Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 61

Archive 55

←

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

→

Archive 65

Professor, again

(moved from above) Mr Obama was not a professor at the University of Chicago Law School; he was a senior lecturer. The University, as soon as he was elected, said on their site that he was a professor, but that is stretching the term professor to mean anybody who teaches in the University, from the rank of lecturer on up.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Log37 (talk • contribs)

There has been extensive discussion on this - to find some of that you can do a talk page archive search like this. The last one is here - it got off topic but you can see what the issues are. My short explanation of the issues here (and this reflects some opinion on my part that may not be shared by all) is that: (1) there is no universal definition of what a "professor" is, (2) the University of Chicago formally identifies him as having been a professor, (3) various reliable sources use the term, on their own and in reporting on the university's designation, (4) we want to provide the most useful, succinct, correct information without confusing the reader, and (5) this was a very minor controversy, relating to some claims during the election that went nowhere, that Obama had exaggerated his resume. We go by what the reliable sources say, not what we think should be said... with the caveat that word usage and style issues are governed by internal decisions and guidelines. We report facts and events as covered by reliable sources, but we try to inform the reader in our own encyclopedic tone. I would not word it exactly as it is now, but the result of the community discussion is what is on the page. Wikidemon (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

United We Serve

I suggest include information about United We Serve. --Nopetro (talk) 06:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No opinion, but why (I've never heard of it, and our article is not helping much) and based on which sources? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I seem to recall Obama being a proponent for this,since he thinks this will give young people some kind of experience on something that will help them be better people.(i think) But I don't see that it is a big deal for Obama, and the info we have on the wiki page of it seems to be almost nothing.In other words, there's nothing for us to add because there's too little we know about it.If someone could add more info for us, and show us why it matters enough for a Obama article then we could include it. Durga Dido (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There is vitually nothing to write about here, because the link is to a very short stub article. The question is should the stub be deleted? QueenofBattle (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Good question, suggest answering it on the article's talk page!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

My question was rhetorical here, but I have posted it on that article's talk page along with an "importance" tag. QueenofBattle (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This is another of those right wing conspiracy things; (Michelle Bachman is one of the leaders of the squad) that Obama is trying to force American teenagers into re-education camps for political indoctrination. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United We Serve‎. LotLE×talk 06:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal of true, relevant and constructive additions to article

I antiedman have been adding information to the page and citing a reliable source but for what ever reason someone has been removing it. here is the most recent code to what I have been adding

He is the first African & White Biracial American , the first person of African decent and first person of A Dark skin complexion to hold the office

so in the future as to not 3RR I will readd this well cited information. --Antiedman (talk) 12:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

And if you do, it will be reverted. What exactly do you think has changed since you brought this up the last time? Tarc (talk) 13:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I left what I felt was a reasoned response to a rant he left, in stereo (that is, twice) on my talk page. Antiedman should keep in mind that he's skating on the thin edge of 3RR. And he would be taken more seriously if his spelling and capitalization did not evoke something out of the Sixties. The Seventeen Sixties.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Will US Independence Day stop?

Original comment difficult to parse, therefore nothing of substance to discuss
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
1. Terrorism. 2. People doing business of thought reading. 3. People doing business of viewing public places, publc residences, and ofcourse like chennai even killing. 4. This is all happening for more than years chennai. But still the former President Mr.George W Bush wants to act in a Tamil Movie.Will this mess be stopped. 5. Will Human rights will be powered to shelter the effected people like who are listeners i.e listening to voices without any mobile. When will this head business get over. 6. For a concrete solution he should have a watch on Chennai. 7. Please note I am writing this, only what i am listening. 8. 44th President, It is must for a good change. As per numerology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chennai venkata krishna (talk • contribs) 12:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Ok, I did not get that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC) I don't think there's any relevant discussion there. Suggest hiding/archiving without further ado.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Curious. Every single word of that post is in English yet I can't understand it. Ikilled007 (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

FAQ2

One question not addressed by FAQ2 is why exactly the information about Obama being the first African American is included in the lead, and in the second sentence at that. What justifies the inclusion of a point of such minor importance in the second sentence? The FAQ should be updated to include some rationale on that -- because the article doesn't. 87.79.171.4 (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, including recently. Please feel free to search the archives for further discussion. If you'd like to propose a thoughtful, succinct, and well-worded addition to FAQ2 – or for that matter possibly an additional FAQ – I'm sure it could be discussed for inclusion. And thank you for the suggestion DKqwerty (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Obama children articles - comments requested

Comments requested regarding whether we should have separate articles for Malia and Sasha Obama (or one for the two) or if the current arrangement of a section of Family of Barack Obama should continue. See Talk: Family of Barack Obama#Malia Obama article and please comment there. Thanks. Tvoz/talk 21:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Obama's height and weight

There are mentions of his tall height and several sources have commented about his shirtless appeal. I have mixed feelings about adding anything unless it is part of his cultural image. There was a big deal about his looks, said by Biden. Biden said he's a good looking, articulate, clean cut guy or something like that.

No mention until more reliable sources pick it up
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Whats the numbers? Looks like around 1.90m and 85 kilos to me. Would be interesting to have this in the article. In the personal life section that is 83.108.208.28 (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Given the way the US is headed, that information is probably classified for National Security. Ikilled007 (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC) It's not relevant unless he were extraordinarily tall, short, fat, or anorexic. — \`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE`/ (talk • contribs) 13:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Why don't we add his blood type, visual acuity, resting blood pressure, and astrological symbol while we're at it? Because this type of information (including height and weight) is of no importance to a biography unless notably outside the norm. DKqwerty (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Agree. If Obama were the extreme in height or weight, which he is not, it might be worth including. Since he is not, it is not.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC) I also agree. If he were the wideout for the Washington Redskins, we might care about his height and weight. QueenofBattle (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Guy needs a hobby. And Daniel Snyder's done weirder things...--Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Dunno. Have you ever seen him in real life? The cameras add about 15 pounds. He is emaciated.--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC) According to whom? Without a source, this claim is but original research. DKqwerty (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Now, that's funny DK. Who says liberals don't have a sense of humor (well, other than me)? QueenofBattle (talk) 03:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Here´s a [[1]]source. I´ll allow you to evaluate it ;)--Die4Dixie (talk) 04:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Your point? It certainly doesn't say he's emaciated. And it doesn't refer to his weight as an outlier either. DKqwerty (talk) 05:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Heh, Obama's elitist cuz he's skinny. I love it. Tarc (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC) He's not even skinny. He just bucks the "Americans are fat" trend. Sceptre (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC) The article 'Die4Dixie' references doesn't really say much factually about Obama's physical stats, other than 'he's not fat, works out regularly, and may or may not enjoy ice cream. Just about everything else is 'man on the street' chatter or an attempt at implying stuff via speculative synthetic not-really-a-comparisons to other presidents. It's WSJ's pre-election hyperbole. So what? ThuranX (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Hold on. Obama even uses "skinny" to describe himself in the article, as quoted by the reporter. This sister project makes a link between "emaciated" and "skinny" [2]. We could use a thesaurus to find an equivalent, or just use his own word : "skinny". That was the source which I wanted to be evaluated: The man himself. We use his assertions from his nonfiction writing as authority for every other detail about him, why not let the article say he is skinny?--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Regardless of what he or anyone says, it is of zero notability and its inclusion would give it undue weight. DKqwerty (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC) funny thing about notability is that when one actually reads the policy, it says it is for establishing an article. Now had I proposed an article on his "skinniness", I would understand the wikilinking for my edification. Notability is, however, established by its reporting by reliable third party sources, the WSJ being particularly held out to be one by this project. Obama identifies himself as "skinny" in much the same way he self-identifies as African American. We know that he does both these by the reliable third party sources that report it. It seems that you keep making different standards about this as we go. First you wanted a source. I provided it. I addressed your reliable source questions. I addressed your WP:V concerns. You then asked for my point, and I gave it, than you want to lead me down the WP:NOTE garden path policy that doesn´t really apply in anyway ( although this all has demonstrated your amazing ability to wikilink ad nauseam ) to this situation. As far as WP:WEIGHT, that is the only point that you have made that might approach a reason for no-inclusion, and is certainly debatable. I don´t feel strongly about it one way or another. I was merely trying to help the original poster, who, BTW, seems to have lost interest at this point, so I am happy to allow your disallowal af the addition if no furter debate is forthcoming.--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Project articles query

I have not received a response at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Barack_Obama#Articles_potentially_in_the_project and thought someone here might be able to come by and make a determination.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Can someone help out with this?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Obama O's

Just so you know in case you want to use it as an internal link or something, an article is now available for Obama O's, the specialty cereal created by General Mills • S • C • A • R • C • E • 09:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yummy! Can't find any on ebay -.- Frank Fontaine (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Obama O's and Cap'n McCain's for deletion. The discussion page is here. SMP0328. (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Inauguration

Shouldn't there be a sentence following his grant park speech saying that his inauguration set attendance records or referring to the Inauguration of Barack Obama somehow?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The article already links to the "Inauguration" article, just under the heading "First days". That article already mentions record attendance in the lead and includes a few paragraphs (perhaps too much) about the crowd count. I don't think the numbers are terribly relevant to this biographical article because they're a few steps removed from who Obama is. Also, things are getting bigger and bigger in the United States... whether it's the Super Bowl, the latest videogame, a budget deficit, or a political event, there's a reasonable chance that the most recent one is the biggest of them all. There have been a total of 50-55 inaugurations in total, so top among all 50 is not exactly earth-shaking. Still, having some mention in the inauguration article makes some sense, not just for trivia but to get an idea of the scale and scope of the event. Wikidemon (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Miscellaneous discussions

