subarticle (the March 17, 2004 Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times articles, the March 18, 2004 New York Times article, the March 19, 2004 USA Today article, and chapter 17 of David Mendell’s 2007 book Obama: From Promise to Power (Mendell was the Chicago Tribune reporter assigned to cover the Democratic candidates in the Illinois 2004 U.S. Senate primary campaign and assigned to cover Obama in the Illinois 2004 U.S. Senate general election campaign).
  • My edit replacing references with those from the United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004 subarticle was reverted less than two hours later by Tad Lincoln saying "primaries should only be briefly mentioned."
  1. 12:21, 5 October 2006 HailFire (→Senate campaign: condensed section; added missing references)

    17. Illinois Primary 2004: Primary Elections Results, Chicago Tribune

  2. 16:03, 30 September 2007 HailFire (→Senate campaign: merged paragraphs; relinked sources for Illinois 2004 senate primary race and Keyes-Obama debates; CSUA)

    44. Davey, Monica (March 17, 2004). From Crowded Field, Democrats Choose State Legislator to Seek Senate Seat. New York Times
    See also:
    Jackson, John S (August 2006). The Making of a Senator: Barack Obama and the 2004 Illinois Senate Race Occasional Paper of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute (Southern Illinois University).

  3. 19:43, 25 February 2009 Newross (→2004 U.S. Senate campaign: re-expand 21 February 2009 over-condensation by Happyme22 of sentence about the most crucial event in Obama's political career)

    61. Mendell, David (March 17, 2004). Obama routs Democratic foes; Ryan tops crowded GOP field; Hynes, Hull fall far short across state. Chicago Tribune, p. 1.
    Fornek, Scott; Herguth, Robert C. (March 17, 2004). Obama defeats Hull's millions, Hynes' name; Consistent effort results in landslide for Hyde Parker. (paid archive). Chicago Sun-Times, p. 2.
    Davey, Monica (March 18, 2004). As quickly as overnight, a Democratic star is born. The New York Times, p. A20.
    Howlett, Debbie (March 19, 2004). Dems see a rising star in Illinois Senate candidate. USA Today, p. A04.
    Mendell (2007), pp. 235–246.

  4. 21:38, 25 February 2009 Tad Lincoln (Reverted edits by Newross -- Rezko section had just been condensed prior to unexplained reversion; primaries should only be briefly mentioned)

    60. From Crowded Field, Democrats Choose State Legislator to Seek Senate Seat. New York Times
    See also:
    Jackson, John S (August 2006). The Making of a Senator: Barack Obama and the 2004 Illinois Senate Race Occasional Paper of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute (Southern Illinois University).

Proposal
I propose restoring the February 21, 2009 pre-Happyme22 sentence about the March 2004 Illinois U.S. Senate Democratic primary election and updating it, in WP:Summary style, with important information and better, more authoritative sources from the United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004 subarticle:

In March 2004 he won an unexpected landslide victory with 53% of the vote in a seven-candidate field—29% ahead of his nearest Democratic rival—in the most expensive U.S. Senate primary in history.[61]

61. Mendell, David (March 17, 2004). Obama routs Democratic foes; Ryan tops crowded GOP field; Hynes, Hull fall far short across state. Chicago Tribune, p. 1.
Fornek, Scott; Herguth, Robert C. (March 17, 2004). Obama defeats Hull's millions, Hynes' name; Consistent effort results in landslide for Hyde Parker. (paid archive). Chicago Sun-Times, p. 2.
Davey, Monica (March 18, 2004). As quickly as overnight, a Democratic star is born. The New York Times, p. A20.
Howlett, Debbie (March 19, 2004). Dems see a rising star in Illinois Senate candidate. USA Today, p. A04.
Mendell (2007), pp. 235–246.