A process note here. I've grouped together some already-collapsed discussions. Per Arbcom it is okay to archive threads that are solely soapboxing or WP:NOT#FORUM/forum-like, particularly from new and single purpose accounts. Let's keep the closing rationale neutral, polite, and informative, and save any concern over the legitimacy of accounts for a notice board. One new place to discuss that is the Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation hierarchy. Hope this helps, Wikidemon (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

While I understand the rationale, and personally agree with the practice of closing unproductive threads, I don't think it is appropriate to group them together in a section such as this. Each should be closed where they were proposed, and then archived by the Bots in the normal course. QueenofBattle (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It's the best way to go about it given the nature of the threads and how they were closed - if you want to discuss that we should probably do that elsewhere. Wikidemon (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Says who it's the best way to go about it? It smells of censorship. We can discuss anywhere you'd like, but they were grouped here, so this seems like as good a place as any to discuss this unilateral behavior. Is there precedence for doing this? Thanks. QueenofBattle (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(out of order) No, this is not a good place. I'll bring it up on your talk page. Wikidemon (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

A complaint, largely about alleged early closures and snarky closing comments, has been filed here[3]. It's incomplete at this stage, but we should be aware of it. PhGustaf (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

grouping closed discussions together
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Obama Approval 49% Among U.S. Investors Closing this as it is becoming un-productive and this talk page is not a forum. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Read the news: Obama Approval 49% Among U.S. Investors Notable, seeing that before this I've not seen an approval below fifty percent for Obama. Logarléc (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Investors are a subgroup of the population. I understand he's doing fairly badly among MLB baseball players and dittoheads as well. Thanks for the input.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Don't forget people who like mayonnaise on their burgers. Sceptre (talk) 11:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC) And people who go to playgrounds. You know, "swing" voters.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Ugh, who puts mayo on burgers? Communists, that's who. Tarc (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Why Obama fans are making joke from every bad number? I think this is an important number, an indicator of economy, like the raising unemploymnet rate. Logarléc (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC) I personally think the most important number is what the hot dog venders think of him. How is his popularity doing with them? I've heard it may have fallen two percent or would that be two dogs? Now I have to contemplate that for a bit, but either way we need to include the hot dog vender angle! They are very important people! Brothejr (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC) People employed in the financial sector are usually much more conservative than the general population, so I think 49% is actually a surprisingly high number. --Jleon (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC) It's a factoid, which means it says little without full context. Inasmuch as this is a biography article and the goal is to tell the story of his life and career, Obama's popularity or lack thereof is not terribly germane. Less so the day-to-day swings, or the popularity among any of the hundreds of racial, ethnic, religious, occupational, class, wealth, geographic, gender, etc., subgroups one may define in America and elsewhere.Wikidemon (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Per this, I understand that this might not have been a good-faith user. However, I question what effect the mocking evident in the first several replies to this thread might have, if this actually happens(-ed?) to be a good-faith user, with an honest question. What is accomplished by treating other editors in that manner? Unitanode 18:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Teaching position at University of Chicago Isn't it unaccurate to refer to him as a "professor" at the University of Chicago Law School? Obama was only a lecturer at the school. Should the word "professor" be replaced with "instructor?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.245.215.4 (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC) This has come up a lot in the past, most recently Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 59#Academics. Personally, I see the title of "professor" as something actually conferred, and not merely an honorific. Tarc (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC) His title was lecturer but it is very likely that he will be given a title bigger than Professor eventually. Perhaps it will he will be the first Barack H. Obama Distinquished Honorary Professor at the University of Chicago. Or maybe an Honorary Professor at Occidental College. He is in line for many honorary degrees, visiting professorships, and honorary professorships for years to come.User F203 (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Looking at that link that Tarc made, the more accurate word would be to say that Obama was a faculty member.....served as lecturer..., rather than Obama was a professor....served as lecturer. However, since my article about his boyhood homes (below), a very non-controversial topic, created such a disturbance, I will not be getting into this semi-controversial topic! End of story for me. User F203 (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Canvassing, advertising another article (wrong talk page) Closing this as it is becoming un-productive and this talk page is not a forum. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. In the spirit of transparency here at Wikipedia, please help a user improve Barack Obama in Hawaii. Thanks. QueenofBattle (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC) No, the original editor (creator of article) submitted an AFD (article for deletion). No help is needed, just carry on. User F203 (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Help is also needed in the Family of Barack Obama, Senate career of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, etc. User F203 (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (ec)Er, what exactly is going on here? In the time taken to look at the article, I've come back to edit warring on keeping/deleting a discussion section here, to the article author "helping" Wehwalt with an AfD of an article he...he as in "F203"...just created hours ago? Seems like a lot of frantic drama over an article that appears to be a completely redundant to Early life and career of Barack Obama. Tarc (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC) I suggested at TT:DYK that it might be a good idea to mention that article here, and F203 urged me in the strongest terms not to mention it here (see my talk page). In the interests of good neighborliness, I withdrew my comment, but the genie seems well and truly out of the bag.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC) The genie is out of the bottle (or bag), largely due to my actions, which I firmly reaffirm. Ironically, I didn't have too many issues with the article in question (other than the redundancy), but take serious umbrage with the lack of transparency and secrecy that comes with begging another to keep things quiet to avoid drama. QueenofBattle (talk) 23:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC) You with the "firmly reaffirm", me with the "genie out of the bag"! Come on, remedial English is this way, I'll lead the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC) I have created a new article, Obama bluejeans incident, about the President's latest fashion faux pas. Impeccably sourced to dozens of major reliable publications.[4][5] I think we should have a link here in this article. Wikidemon (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Don't do it Wikidemon, it will just be a coatrack for those who say no native born Hawaiian would have worn jeans like that.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC) I was really shocked when I first heard about this incident and propose a criticism section devoted only to this disgraceful and shameful appearance of the articles subject. Thank you Wikidemon for bringing it to our attention--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC) This really good source[http://www.wnd.com/] says that Obama was kept after school in the third grade for picking his nose. I think it should be in the article. PhGustaf (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Another dittohead bringing up that alleged spitball incident. Just because the Honolulu Public Schools refuses to confirm or deny it, these "spitballers" keep demanding Obama's "long form" second grade report card, with conduct comments, even though we know they didn't even make those until 1976!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC) I have had it with the silly display of POV. Stop this right now, as this behavior is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Jorts wearers have a viewpoint here, that should be represented without the Pro-Obama cabal promoting his jeans (or is it genes?). QueenofBattle (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC) " Picking his nose"? That's it. Time to censor!--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Oh good. The day I learnt to say "rhinotillexomania" can't be a totally wasted one. PhGustaf (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC) I just wonder if those poor slobs know they are on Wikipedia being shown picking their noses ...--Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC) I'm still trying to figure out the proper way to pick my nose. Any professional here to help me out?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Maybe Jimbo? s'not fair, he knows everything!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Never mind. I found my master who will teach me in-flight nose picking.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Unemployment rate Closing section begun by a confirmed, banned sock The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Read: Employment Situation Summary Under Obama's administration the unemployment rate has risen from 8.1 percentage to 9.5 percentage (from 2009 January to 2009 June). Just to note that this is the worst rate in the past 25 years in USA, see: unemployment I've checked the Obama's main article for the "unemployment" word: 0 occurrence. On the presidency's page: 1 occurence. This is too bad. Párhuzamos univerzum (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC) What do you expect? We're in the middle of a recession. Even if the recession stopped in February 2009, the unemployment rate would take a few months to bottom out and start to recover. Public debt reached its highest value in years under Bush, but it doesn't appear in his article either (though that's a moot point because it's almost guaranteed to increase under Obama's stimulus). Sceptre (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC) I'm expecting to inculde it on the article, probably in "Economic managment" part. When you describe a country's economy then the unemployment rate is in the first three main factor, you can talk about economy but without this rate it is nearly pointless. Párhuzamos univerzum (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC) You do have a point that employment rates are relevant to the economy. However, we should treat the rise as somewhat inherited from the Bush administration rather than wholely blaming Obama. How about: On February 17, 2009, Barack Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, a $787 billion economic stimulus package aimed at helping the economy recover from the deepening worldwide recession, which had caused the worst recession in XX years and worst employment rate in YY years. New material in bold. Sceptre (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC) The recession caused the recession? Needs more copyediting. Plus, that sentence scans badly: it's tough to tell at first read whether the stimulus package was supposed to have caused the recession, or the worldwide recession. --Ashenai (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Good point. "...aimed at helping the ecnomy recover from the deepening worldwide recession, which is the worst recession in XX years and increased the unemployment rate to its highest in YY years"? Sceptre (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Much better, I'd be OK with that. It still sounds a bit forced to my ear (the transition from talking about what Obama did to talking about the recession and unemployment is a bit sudden,) but I don't have any better ideas, so... :) --Ashenai (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC) The only way this information could be relevant to the article right now is by pointing out that the Obama Admin's original estimates were way off as described by Biden. But I think it's premature to start discussing Obama's influence on the economy. Better to wait a couple of years. Ikilled007 (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC) You aren't a fast guy... Why aren't we wait for the death of Obama and then write about Obama's effect for the economy. Párhuzamos univerzum (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC) There are all kinds of factors that affect the economy, and no reliable sources currently indicate Obama's policies and unemployment are related. In fact, most reputable economists point to the housing bubble bursting and over-leveraged mortgage assets as the major root causes. Funds for loans dry up, businesses can't get loans to make payroll... boom, skyrocketing unemployment. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper. We wait until reliable sources say something before saying it ourselves. And just a teensy reminder: The economy fell to pieces last year. I'll give you three guesses who was President at the time, and his last name begins with a 'B.' Now that his term in office is over, doesn't it make more sense to write about the economic impact of an eight year presidency than a six month one? --GoodDamon 20:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC) To inject Párhuzamos univerzum's version of events, we'd need a lot of citations demonstrating that the unemployment rise can be directly demonstrated to be a result of Obama's policies and actions, and not, as posited and seemingly obvious, an inherited problem. Párhuzamos univerzum, can you provide citation demonstrating that Obama is personally responsible for the recession? if not, it shouldn't go in. ThuranX (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC) I have a few thoughts for the record. If and when we mention unemployment figures, I think it's better if we write that this is "the highest unemployment rate since (year XXXX)" instead of "the highest in XX years" as it pinpoints the year, which is more specific and informative in allowing the reader to compare and contrast the current situation with the previous historical event. How much time has passed since that event seems more emphatic than informative. A few facts about unemployment. Job cuts don't happen overnight; that is to say that you don't become aware of a fiscal problem on a Tuesday and your employees are out on the street the following afternoon. It can take months before job cuts actually go into effect. In other words, some of the job cuts happening in June/July were decided upon and/or announced during the March market nadir. This PDF from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows in its first page that, while the unemployment rate has indeed been increasing as a zero-sum total (Chart 1), you can see (in the adjacent Chart 2) that the monthly losses were worsening particularly since August '08 and saw their worst month in January '09—this was Bush's last month in office, as we are looking at it from the standpoint of biography/presidency—and has actually been improving every single month since then. (I say every single month when, in fact, June so far seems to have been worse than May, but May was strikingly better than April, and June is better than April, so the moving average continues to rise.) In other words, while the overall unemployment rate is worsening, the monthly job loss number is improving. Bear in mind that even though it has already happened, they revise the numbers for three months afterward. I point this out to our friend Párhuzamos univerzum in response to his "fast guy" comment. Even after these figures are published, they are not encyclopedically accurate until three months of late-arriving info and deeper examination of data adjusts the figure. Having said all that, the economy actually needs to add a certain number of jobs per month in order to meet the demand of those entering the workforce (those graduating or dropping out from high school, college, etc., as well as legal immigrants, not to mention those for whom taking a second or third job becomes necessary). So earlier figures during the Bush years, while often "in the black," so to speak, by creating jobs month-over-month, were actually losing jobs when measured against the population increase. Continuing on the second point of my first paragraph, unemployment is a lagging indicator going forward as well as looking back, meaning that the world's economy has to improve solidly for several months before corporations are going to be ready to take on new employees and drive down the unemployment numbers. I say "the world's economy" because it's a global recession and we have a global economy and U.S. companies have a huge percentage of their income from overseas. (For example, Atlanta, Georgia-based Coca-Cola gets a full 75% of their profits from outside the U.S.) Finally, and I have said this about an economic suggestion or two on this and/or the presidency page before, it would be intellectually honest and encyclopedically responsible for someone who suggests and/or crafts/adds a mention about the economy under Obama to note in the Obama article the throughline from the Bush administration and, in turn, add what they know and/or have learned (as it appears in reliable sources, of course) as it is relevant and appropriate given weight concerns et al in the Bush articles. Abrazame (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Read the George_W._Bush article, just for a comparison on it there are 4 numbers for unemployment rate! On Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration the economic indicators part begins with unemployment rate finishing by this sentence: "And, in January 2009, his last month in office, the nation lost 655,000 jobs, raising the unemployment rate to 7.6 percent, the highest level in more than 15 years." I don't like the double standards and seeing these there is really no point why we shouldn't note the high unemployment rate. Párhuzamos univerzum (talk) 09:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC) The Economic Management section right now is narrowly focused on Obama's actions, as opposed to the state of the economy that his actions were intended to affect. It would be reasonable to start the section with a very brief overview [two sentences max] of the economy as it was at his inauguration, possibly with a tiny comment on the effect of the crisis on the presidential campaign, to give context to his subsequent acts. Such a change in the section would be radical and would require building consensus among the editors. But for now, it's impossible to evaluate the success of his actions-- we don't know whether the current unemployment represents a failure of the stimulus, or a resounding success in averting what otherwise would have been 15% unemployment. Until the unemployment numbers cause Obama direct political trouble, or persist long enough to be a significant factor in his presidency overall, they aren't relevant to an article summarizing his life, career and presidency in a few thousand words. I should add that I don't advocate trying to add the economic context language now. Too much opportunity for edit warring for too little improvement. 71.179.10.162 (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC) (CouldOughta, not signed in) I would point out to my friend Párhuzamos univerzum two things about what he states immediately above. First, you say there are 4 numbers. This is 4 numbers covering eight years, the first being a Clinton number (the low rate when he took office). By this standard, we could note that Obama inherited a lousy unemployment rate from Bush and be well over the average for figures per year. Second, the second number in the Bush article, or the first number that is actually being compared as a Bush-influenced statistic, comes from June 2003—twenty-nine months into the Bush administration. By this standard, we would match the Bush article if we noted the unemployment rate in June 2011. Of course it is likely to be relevant and appropriate to include some information about the unemployment situation some time in 2010, a mere twelve or sixteen months into his administration. If you know anything about the U.S. stimulus package, only 30 to 40% of it will have been spent by then, but we could reasonably begin to presume that Obama's policies and that stimulus package would have had some encyclopedically notable, somewhat broad and enduring economic effect by then (what that will be we will have to see), as reasonable, notably and reliably sourced and well-supported examinations would no doubt by then be discussing. Industry and the economy is measured in quarters, which are three-month periods. The majority of economists don't believe anything can be encyclopedically stated as having really happened in a scale as large as the national economy until it has persistently happened for two consecutive quarters. This is why, for example, we couldn't encyclopedically state that we were in a recession until the Summer of 2008 even though we had been in one for two quarters, or a half a year, already. I find it ironic that the same sorts of voices that give Bush a pass on the economy and instead blame Clinton and even Carter (leaping over Reagan and Bush I for some reason) for the degree to which home ownership incentives impacted the 2007-2009 recession are the sorts of voices that seem to be condemning Obama for not fixing the entire rotten thing in a matter of months. Stocks, rising for months, are currently up dozens and even hundreds of percent from their Fall '08 and/or March '09 lows (though indeed most are not nearly back to their highs), and mortgage rates hit record lows, two very positive economic realities that are also not mentioned in the Obama biography. The latest news and statistical data, while perhaps lodged in some chart or list somewhere at Wikipedia, is not necessarily encyclopedically relevant to a biography, or even the Presidency article. Finally, I would point out that under Bush, unemployment went from 4.2 to 7.2, an increase of, if my shaky math is correct, about 66%. Unemployment in the Obama administration would have to rise from 7.2% to (again, check my math) about 12.6% in order for his term to have achieved the same 66% degree of increase. And, of course, it would have to end at such a figure, eight years from now. I know of no economist who has predicted something like that (in either the near or long term). I'm familiar with economist predictions that overall U.S. unemployment will peak this winter, at between 10.5% and 11.5%, and be improving throughout the spring, summer and fall of 2010 and beyond. Some even suggest it could start dropping before the beginning of 2010. None of this is fit for this article, but I mention it to point out that those who are seeking to draw comparisons, jump to conclusions, or make causal connections in this article are not only logically and technically unsound, but quite a bit out of touch with (non-administration) projections. My last point will be that unemployment peaked at around 13.5% under Reagan somewhere around 1983 as I recall. At the same time, interest and mortgage rates were also in the teens. (They are currently around 5.25%) And income tax rates were much higher than they are today. Something to think about, considering the Reagan era has come to be thought of as an economic boon time, despite the real effects of living under such conditions at the time. Time will tell how the economic and regulatory policies of our current era stacks up against the Reagan era (or, more to the point, in the abstract), and when it does we will include that in the encyclopedia. In the meantime, don't believe—or spread at Wiki—the doom-and-gloom hype. We seem to have eluded the worst, through a combination of the last months of the Bush administration and the first few of the Obama administration. And if we haven't, it's too early to report that in an encyclopedia, as well. Abrazame (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC) You write gibberish. It is so amazing that for every good number Obama is the responsible, for every bad number G.W.Bush. You and other editors write lots of times that we should assume good faith about Barack Obama, but it seems that this isn't a rule for Bush. In the time I've checked your talk page, I'm not surprised that you have made a POV against Bush. Just to note that if the unemployment rate will go up to 10%, then it will be the worst number in the past seventy years. So bad for a talent president. Párhuzamos univerzum (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC) This article stands on its own. If you have a concern about the Bush article you can raise it there. Obama's policies, actions, and beliefs about the economy are probably worth a few words in a biographical article like this, but one would have to be careful in tying economic conditions to the biography of the man. The sentence for this article would go something like "Assuming office during what would become the worst recession since the Great Depression, Obama worked with Congress to enact a series of bail-outs, stimulus spending bills, and regulatory reforms. These measures..." The dot-dot-dot part has yet to reveal itself. We don't know what's going to happen over the next few years, so it is hard to know how the article will turn out. Anyway, the job cycle like a lot of things trails a recession by several months, so assuming America (and most of the rest of the world) hit bottom in March or April the highest unemployment rate may not occur until October, and it may not be until December that it begins to fall. Wikidemon (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC) I have added a passage from reliable sources that the unemployment rate reached 9.5% in June, a 26-year high. It is notable, factual, and well-sourced. I have added it, though, to the Presidency of Barack Obama article, as that is where it belongs (not here in his BLP). It is an event that happened during his presidency, not necessarily because of him being president. QueenofBattle (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Makes sense to me - as far as who causes what, we're still debating 70 years later whether it was Hoover or world events who got us into the last one and whether it was FDR or world events who got us out of it. Personally, I would say no in both cases, but to be sure, the Depression is prominently mentioned in each of their ledes, and takes up a significant part of each of their bio articles. As I said each article stands on its own, and