Newross (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm too tired to read everything you wrote right now, but, as much as I am a fan of Obama, let me point out that one of the main reasons the senatorial election resulted in a landslide victory was because his opponent was Alan Keyes, a man from out of state whose main campaign strategy was claiming that "Jesus hates Obama", or some such thing. I don't remember the exact wording on the banners, but it was something like that. I'd also like to say that primaries, as far as I am aware, are not mentioned in anywhere near this great of detail for any other United States president. He's president now, the the primaries no longer need more than a brief mention, as I said before. It's old news. Tad Lincoln (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I would not support that, Newross. The part about the most expensive Senate race is very trivial and truly adds nothing. What is the point of the 29% ahead of other candidates contention? And this part of your new version abhores me: "unexpected landslide victory" -- anybody with a brain would know that Obama would win because the Republicans nominated Alan Keyes with something like three weeks left. The Republicans were in shambles, so, as far as I know, it was hardly unexpected. --Happyme22 (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Too tired to look into this any deeper right now, but my first reaction is that the "29% ahead of his nearest rival" should not have been removed, so I would go back to HailFire's April 2007 Obama received over 52% of the vote in the March 2004 primary, emerging 29% ahead of his nearest Democratic rival. Will try to look into it tomorrow. Tvoz/talk 07:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Please allow me to point at that, even in Illinois, these primaries were only slightly significant at the time and, since then, have faded into obscurity. The only thing most people remember about that senate races is Alan Keyes. I would like to repeat my belief that this information about the primaries is non-notable and does not necessarily deserve any mention at all. If it is mentioned, it really shouldn't be more than a short sentence. Tad Lincoln (talk) 07:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Primary elections can be quite significant biographically. The most important congressional election of John McCain's career was the 1982 Republican primary for a House seat, and it's the one his biographers (and our articles) spend the most time describing. Arguably the most important congressional election of Ted Kennedy's career was the 1962 Democratic primary in a special election to replace JFK. Geraldine Ferraro was thought to have a bright future after the Mondale/Ferraro loss against Reagan in 1984, but New York senate primaries are treacherous and she lost two of them in the 1990s and never gained elective office again. And so on. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Tad Lincoln and Happyme22 are both apparently confused.
This topic is not about Obama's expected landslide victory over Alan Keyes of Maryland in the November 2004 Illinois U.S. Senate general election.
This topic is about Obama's unexpected landslide victory over seven candidates in the March 2004 Illinois U.S. Senate primary election.

  • In the 2004 Illinois U.S. Senate general election campaign, Obama consistently maintained a 20% lead over Republican primary winner Jack Ryan for the three months until Ryan's withdrawal in June 2004, was then unopposed for six weeks, until Keyes accepted the 19-member Illinois State Republican Central Committee's offer in August 2004 to be its 2004 Illinois U.S. Senate candidate, after which Obama consistently maintained a greater than 40% lead over Keyes for the three months up to and through the November 2004 general election.
  • In the 2004 Illinois U.S. Senate Democratic primary election campaign, four (Maria Pappas, Dan Hynes, Blair Hull, Barack Obama) of the five major candidates led in polls at some point in the final two months before the March 2004 primary election.
    • Blair Hull, the wealthiest person to ever run for elective office in Illinois, who self-financed and spent $29 million on his primary campaign, only transiently led in polls for two weeks in mid-February 2004.
    • The fifth major candidate, Gery Chico, had at the beginning of 2004 outraised and outspent every Democratic and Republican 2004 Illinois U.S. Senate candidate except Blair Hull.
    • Even the two minor candidates (who participated in the two radio debates but were excluded from the two televised debates) had been / would be credible candidates in other elections:

It was Obama's unexpected landslide victory in the March 2004 Illinois U.S. Senate primary election that made him, literally overnight, a national political star and started speculation in major newspapers about his presidential prospects, and led to his selection less than four months later as the July 2004 Democratic National Convention keynote speaker.

Some pre-July 2004 DNC keynote address articles:

That Obama overcame better-known and better-funded opponents in the most expensive U.S. Senate primary in U.S. history is certainly more than "very trivial and truly adds nothing" but could be left in the United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004 subarticle.
Since the March 17, 2004 Chicago Sun-Times reference is a paid archive it can be left in the United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004 subarticle.

Revised proposal

In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won an unexpected landslide victory with 53% of the vote in a seven-candidate field, 29% ahead of his nearest Democratic rival.[61]

61. Mendell, David (March 17, 2004). Obama routs Democratic foes; Ryan tops crowded GOP field; Hynes, Hull fall far short across state. Chicago Tribune, p. 1.
Davey, Monica (March 18, 2004). As quickly as overnight, a Democratic star is born. The New York Times, p. A20.
Howlett, Debbie (March 19, 2004). Dems see a rising star in Illinois Senate candidate. USA Today, p. A04.
Mendell (2007), pp. 235–246.