we don't yet know where the economy is headed much less the legacy Obama will have on it, but those articles about past presidents can serve as some inspiration. Wikidemon (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Obama's Extensive Use of Teleprompter No doubt you've read this before The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. The article describes Obama as an "exceptional orator", yet when I posted about his extensive use of the teleprompter and Biden's joke about it, it was removed as "irrelevant". How can this possibly be irrelevant when the subject is about his communication to the public? Seems like a blatant case of whitewashing. Shame on you! WhiteOak2006 (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Major victory for Army warrior questioning Obama's birthplace Birther trolling. Sceptre (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. News: [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104009 Bombshell: Orders revoked for soldier challenging prez ] There is also an online petition for public release of Barack Hussein Obama's birth certificate http://www.wnd.com/obama_petition already signed by about 400,000 peoples. Nationwide billboard campaign questioning: "Where's The Birth Certificate?". Gammasugárzás (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC) What reason was given for the retraction of the deployment order? Unless it was explicitly for the birth certificate issue, it doesn't belong in this article. SMP0328. (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Not really. That officer could face a dishonourable discharge for insubordination. Closing discussion as trolling. Sceptre (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC) No insubordination, because the order hadn't taken effect before it was retracted. SMP0328. (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Point taken. However, the officer won't get away with it and it's hardly a victory for him. At a stretch, they could pin conduct unbecoming on him. Sceptre (talk) 01:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC) [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104044 You're not too far off]. SMP0328. (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC) He's already lost his civilian job. The matter is being discussed at Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, and is already in the article. It's a "bombshell" only through WND eyes. PhGustaf (talk) 01:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC) THERE ARE NUMEROUS TOTALLY FALSE STATEMENTS IN THIS ARTICLE AND COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE COLORATION OF COMMENTS ALL OVER THE PLACE IN THE ARTICLE WHERE NO ATTENTION IS PAID TO THE EVIDENCE AND GETTING TO THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER AS TO WHERE OBAMA WAS ACTUALLY BORN. COMMENTS ATTEMPTING TO CORRECT THESE ISSUES HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY REMOVED WITHOUT ANY REGARD AS TO THEIR TRUTH WHICH DESTROYS THE CREDIBILITY OF THIS ENTIRE SECTION AND ARTICLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxframe (talk • contribs) 08:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Obama bias? More trolling, including the use of 'wikilawyering in the senate'. ThuranX (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. I see there is a presidential campaign section as well as the presidency section. This is reasonable. I see there is no state senate campaign section. This may be because Obama had a well known embarrassment where he used lawyering to get all his opponents off the ballot. This should be included in the article, not to say he is bad, but to be encyclopedic. I also see that people (supporters?) have wiped if off before. I support him. However, this needs to be added. Chase me dinosaurs, I'm an insect (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Please don't try to hide this or collapse this into a box or give an excuse. A brief mention is all that is needed for fairness. Chase me dinosaurs, I'm an insect (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC) My goodness, he used wikilawyering to get his opponents removed? I had no idea Wikipedia was so powerful. Maybe I should run for office... DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC) But seriously, there's a detailed description of the State Senate election here. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC) I don't care much about Obama but I see this as a genuine comment. The poster said he or she was afraid of Obama supporters "hid(ing) this or collapse into a box or give an excuse". Yet someone did exactly this. The comment isn't trolling. I remember reading a biography of Obama when he was running. It was in a newspaper and had a neutral bent. It mentioned that Obama somehow got his opponents off the ballot. Therefore, this is relevant info and should be considered. Whether it is or isn't is not too important to me but when I see a coverup of discussion, it irritates me because it is very sneaky. Calmano (talk) 04:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC) This discussion is covered up with a box. This results in no discussion and the person who does it gets his way to stop the change from being considered. This is completely unacceptable. Chase me dinosaurs, I'm an insect (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC) As said above, there is a detailed article on the State Senate Election here. This article can't cover everything - that's why there are many articles on Barack Obama. It's not a cover-up, just putting the description in the right place. If you've got issues with the way it's covered I suggest you go to the talk page for that article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC) July becomes deadliest month for foreign troops in Afghanistan Closing trolling sockpuppet conversation that's going nowhere fast. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Read the news: July becomes deadliest month for foreign troops in Afghanistan And this is the data only for the first half of July. Nagy reccs (talk) 09:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Ok, and.... Brothejr (talk) 09:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC) ...what does this have to do with the article? --Ashenai (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC) There is already an Iraq and Afghanistan war section in Obama's article. After the quote from Obama "stabilize a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan" write that What seems to be an unsuccessful attempt seeing the raising number of troop deaths in Afghanistan. Nagy reccs (talk) 09:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC) We are not pundits, our job is not to draw our own conclusions. Please read WP:NOR. If you can find a trustworthy source talking about Obama's performance in the Afghanistan war, we can talk about that. The article you quoted doesn't even mention Obama, therefore it doesn't belong here. --Ashenai (talk) 09:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Oh, man. Wait! Who is the president of the USA? Who sent these troops to Afghanistan to die? The first letter is O. Nagy reccs (talk) 09:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Oeorge O. Oush? Sceptre (talk) 10:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Oh man, you owe me a new keyboard... --GoodDamon 15:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC) The article does not talk specifically about Obama and including it here in this article would be considered WP:OR. Brothejr (talk) 10:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC) If your IQ is zero, then yes this is a research. I'm using my brain, if you just copy-paste the news then you are doing nothing. Nagy reccs (talk) 10:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Again, please read WP:NOR. Here, I'll quote some of the more relevant parts: "[Wikipedia does not allow] any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." "You must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article" "A simple example: The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world. Although no conclusion is drawn and both facts are true, the sentence implies that the UN has failed to maintain world peace. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it constitutes original research." Note especially the last example, as it is very similar to what you are trying to add. If you do not like WP:NOR, you are welcome to discuss it on its talk page, but it is currently Wikipedia policy, and we will abide by it. --Ashenai (talk) 10:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Obama started an effort to stabilize Afghanistan. He changed the approach, beefed up the troops, and picked a new commander. The current numbers tell us nothing about whether the effort is succeeding or will succeed. In a four-paragraph section covering two wars, there is not enough space to follow the month-to-month casualty figures in an effort that will be measured in years. Other articles, sure, but not in the summary biography. CouldOughta (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Stop playing with socks, folks. Account's only contribs are to this topic; his first post handles a fully labelled redirect to an off-wiki link. It's someone's sock. ThuranX (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Massive critics against Obama Closing section begun by a confirmed, banned sock The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. One of the best article ever read: Obama still enjoys high support, but even some Dems are getting jittery Reading Obama's page on wikipedia one would think that there is no critics against Obama. But this is not the case. It would be good to write about it. Tiznegyedik dimenzió (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC) By "massive critics" do you mean blimps like Limbaugh? Haven't we encountered you under a different name? Anyway, if it's good to write about something, then write about it. Make sure it's well sourced. -- Hoary (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC) How is the above comment not a BLP violation? Wperdue (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Once the long-term trend becomes clear, it may be worthwhile to include a very brief discussion of the arc of Obama's popularity in the "presidency of..." article. However, the entire subject of how popular and unpopular he is, and when, probably only merits only a sentence or two in that article covering the entire period. Having critics is not remarkable, nor are the daily and weekly swings in popular mood. Wikidemon (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Indeed. I'm sure it's been pointed out that it can be thirty or forty years before there's a generally agreed long-term consensus on how effective a president was, and that indeed the popularity of a president can change radically in hindsight. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Obama: I didn't mean to slight Cambridge police Another must-read news article that absolutely has to go into the article, posted by a brand-new account. Sigh... The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. a long article about new facts: Obama: I didn't mean to slight Cambridge police from that: "Obama spoke about two hours after police unions in Massachusetts called on him to apologize. He did not apologize for his remark but repeated that he believed his choice of words was unfortunate." Seeing that how this case implied many reports not only in US, but also worldwide, it should be included in the article. Szappan (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC) WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, and so on... Tarc (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Agreed. At this point it is just the issue of the day, not of sufficient weight for this article or the Presidency article. If the story has legs, as they say, or fits into a longer-term issue of Obama and race, it might belong in the presidency article. Obama's comments and the interest surrounding them are notable, though, and are probably worth including in any article about the incident and possibly as a side note in the article about the professor, if the editors there deem it worth including. Wikidemon (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC) It isn't new, happened 9 days ago. Obama attacked police. Now this is more than a simple "news". Szappan (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC) "New" isn't confined to yesterday; 9 days is certainly new enough. Call me crazy, but a new user who makes their very first edit here...even before creating their user page...appears to be doing this as a POV-pushing point-making exercise. The article is biographical in nature; it is not to be a laundry list for every new and exciting criticism that crawls across the news desk. Tarc (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC) (after edit conflict) That makes it last week's comlicated news - still, an ephemeral story of no significant demonstrable relevance to Obama's bio. Wikidemon (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Obama's only relation to this bizarre event is that he probably spoke "stupidly". I can't see how this has any place in his BLP. QueenofBattle (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC) It could be in a critics section. But on Obama's page there is no such. Szappan (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC) That's one of the reasons why many people disfavor criticism sections, they tend to get filled with impertinent detractors. There is a temptation already to hunt for negative information and stories that reflect negatively on Obama, so it would be a mistake to legitimize that by creating a section for it. Wikidemon (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Closing. Why do we keep feeding this troll? It's obviously the same guy as the last five new drive-by accounts. --GoodDamon 22:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion about the FAQ

I think that the FAQ page should, as much as possible, be in the form of yes/no questions. The FAQ functions to provide editors new to this article with some matters that are considered settled by consensus. I have already imposed this style on such FAQs as Talk:Intelligent design/FAQ, Talk:Evolution/FAQ. It gives crisp clear answers to the most common questions of "Can I add this-or-that to the article?" It is respectful of the reader's time.--Writelabor (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

However, take a look at the FAQ, then take a look at the talk page archive. The FAQ has been written in such a way to sum to the rather repetitive arguments that continually pop up here. Simply put: there are many issues that need to be covered in the FAQ that cannot be answered in a simple yes or no answer. Otherwise, we'd have more arguments over just the FAQ alone. Brothejr (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not the proposal; look at the examples Writelabor linked.--chaser (talk) 02:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually I did. The majority of the issues covered in this FAQ are more complicated then a Yes or No answer. Heck, looking at how Writelabor wrote those FAQ's I'd submit that it is inappropriate to use Yes or No in those FAQ's too. Either way, this page is one of the most watched page in Wikipedia. A change in the FAQ would need in depth discussion before it could be changed. Otherwise needless drama fest and edit wars would resume. Brothejr (talk) 10:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The art of administration is getting such questions down to fair yes/no propositions. They should be "Should the article say...?" -style questions where you declare the consensus in the FAQ. The FAQ should cover resolved issues that have frequently arisen. These questions are not so complicated. See also Talk:Homeopathy/FAQ, Talk:0.999.../FAQ. See? It is not that hard.--Writelabor (talk) 00:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, like I said if you want a drama fest then go and change the FAQ. If you do not want a drama fest, propose what you think each FAQ question and answer should be and discuss. Also, please remember that not all FAQ questions can be answered with a yes or no. Again, from past experience, if you want to start a drama fest then start changing the FAQ without discussing each question. Lastly, please remember that this page is one of the most watched and so if someone disagrees with what you are changing it most likely will be reverted rather quickly. Brothejr (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Writelabor, I think the resistance to your just going ahead and making changes is the concern that it would not capture every facet of meaning currently represented and/or intended. The answer to that, one might say, would be to present, one at a time for review, each Question as it currently appears alongside your prospective change. However, the very point of the FAQ is to keep us from having to divert responsible editorial focus from constructively editing the article to wallow in the minutiae of those issues all over again. One of my greatest complaints of this talk page and the one at Presidency is that tangential, trivial and even childish topics of discussion demand far more focus, time and energy, preventing us from the real work of sourcing and composing and refining relevant new material to improve this brief bio.

If other editors are not opposed, and you'd like to tackle one of the more complex FAQ segments here and present it at this talk page alongside your prospective change, and it strikes the vast majority of respondents that it captures every facet of meaning currently represented and/or intended, perhaps we can make the change and repeat the process as you take them from the top. But given the contentiousness (and bloody tediousness) of some of these issues, you might receive more pushback or recalcitrance than you have at previous FAQs you've revamped. I guess I've basically just rephrased Brothejr's reaction, except to request that you don't go the edit/revert route. Abrazame (talk) 06:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Approval Ratings

I was just wondering if anyone could whip up a graph contrasting Obama's approval ratings with those of past presidents? I would do it myself but I am computer illiterate. My preference would be to use Gallop as they provide daily updates - that said I am sure there are other sources as well. Thanks 130.56.87.36 (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a great idea, but it might be more suitable at Obama_presidency#Approval_ratings_and_opinion. Atropos235 did the similar image for George W. Bush, but Atropos isn't very active these days.--chaser (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Add that here once such a graph is found or created. SMP0328. (talk) 00:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I would direct interested editors to the article United States Presidential approval rating, where similar comparisons have been formatted up through the previous administration. Ideally anyone who's willing and able to research and format a graph for any Obama-related page (consensus seems to have been that poll numbers are not a primary focus for the bio or presidency articles at this time) would update the general page as well (or instead). Abrazame (talk) 06:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

POV: Foreign policy section, the case of Iran

The section on foreign policy is obviously biased, particularly when it addresses Iran-US relations. The section only covers the positive measures taken by Obama, Biden and Hilary Clinton toward Iran and only the negative measures taken by Iranian leaders. Biden and Clinton have made many harsh statements on Iran too and Iranian leaders also outreached to US administration several time in the past but were ignored. The historical context has to be considered in the article.

Please compare the two versions here. This section needs revision to fulfill wikipedia's neutrality policy. Sinooher (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Please remember this summary style article is about the man Barack Obama. That means we only cover the highlights and major moments of the man's life, leaving the details to the daughter articles. We have a Presidency of Barack Obama article which goes into his presidency. I suggest, you take this suggestion there and discuss it with the other editors before attempting to introduce it again. Brothejr (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, then we have to remove the parts about Iranian leader as well as references to Biden's and Clinton's actions from the foreign policy section. Otherwise this section is POV. Here is the new revision: click here Sinooher (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yea, because "if I can't get my way then I'll just gut the whole thing" is such a clever and mature approach to editing. It probably goes without saying, but, reverted. Tarc (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I remember that story about the New Years messages and at the time I thought, "well, if the Iranian leaders' New Years messages were recorded, then maybe they were just recorded prior to their hearing a translation of Obama's message to them".

Sinooher, do you have any reliable source that says that the Iranian leadership did respond to Obama's message? It's quite possible they did so after the Fox News story and we missed it here. Have there been any positive overtures to President Obama? As Brothejr states, this article is not about what Iranian leaders have done in other administrations; to the degree this article would include information about Iran, it would be about Iran in relation to Barack Obama. The history between the two countries might be relevant here if and when it changes, for the better, as Obama expressed his desire for. If you have properly sourced information about relevant positive gestures by the Iranian leadership since Obama's speech, I would welcome discussing that here in the interest of adding it to this article or to Presidency of Barack Obama (which is slightly more in-depth on notable things that are directly connected to his presidency, as opposed to the broader story of him as a man). Best, Abrazame (talk) 06:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources for the article on unemployment, investor confidence, etc.

I have not visited this talk page in quite some time. However, I see there was concern about sources for subjects such as unemployment, investor confidence, etc., as it related to Obama. Some editors blamed the current situation on the recession, while others blamed it on Obama. There did not seem to be enough sourcing, however.

I have plenty of sources, and I suggest they be incorporated into the various Obama articles.

In a September 13, 2008 editorial, the Wall St. Journal claimed that Obama wanted the entire United States to copy the economic policies of Michigan, which have caused that state to have a very high unemployment rate.If You Like Michigan's Economy, You'll Love Obama's, The Wall St. Journal, September 13, 2008

Early in Obama's presidency, many corporations were laying off their employees, and not hiring new ones, because they were afraid of the effects that Obama's policies would have on them. As of April 2009, none of Obama's 22 highest level cabinet appointees had ever had sustained employment in the private sector. Obama's key appointees know how to grow the government sector of the economy, but they have little to no knowledge about how the private sector functions. Mean Street: The Coming Obama Jobs Disaster, Wall St. Journal, April 3, 2009

Small businesses create approximately 80% of all new jobs in the U.S. Obama has promised that he will not increases taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. Obama stated that "98 percent of small businesses make less than $250,000." However, what Obama did not mention is that most small business are sole proprietorships where the owner is the only employee. In addition, Obama did not point out the fact that most small business profit is earned in households with incomes above $250,000, which would be subject to Obama's proposed tax increase. Obama's tax shell game, Pittsburgh Tribune Review, October 27, 2008

In a Washington Post article called, "Small Businesses Brace for Tax Battle," the newspaper reported that Gail Johnson is a former pediatric nurse. She has spent 20 years building a chain of nine day care centers. She said that Obama's proposed tax increases have forced her to consider scaling back the size of her business. Small Businesses Brace for Tax Battle, The Washington Post, April 27, 2009

On September 12, 2008, Obama said, "I can make a firm pledge... Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes... you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." However, on April Fool's Day, 2009, it was reported that Obama had signed a bill that increased the cigarette tax by 62 cents per pack. This tax increase has a disproportionate effect on the poor. Promises, Promises: Obama tax pledge up in smoke, Associated Press, April 1, 2009

A CNN article reported on people called "HENRY"s. The acronym stands for "High Earner, Not Rich Yet." These are families whose income is between $250,000 and $500,000, and who put a sizable percentage of that money into their retirement savings and saving for their children's college educations. The article featured profiles of several of these families. These people followed the rules - they worked hard to acquire good educations and job skills, and now they are working hard at their jobs. These people are upper middle class - they are not "rich." These hard working people are the people whom Obama wants to raise taxes on. The American dream - on hold, CNN, October 27 2008

During an April 16, 2008 presidential primary debate, moderator Charles Gibson pointed out that in the past, whenever the capital gains tax rate was raised, revenues from the tax went down, and whenever the tax rate was lowered, revenues from the tax went up. Obama said that he still wanted to raise the tax anyway. Transcript: Obama and Clinton Debate, ABC News, April 16, 2008 Two days later, The Wall St. Journal published evidence which proved that Gibson's statement was true. Obama's Tax Evasion, The Wall St, Journal, April 18, 2008

A few months before Obama was elected President, many rich people, investors, entrepreneuers, and employers, in the expectation that Obama would win the election and raise their taxes, already started to reduce their economic activity. As a result of this change in behavior in response to expected tax increases, tax revenues went down, not up. ‘Going Galt’ Got Going Last Summer, pajamasmedia.com, April 23, 2009

Obama said that he wanted to simplify the tax code. Obama pledges to simplify the tax code, MSNBC, April 15, 2009 However, in the real world, Obama's proposals would actually add thousands of pages to the tax code. Obama Tax Plan Targets Equality, Clinton Eyes Conduct, bloomberg.com, March 13, 2008

On January 28, 2009, a full page advertisement with the names of approximately 200 economists who were against Obama's stimulus plan appeared in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. The funding for this advertisement came from the Cato Institute. The ad stated, "... we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s... To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, savings, investment, and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth." Economists say stimulus won’t work, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, January 29, 2009, Cato Institute petition against Obama 2009 stimulus plan

Grundle2600 (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back Grundle,I was about to ask if the first story was a editorial because it read like one but I see you have said it is, I think we don't accept editorials as good sources, if that's true then we can't use the first story and its claims.

With the second issue they might have been afraid of Obama's plan but we can't completely give Obama the blame of the job lost.The economic problems are to blame,there might be extra jobs lost because of the Obama plans,but that is something we have no idea of finding out, how many it was/is.Just because the cabinet members never worked in the private sector doesn't automatically mean they can't grow the private economic sector.