Newross (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Change of info boxes at the top of the talk page

Um, can anyone explain why the info boxes at the top of the page were changed, what policy covers it, and if there is no policy that covers it, then where is the consensus for it? I ask because it looks far worse then before, the font is much smaller and it still does not really shorten the page. Brothejr (talk) 10:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no policy for it, except that they ideally shouldn't be changed without consensus. I'd support setting them back as they were, not least because expanding the FAQ now leads to a ridiculously tall column. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I've gone in and reverted all the changes. The editor who changed it is encouraged to seek community consensus before attempting to change the top of this talk page again. Brothejr (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)t
I changed them. There's no policy. Discussion isn't required. All I did was switch on the "small" parameter for templates that are capable of that feature, which don't end up pushing the discussions down on the page. They rather sit at the right side of the page, allowing text to wrap to their left. It's meant for talk pages like this one, where a lot of header templates take up space and mean forcing people to scroll through them before getting to the actual "talking" part of the "talk page". I don't care myself all that much, but for people who use this talk page, the change would be beneficial, especially for those with lower resolution monitors. I myself have a high-res, and even I get a full page of header templates before seeing the discussion. I hate to think what the low-res people have to deal with.
If you have some actual reason for wanting the header templates the way they are now, that's fine, and it can be discussed. But If you reverted for the sole reason that the changes weren't discussed first, that wasn't necessary. Demonstrated consensus isn't a requirement for something like this. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:40, 27 Feb 2009 (UTC)
I've tweaked the headers in an effort to compromise. I removed a duplicate talkheader and BLP notice. I made the article history, press, and auto-archive notices small. I left the BLP and FAQ large. I left the skiptotoc template. Let me know if that looks okay. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:49, 27 Feb 2009 (UTC)
The right and left columns overlap on my (small) screen. It doesn't look OK at all. It looked fine before. PhGustaf (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I tried one more time, having the small boxes start below the large templates rather than appearing beside them. Let me know if any of them still appear to overlap in your browser. PS There's a problem with the code in the version you guys keep reverting to, and it causes half the headers to not show up at all. It's better to just wait for the outcome of this discussion. I'll revert the code correctly myself if that's what everyone ends up wanting. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:35, 28 Feb 2009 (UTC)
The "compacted to right" definitely looks better in my browser (FF3/OSX/~1000px width/etc). LotLE×talk 00:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
de gustibus. I liked it better before. But at least it doesn't overlap. PhGustaf (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm also using a hi-res monitor so its a matter of how small the font it. But the biggest reason for the way it was is the lab tops and their smaller screens. It still seems clumsy and does not look right. Plus, the reason I mentioned consensus is that something like that is a little more then just changing the wording or two of a sentence. It comes across as a personal thing and not a needed change. Brothejr (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
While all of this is a little spontaneous and unscientific, when a viewable height of 702px isn't enough to see the start of the TOC without scrolling, something had to be done. The current setup seems pretty neat. We have to balance the need to get all the information across clearly with the fact that the more information we bombard the user with the more likely they are to ignore it all and make another thread about Obama's race. Bigbluefish (talk) 11:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
True on some points, however I don't see this new setup reducing the repeat of certain threads. Even with this new set up, people are still going to ignore what's written there. Brothejr (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

A question of race

question dealt with many times - see FAQ
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I am curious why Obama is listed as the "first African American" president. Should that be changed to "first half-African American" president, since he his half white (his mother and grandmother, who raised him, were white)? Thanks, Stusan (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed countless times. Check the archives. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
African-American is a heritage. Anyone with lineage (like a father) from African is African-American. And like Bugs said, check the archive index search feature. Grsz11 03:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, news casters are technically wrong when they call him the first Black president, because in fact he isn't all black. The United States hasn't had a black president yet. (ie. Tiger Woods, Derek Jeter). 69.121.221.237 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC).

That's silly. Almost no one in the United States is "all black." The vast majority of African Americans have mixed ancestry. If Obama isn't black, then neither is Wesley Snipes, Oprah Winfrey, Condi Rice, Michael Jordan, Martin Luther King, Al Sharpton, etc., etc. marbeh raglaim (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Creating (yet more) links on the page

A number of organizations that Obama was involved in or acted on the board of directors for don't have hyperlinks. Example, the Center for Neighborhood Technology. I think it would be beneficial to give people access to that kind of thing, and most of them have either their own webpages or wikipedia pages, so why not link to them? Unfortunately because of the (necessary) lock on the page, it's difficult to add those links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealintomorrow (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 21:35, 4 March 2009. I wonder how fast this comment will be censored. :) Wikipedia is really getting be be a joke! Unfortunately, this is a really great concept being more and more poorly executed! I'll guess I go back to using Google to find facts, because I just don't feel Wikipedia is unbiased anymore. If they can work with respond acurately and forcefully to http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114 then maybe the reputation can be rescued. Otherwise, Wikipedia will probably become something of a joke similiar to the Washington Post, et al, along with the accompanying drop in users, readers, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.236.112.195 (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