Obama didn't lie anywhere in the third point,how would the the owner being the only employee,be a point when the business earns above the 250.000 that Obama said he might/would tax?I have the same question about the household issue.

I don't see the issue Gail Johnson having to scale down her money generating business, sure its sad for the people that cant use her services, but there's no issue here, unless we are going to be putting all the people that are going to be affected and benefiting from Obama's plan.

The cigarette tax thing came up before, look in archives, i THINK the discusion went to presidency of Obama article.

I don't think anyone is calling them rich,i would all them doing good.Again where is the issue?They are earning above 250.000.

Obama stuck to his plans even after the moderator told him great depression stuff, the moderator was telling the truth, and Obama said what he wanted to do,I see no issue here.

You are assuming that rich people entrepreneurs etc, are the only things that affect the tax revenues.

I read the story you linked on Obama saying he wants to simplify the tax code,That issue should be discussed/included over at presidency of Obama article, I am not sure how important it would be compared to other items on the article, but it cab certainly be discussed.

I am pretty sure that for 200 economist disagreeing with Obama their could be 200 agreeing with his plans.This is another point to be discussed on the presidency of Obama article.Durga Dido (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I thought it would be useful to have such sources available. I agree that the economy was doing very badly before Obama was elected. Also, even after Reagan was elected, unemployment kept getting worse and worse, and only later did it get better. Obama raised the cigarette tax because he knows that whatever you tax, you get less of, and he wanted to discourage people from smoking. So raising taxes on employers who make more than $250,000 a year will result in less of those people, and thus, fewer jobs. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead picture should be FA!

• The Resolution is lovely. It shows Obama’s young, handsome and tanned face in all it’s glory.
• It’s Barack Obama for goodness sake! Everything should be FA on him…
• Putting aside my bias, it is a very good picture.
• If not, why not?

Can it be "Nominated"? --Frank Fontaine (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It is fabulous.--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Place of Residence

In the box on the side, near the top, it says he resides in The Black House. It's probably vandalism. It should be changed back to the White House. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.2.196.205 (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice its already been reverted.Durga Dido (talk) 04:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Obama's name

Suggestion declined; turning into a forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's been a long time now since anyone has tried to change Obama's name (other than the occasional "Osama" change). So can we get rid of the hidden message about not changing his name now? It's not as if it really deters any of the people apt to change it to "Osama", and the controversy over the "Hussein" and "II" seems to have died off. I think the FAQ should be sufficient. Or does this really not matter and no one cares? DKqwerty (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC) I suggest leaving it. It's not hurting anything, and on a really lucky day might save us from one more go-round. PhGustaf (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC) I agree, there is so much more important things, like updating the smoking thing.--Die4Dixie (talk) 05:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Respectfully, I don't get the logic. That's like saying, "It's been a long time since there's been an accident at that intersection, so can we get rid of that unsightly stop sign?" The only people who see the message are those who open the edit window and then scroll down two screens to focus on that particular section. As to the FAQ being sufficient, it hasn't stopped any number of people from reopening FAQ-covered issues at the talk page, and the FAQ section is a good deal more prominent, and on the same page they're editing. As with stop signs, vandals will do what vandals will do; it is that message's purpose to prevent the well-meaning traveler unfamiliar with the traffic at that corner from making a mistake that requires someone(s) else to come along and fix. Abrazame (talk) 08:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Speaking of his name, what is the difference between a II and a "Jr."? For instance, the article has Obama's name as "Barack Hussein Obama II" instead of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. I thought II was for all cases of being the second person with that name in the family other than the child with the same name as the parent and that Junior was for that case specifically. Thus if Obama and his father have identical names, wouldn't he be a Junior instead of a "II"? Does anyone know how that works for sure? Ikilled007 (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Nevermind, I found it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junior_(suffix)#Social "While it is not technically the social norm to use 'II' in place of 'junior' for children born directly to a same named parent, there is no social rule against the usage of 'II' instead of 'junior' for a same named child. Often, II is used by families who want to avoid having their children referred to as 'junior' as a nickname." Ok, so basically it's purely family preference. Ikilled007 (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Hmm, I always thought you only used the II if there was a III. But it's really not that important. Soxwon (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Well, when a II is born, nobody knows whether there will be a III, do they? I don't think that "Jr." or "II" have much legal significance. I'm a "Jr.", but haven't used it for a very long time, and none of my checks have bounced because of it. PhGustaf (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC) True, but what I was saying is that the only reason a II is needed usually is to distinguish it from a III and so on. Soxwon (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC) You'd have to ask his parents why they used II instead of Jr., but it is on his birth certificate, thus it is his legal name and what we use here. Unless someone has a reliable source that says otherwise. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Nah, it seems like even though it's more often Junior in his situation, the decision is up to the parents, so II it is. I linked the wikipedia article on it, after wondering about it. Ikilled007 (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Czars

what about the information of barack obama appointing czars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.25 (talk) 02:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

That's mentioned here. SMP0328. (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

August 4, 1961 Births at Kapiolani Medical Center

closed discussion per WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is there a known listing of births on August 4, 1961 at Kapiolani Medical Center? An almost complete list (which includes Barack Obama) should be available from the newspaper announcements from that time period. The list should be relatively short, and would allow an accurate determination of who the attending physician was at the birth. This would go a long way towards ending the speculation. If the list already exists, please post some information here. I can perform the research if it has not already been done. SamePlaceSameTime (talk) 00:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC) The Honolulu Advertiser's online archives only go back to 2006. J.delanoygabsadds 00:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Something like this and this ? Tarc (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC) That is a good start. Some of those are August 4 births. Of those, some will be from Kapiolani Hospital. If asked, some might obtain a long form birth certificate, which lists the attending physician. There might be 2 or 3 attending physicians in the delivery room all day on that date. Has this research been done? SamePlaceSameTime (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC) This is not the right place to ask. Even if one of us did do look it up, it would be considered original research, and would not be suitable. Besides, Hawaii has a law that you do not have to produce your long-form birth certificate in almost any circumstances. I can guarantee you that nothing we could come up here has not already been done by someone from a major news source. J.delanoygabsadds 00:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC) I just wanted to know if the research had already been done. Your answer that the archives only go back to 2006 is incorrect. I have access to the conplete archives on microfilm. I am also in a position to do further research. Thanks. I will take it from here. SamePlaceSameTime (talk) 00:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Note that I said, online archives..... J.delanoygabsadds 00:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Fair enough. I am not looking for an argument. Just want to determine who the delivering physician was. Should be obvious if other families from that day will cooperate. The Hawaii long form birth certificate contains the following information: File number (this could be significant) Child's name Sex Single/Twin/Triplet and born 1st/2nd/3rd Birth date and hour Place of birth Island Name of hospital or institution, address Outside city limits? Usual residence of mother? Island County, State, or foreign country Street address of mother. Outside city limits? Mailing address of mother. Farm or plantation? Full name of father. Race of father. Age of father. Birthplace of father. Usual occupation of father. Kind of business or industry, Full maiden name of mother. Race of mother. Age of mother. Birthplace of mother. Type of occupation outside the home during pregnancy. Date last worked. Signature of parent and date. Signature of attendant (M.D., D.O., Midwife, Other) and date. (this information is not yet widely known) Date accepted by local registrar, Signature of registrar, and date (potentially significant) SamePlaceSameTime (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC) This talkpage is not a forum to aid your research. --guyzero | talk 01:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC) If the research is already done, I will not need to do it. SamePlaceSameTime (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Since there is NO citation to validate Kapiolani Medical Center as his birth place, shouldn't this item be removed? or at least noted as unsubstantiated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.224.54 (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama portrait FPC

Just wanted to make aware that Obama's portrait is currently a Feature Picture candidate, so please feel free to make your voice heard here. Gage (talk) 11:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Random question about church

If Obama left the United Church of Christ, which does he attend now in Washington DC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.116.27 (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I moved this here from above, where it seemed to be randomly inserted into another discussion. In answer, why does it matter? Are you looking to carpool with him? Dayewalker (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope you both are assuming good faith. As one can imagine, finding a church after moving across the country can be a challenging thing even for people who aren't the leader of the free world and whose handlers have to case the joint and bring an entourage of Secret Service everywhere they go. Presidential motorcades often tie up traffic, which could inhibit the movement of other D.C. residents on their way to church. These are among the reasons that most presidents don't attend church regularly while in office. You might know that throughout history, world leaders and wealthy people often had chapels inside their private homes; presidents have often had religious leaders counsel them from time to time at the White House.

It was important to the Obamas to attend a church this past Easter Sunday, and the church they chose was St. John's Episcopal Church, Lafayette Square (Washington, D.C.), just across from the White House. From that church's web site, "St. John's first service was held in October 1816. From that time to the present, every person who has held the office of President of the United States has attended a regular or occasional service at St. John's. Pew 54 is the President's Pew, and is reserved for the chief executive's use when in attendance... The bell in St. John's steeple weighs nearly 1,000 pounds. It was cast by Paul Revere's son, Joseph, at his Boston foundry in August 1822 and installed at St. John's on November 30, 1822. President James Monroe authorized a $100 contribution of public funds toward the purchase of this church bell." Can you imagine the trouble a modern president would get into if he authorized a contribution of public (tax) funds for his church?!