2 "References" sections

Shouldn't the one containing the {{reflist}} tag be called Notes per WP:CITE and for both consistency and accessibility. It does not make sense to have them both named the same thing. I didn't want to make the change without discussion. Calebrw (talk) 05:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it to Notes and References. I don't see where this would have been a controversial change... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
It was originally called notes. Some editor changed it without bothering to ask or to look and see that there was a separate section called "references". I thought I had reverted, but it seems that it didn't work for some reason. Tad Lincoln (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks guys. Calebrw (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Occidental College

Does it really matter that he didn't graduate from there? He spent half his undergraduate career there. Why discount it just because it wasn't where he spent his final years? I don't think there's anything wrong with being inclusive here. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:15, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Everyone please stop reverting the article. Telling others to discuss the issue in your edit summary doesn't make it okay. Discuss the issue here yourself or shut the hell up. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:57, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)
According to the Alma mater article, that term applies to "the university or college from where a person has attended or graduated." Under that definition, Occidental College should be mentioned in the Infobox. SMP0328. (talk) 04:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. And by the way, Equazcion, I edited this passage ONCE. That is nowhere near WP:3RR, in spirit or in reality. So the next time you crawl up on a high horse and decide to call someone out in an edit summary, it might be smart for you to get your facts straight. And I have now done #2, as this user's revert was clearly done in bad faith as an exercise in point-making, rather than in the spirit of improving the article. Tarc (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I was in error when I warned you of 3RR. That having been said, 3RR isn't absolute. You're not supposed to edit war in order to get your version of the article instated, but discuss instead. And there was absolutely nothing bad-faith about my edit. There's no need for accusations. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:22, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)
Tarc, in restoring the reference to Occidental College in the Infobox, referred to its removal as a "bad faith edit". I don't agree with that description. While I agree with the restoration, I believe the removal was in good faith. Whether "alma mater" included Occidental College was not clear. SMP0328. (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I was specifically referring to Equazcion's edit, not the newbie's. The former was made to make a point about a (wrong) assumption about 3RR. Not about the subject matter itself. Tarc (talk) 05:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
It was an attempt to put a stop to the edit warring, not to make a point about 3RR. As someone relatively uninvolved I thought it might do the trick. If I were an admin I would've protected the article instead, but since I'm not, this seemed like the next best thing. There's nothing bad-faith about that. You'll notice I actually reverted to the version I disagree with. Besides which, if you think continuing the revert war based on the subject matter is somehow more proper, I'd say you're mistaken. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:37, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)
The best way to put a stop to the edit warring is simply not to edit it again, but to come here and discuss it. While it may be irking that editors put in their edit summaries: "please discuss in talk page first," it means just that. Why not discuss it before elevating the issue to a revert war. While WP:BOLD may mean at times go on in and fix what you see wrong, it also means that maybe it might be better to bring it to the talk page first and discuss it. Sometimes what you see wrong may not actually be wrong in the first place, or is a product of a long running argument that led to a consensus version. Changing things because you, as the editor, want to see it differently is not a good excuse to change things and can even be argued as just trying to make a WP:POINT. Brothejr (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Sarah Palin attended FIVE different colleges for her B.A. alone, but the only one listed is the University of Idaho. Why? BECAUSE THAT'S HER ALMA MATER. Your alma mater is not "any school you attended", it's WHERE YOU GRADUATED FROM. I cannot find a single other Wikipedia page, besides Obama's, that features a school that person DID NOT graduate from as their "alma mater." It's ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.111.52 (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Technically, an alma mater is anywhere you attended. Graduation is irrelevant. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Technically, that doesn't matter. The only places traditionally considered "alma mater" and the once places recorded in this spot on someone's Wiki page are where they graduated from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.111.52 (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I Agree 72.207.65.76 (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Then someone needs to edit Wikipedia's definition of 'Alma Mater' then, as it says it refers to someone who attend or graduated from a school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.238.2 (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama spent two years each at Occidental and Colombia. They were both important to his education and both deserve mention in the infobox. I bet Occidental considers him enough of an alumnus to ask him for money. PhGustaf (talk) 07:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

For those arguing for one college equals one Alma Mater, then how about this real life example: A person goes into a program where they first start out in one college for two years. Then they finish their last two years in a different college graduating with a bachelors degree. After a couple more years they attended a third university and attained their master degree. Finally they went to a fourth university and graduated with a doctorate. They technically graduated all four colleges, receives alumni mailings from all four colleges, and thinks fondly of all four colleges. Which is their Alma Mater? (I personally know this person and I've heard of hundred and hundreds of others doing the same thing.) Brothejr (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Their Alma Maters are the schools they got their BA, MA, and PhD from. All but the first, basically, because the first one was the only one they left without a degree in their hand.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_52&oldid=1136548702"