The Obama and Biden families also attended St. John's for a worship service on Inauguration Day. Abrazame (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

He will now be attending a service at Camp David [[6]]. Attending a chuch and membership in a church should not be confused. Any addition to the article that reflect a membership should be added only with impeccable sources and reporting.--Die4Dixie (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC

That's a wonderful link ([7]), from Time magazine, for anybody who wants to read a much more thorough explanation, and it enumerates the spectrum and continuum of Obama's religious counsel and/or churchgoing since arriving in D.C. Ultimately, it seems that Obama's church is the same as George W. Bush's church! (Though it sounds like Bush only went there at Christmas.) So, while the president takes counsel from several denominations, Obama's current pastor is Southern Baptist. Abrazame (talk) 09:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The article to which I linked says that it is unlikely that he will receive any type of pastoral care from the man. Until Obama formerly joins a church, he is nothing but what the article says already. Any changes must be well source if you want to change his denomiantional status, "wonderful links" not withstanding.--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The article to which you linked spells out several men and one woman who are among those from whom Obama has been receiving pastoral care since he has arrived in D.C. What one is likely to take away from your suggestion is that he has no such relationship(s), which is patently false.

The fifth reference in the Wiki bio (one of two addressing his former affiliation with the UCC) points out that George W. Bush (once held up as a paragon of piety in part due to his liaisons between his father and the born-again community during the 1988 and 1992 campaigns) "has only infrequently attended services in Washington". Indeed, the sentence in your own link that you cite as proof that Obama will not receive "pastoral care" is one which points out that the pastor at the church Bush "infrequently" attended had "very little" contact with Bush outside those sporadic worship serices. His statement about Bush does not preclude the possibility that a different president might have more meaningful contact.

Most relevantly, the Time article spells out the names of several other religious leaders from whom Obama IS receiving personal pastoral care, including Otis Moss Jr. (African American Baptist and affiliate of MLK), Joel Hunter (white Evangelical) and Vashti McKenzie (African Methodist Episcopal), as well as two who did have interaction with Bush, T.D. Jakes and Kirbyjon Caldwell.

It also points out that any public church Obama would attend would be at great expense to the taxpayer. It would also be a distraction for the regular congregation and likely prevent some of them from getting in, given the additional tourists and other sightseers who would be stopping by. The article noted that while this has been a problem for a century at least, Obama and the other parishioners have had the additional nuisance of having attendees snapping cellphone pictures as they filed past him to receive communion—hardly the atmosphere one expects during such a holy rite.

The bio ref says of --Die4Dixie (talk) 02:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Randall Balmer, a professor of American religious history who wrote God in the White House: How Faith Shaped the Presidency from John F. Kennedy to George W. Bush, "there is no obvious choice for Obama as he searches for a congregation. And while he said Americans generally like to know that their president goes to church on Sunday, they tend not to be concerned about the particular denomination. He hopes that same deference will be extended to the Obamas' choice."

I am elucidating these referenced facts neither to be chatty, to be pious, nor to push for a change to his denominational status in the article. My point is to applaud your ref as a notable and reliable source which provides an answer for the questioner not only for their own sake but for all who would arrive here with an interest in insinuating that Obama has no religious affiliation in the aftermath of his departure from his former church, and/or that he has not sought and does not have what you term as "pastoral care". Again, that is the impression you leave with your most recent comment. Arrogant atheists might find this discussion ridiculous; bigoted zealots of various stripes might dismiss any religious affiliation or degree of pastoral/congregational interaction but their own. But the point of Wikipedia talk pages is not to surreptitiously or inadvertently plant or mischaracterize references that wouldn't or don't make it into the article yet still have the effect of misleading the talk page reader or erroneously mitigating issues (or their absence) from the formal article; it is to discuss the presentation of relevant facts in appropriate context with appropriate weight. Many editors occasionally make the additional effort of answering presumably innocent questions even when it doesn't rise to the level of article content, if for no other reason than to prevent the discussion from turning toward a "they must not want to tell the truth about X" direction. Whether or not editors make this effort, there is the potential for talk pages to become a series of allegations and suspicions, with or without links, and any number of approaches to addressing/dismissing/perpetuating the aspersions. This pattern is particularly in evidence at Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama.

I'm sure it was merely a Freudian slip that you write "until Obama formerly joins a church, he is nothing but what the article says already," but even given that, I ponder your expression "nothing but (a Christian and former member of the UCC)". Quite apart from my philosophical and spiritual reaction, the degree to which any president's religious counsel is of interest to those reading his biography, his spiritual and religious self is more than "nothing but" eight words in an infobox—seven of which are in service of mentioning what he has denounced (clearly a weight imbalance)—whether we were ever to see fit to textually address his "pastoral care" in the bio or not. As such, I propose adding the Time link to the "Christian" ref in the infobox. If what he was deserves links to two full articles and a video, then what he is deserves more than one link to a single word. I will refrain from adding the ref for a couple of days to allow for responses here. Abrazame (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I stand by each one of may assertions, no matter how you want to parse it. He has no religious affiliation. If you find a source that states him to be anything other than "Christian" and identifies his denomination, then please provide sources. It appears that is not what you wanted to do. Talk pages are not WP:SOAPboxes. I am sorry if the paucity of my previous post allowed you to infer something that was not in the statement. I certainly did not imply what you have imputed to my remark. Maybe Obama did have a Pauline road to Damascus experience. If you have a source, please share it. And mark that "Formally"--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, you stand by your assertions. Let me see if I've got those assertions right. First you assert that A.) Attending a church and membership in a church should not be confused; in your next post you assert that B.) The point of that difference is that someone who is not a member of a church would not get "pastoral care". Then you assert that C.) His denomination in the infobox should not change, and you mock my positive assessment of the article to which you linked. (I won't give that a letter.)

Wikipedia's article Pastoral care begins:

"Pastoral care is the ministry of care and counseling provided by pastors, chaplains and other religious leaders to members of their church, congregation or persons within a faith-based institution. This can range anywhere from home visitation to formal counseling provided by pastors who are licensed to offer counseling services. This is also frequently referred to as spiritual care.

'Pastoral care' is also a term applied where people offer help and caring to others in their church or wider community. Pastoral care in this sense can be applied to listening, supporting, encouraging and befriending.

Pastoral care can also be a term generally applied to the practice of looking after the personal and social wellbeing of children under the care of a teacher. It can encompass a wide variety of issues including health, social and moral education, behaviour management and emotional support."

If you were to be taken at your word, that Obama is "unlikely (to) receive any type of pastoral care from (the minister at the Camp David church)", then someone like the initial questioner or any other reader of this thread who does not actually click on the link and read the whole Time article would likely conclude that you have represented a reliable source accurately and that none of these things are or are likely to be part of Barack Obama's experience. Yet that Time article you, yourself referenced for your claim devotes a good deal of its focus to noting that Obama is indeed currently receiving a good deal of pastoral care, and it gives the names of several of the pastors from whom he receives such care. That is not some aside in the article that might be missed, it seems to be the point of the article. So while you're not incorrect about the fact that Bush didn't receive any pastoral care from the Camp David ministers and that that minister presumed such an arrangement (or lack thereof) would continue with Obama, you are seriously editorially irresponsible by presenting only that aspect of the article at this page. This has nothing to do with what your religious ideal is or mine, it has to do with, apparently, your distinction between the original questioner's answer (Obama has indeed settled upon a church, the Camp David church) to your distinction between being a churchgoer and being someone who receives pastoral care. As such, if I am to assume good faith, I have to assume that you did not read the whole article, and that you refuse to consider the possibility that what I have specifically and carefully written is indeed a far more accurate representation of the situation as presented in the article. That is a further indication of serious editorial irresponsibility on your part. While of course I don't ascribe the following motivations to you, it is not uncommon for these pages to attract people somewhere on the spectrum towards the prejudiced, the bigoted, the conspiracy theorist and the slanderer, not to mention those easily swayed by such or looking to prove or disprove such things they've heard elsewhere. It would be editorially irresponsible of me to allow your assessment to remain unchallenged to fuel those fires, again, given the purpose of this bio as a source of accurate, encyclopedic biographical information and the purpose of this talk page to determine what that might be, as well as its connection to the BLP and the degree to which it operates under BLP guidelines.

So, for them, your A seems to be irrelevant because you are completely and utterly wrong about your B. C does not apply, as it simply reads "Religion" and not "Church membership" or "Denominational subset". As I stated, I will be adding the Time article as a reference to give informed clarity to the assertion of "Christianity" in the infobox. While some may read it and take away nothing more than what you claim to have understood from it, there is always the possibility that someone will indeed become informed about the facts of Obama's current pastoral care and better understand his relationship to Christianity without our having to belabor the article text with our own paraphrasings or someone else's interpretation thereof. It is you, not I, who are confusing Obama's church attendance with his pastoral care. Abrazame (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

My comments were specifically about denomination and to if he would receive pastoral at the chuch which he will attend. What you infer from my comments is your own prerogative. One may attend church anywhere;however, attendence does not equal membership. While you want to inform careless readers, a laudable undertaking, I would welcome your diligence in making sure that Obama´s rather public repudiation of the Church of Christ get an equally informative stab. I do not want to give short shrift to either. There has been a long history of people who are ignorant of even the most basic knowledge of organized Christianity who have had all kinds of errant ideas about membership and attendance. You clearly understand the difference. Lagre additions about this will likely run into weight issues in the scale of importance. Please consider how important this is compared to the public seperation from the church in which one baptised and received patoral care for several years. Perhaps we need a daughter article to fully develope Obama´s religious experience. I look forward to your suggestions. Abrazos,--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I have removed "Protestant" from the info box per previous consensus and material is not supported by the cited material. Please discuss here before reinserting.--Die4Dixie (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Does one cease to be a Protestant when one denounces one's crazy minister but attends other Protestant churches and receives Pastoral Care from Protestant ministers? I don't recall having seen anyone that said Obama renounced his Protestantism. Abrazame (talk) 10:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Show a relaible source. Your original research will not do. Please review the archives, as " Christian " is the longstanding concensus version.Die4Dixie (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't think you understand. I didn't add "Protestant" to the infobox, but I'm asking on what grounds you are removing it. Show a reliable source for what? Are you asking for a reliable source that the United Church of Christ is a Protestant denomination? The United Church of Christ article begins, "The United Church of Christ (UCC) is a mainline Protestant Christian denomination principally in the United States, generally considered within the Reformed tradition," and mentions the word "Protestant" three more times in the lead. Are you asking for a reliable source that the minister of his current church, the Camp David church, represents a Protestant denomination? Our article on Baptists reads, "Baptists number over 110 million worldwide in more than 220,000 congregations and are considered the largest world communion of evangelical Protestants". Are you asking for a reliable source that those from whom Obama is receiving pastoral care are Protestants? You should know that those are all in your wonderful Time reference. It would seem that you're the one who needs to show a reliable source, as you are the one making the exceptional suggestion, and the original research, with your presumption that when Obama denounced that one pastor, and resigned from that one church, he went to the extreme of denouncing Protestantism entirely. Do you have a reliable source for that? Abrazame (talk) 03:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that Obama repudiated one particular minister, but probably not the UCC (one of the most tolerant sects ever) in general. The references suggesting he did are feeble. Given that no source has associated him with Catholic or Orthodox Christianity, and he is by his own writings a Christian and a Protestant, let's just stick with that. PhGustaf (talk) 04:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You were there for the last consensus. Unless you have a reliable source that says he is "Protestant", it is your own original research or a violation of WP:SYNTH. The material that I provided came from the denomination itself. About.com has changed their article to reflect this, and about.com was bandied about as a RS. Please provide a RS from since his repudiation of the UCC that says is is anything other than "Christian". The majority of the RS´s now reflect Christian. Also, if you have a reliable source that says he is a member of the church at Camp David, please provide it. It is not "his church". I am Orthodox Presbyterian, but I alos attend other churches. It doesn´t make them mine. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is a little trite at this point in the game.--Die4Dixie (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Obama children articles - comments requested again

Again, comments requested regarding whether we should have separate articles for Malia and/or Sasha Obama or if the current arrangement of a redirect to the section of Family of Barack Obama should continue. See Talk: Family of Barack Obama#Malia Obama article and please comment there. Thanks. Tvoz/talk 20:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Barack redirect

Cross-posting from Talk:Barack: Since there are only two other articles on Wikipedia with the name "Barack", both dramatically less significant than Barack Obama, I recommend restoring the redirect to Barack Obama. The only significant people with Wikipedia articles and a name etymologically linked to 'Barack' are known primarily by spellings other than Barack (excepting Obama's own father, who is in any case linked to in Obama's article..), so the overwhelming majority of people who do a search for "Barack" will be looking for the U.S. president (just like the overwhelming majority of searches for Reagan go to the article that redirect points to, Ronald Reagan, even though Reagan (disambiguation) lists sixteen different articles instead of just 3 like Barack).

Besides which, once Barack redirects back to Barack Obama, everyone will immediately see it at the top of the Barack Obama article (either linked as Barack (disambiguation), or, considering that there are only two other articles on this page, perhaps instead linked to the most common (and most similar) alternative spelling of the name, Barak (disambiguation), which will make all those other "Bara(c)ks" much more prominent and easily found, not less. :) This is the way the article used to be, and it seems more consistent with our treatment of other presidents and prominent public figures. -Silence (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose redirect. Barack Obama is certainly a far more popular article, which is precisely why we don't want an unnecessary DAB for its first line. Those occasional readers who only search on his first name will have no trouble clicking the link, but we should not make the other (less widely read) uses buried excessively to no good purpose. LotLE×talk 23:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Only one article would be any more "buried" under my suggestion than it currently is: Barack (brandy). Which... is a one-line stub. And the trade-off for this is that one of Wikipedia's most important politician articles, Barack Obama, will be less buried (by what is probably the 3rd-most common search term for him). No other article than these 2, the brandy and the politician, will be substantially affected. And the effect to this article's readers will be uniformly beneficial: We already have a dab at the top of Barack Obama (linking to Obama (disambiguation)), and we have the technology to include two dab links on one line. The wikicode is {{Redirect4|Barack|Obama}}. It looks like this:

"Barack" and "Obama" redirect here. For other uses, see Barack (disambiguation) and Obama (disambiguation).

-Silence (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment "Barack" is not a name brand of brandy, nor is it the word for brandy, and the article is erroneously named, presumably to draw attention. Barack apparently means both apricot and peach in Hungarian. The article, then, is about a type of Brandy, yet its title is "Barack (brandy)". There is no article called "Vanilla (vodka)" or "Coconut (rum)". There are articles about Vodka and there are articles about vodka makers, such as Stolichnaya, which mention the various flavors. For example, there is no article called "Vanil (Stoli)" or "Vanil (vodka)". Because even if we were to start naming separate articles for every flavor of something, and then put the something in parentheses—"Mint (gum)" could be different from "Mint (mouthwash)" and "Mint (dental floss)", for example—we would likely not be naming vodka articles after the Russian or Hungarian name for the flavor on the English Wiki. And so, we would have "Apricot (brandy)", wherein we might mention that Barack is the Hungarian name, as it is an amusing bit of trivia. Of course I don't actually suggest we do use such a bizarre naming convention that would lead to hundreds of stubs when two catchall articles would do (Apricot, or Vanilla, or Mint, etc., and then Vodka, Gum, etc.). Further, the redirect page calls it a "Hungarian palinka brandy", when apparently palinka is the Hungarian name for brandy and so nonsensically redundant. I'd recommend absorbing some of that brandy article into a broader article (Hungarian brandy, if it's unique enough to say anything specific about it, though there is no article for Russian vodka, so probably just the Brandy article) and removing that item from the disambig page entirely. I'm agnostic on the issue of the redirect. Abrazame (talk) 03:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

We do have articles for Coconut brandy, as well as for Palinka. However, since 'Barack' is a stub, it would be perfectly normal and reasonable to merge it into a section of Palinka until there is sufficient information to justify a full-fledged article. (I don't think this is necessary to warrant having Barack redirect here, though. The only effect would be to make Barack an even less useful dab page on its own.) One thing that surprised me is that Palinka, even though it is quite a detailed article, never once mentions "barack" (despite featuring an image of one). This is a matter to take up at Talk:Palinka, though, since we obviously aren't the brandy experts. :) -Silence (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• I should note that Lulu withdrew his above 'oppose' vote on Talk:Barack. Are there any other objections to this change? -Silence (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• To clarify: Are there any objections to adding a link to Barak (disambiguation) at the top of this article, since that seems to be the largest dab page devoted to the various alternate spellings of Barack? Barack and Barack (disambiguation) will both then redirect here (with the latter perhaps eventually being deleted, if this solutoin sticks), and the brandy's article will be merged into Palinka and/or linked from Barak (disambiguation) as a close spelling variant. How's that sound? -Silence (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Would the proposed change add more or less clutter to the top of this page? This being a popular article, of paramount importance is that the information about the subject is presented as soon as possible, without such information being surmounted and supplanted by myriad confusing hatnotes. Robert K S (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither. It won't add appreciable clutter; see the one-line template I recommended above ({{Redirect4|Barack|Obama}}). The redirect would look like this:

"Barack" and "Obama" redirect here. For other uses, see Barack (disambiguation) and Obama (disambiguation).

And it's impossible to "add less clutter" to something. :) -Silence (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's been a week and there have been zero objections, so I'm adding the dab link to Barak (disambiguation) (the most popular and similar alternate spelling) to this article, and redirecting Barack here. -Silence (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Obama’s Speech in Cairo

This seems to be a poorly written, non-encyclopedic essay about said speech, and likely needs to be deleted. But I figured I'd alert people here about it, in case it's somewhat salvageable. — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 19:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Athelwulf. I concur with your assessment of its quality, and I've prodded for deletion. No point trying to salvage, because a better article exists on the same subject: A New Beginning. Otumba (talk) 05:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Changes to FAQ

I suggest a change to Question 5, regarding the birth certificate, including something about it being independently verified as genuine and the amount of people who believe it is fake are so small and are at odds with the majority viewpoint and verifiable evidence that, per WP:UNDUE, we can treat it as a fact just like we take the oblate spheroidness of the Earth as fact. That should moot a lot of the birther trolling we currently see. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Trolls are trolls. I doubt a troll will read the FAQ and then decide not to post/edit accordingly. Not really saying whether the FAQ should be adjusted or not, just commenting about trrolls. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Not stop, moot. Actually codifying it in the FAQ will give us a better case for removal of the threads. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. As a matter of WP:AGF, and process, I wouldn't come down too hard on editors or cause them trolls just because they believe a conspiracy theory... every newbie deserves one free pass. But yes, we ought to be as decisive as possible on this, the African-American thing, and all the other proposals that, although perennial ones, have already been discussed to death and have no chance of leading to anything productive here. Wikidemon (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

How is this for a rewrite?:

The Barack Obama article consists of an overview of major issues in the life and times of the subject. The controversy over his eligibility, citizenship, birth certificate, etc., is currently a fairly minor issue in overall terms, and has had no significant legal or mainstream political impact. In addition, the lack of major prevalence of this point of view and its inherent disregard of verifiable evidence would make any mention of the controversy at all unduly weighted in comparison to the rest of the article. It is therefore not currently appropriate for inclusion in an overview article. These claims are covered separately in The controversy itself, however, is covered in context and with both sides of the argument at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.

Sceptre ^(talk) 17:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Any way to do a comparison -- you know, added text and deleted text for those of us with short attention span? Wikidemon (talk) 07:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I'm as guilty as anyone, but I'm always a little surprised at how many more people will respond to suggestions which are patently inappropriate than will respond to those which are appropriate. I suppose the reason—and it's a valid reason—is because establishing a consensus against a patently inappropriate suggestion is intended to curtail excessive elaboration. Yet we could use a thought or two on the constructive efforts as well as the destructive ones. Here, I will say that I think it's unnecessary to use the words "with both sides of the argument". There's something about our culture, in which valid (and less valid) ideological arguments go on for generations, that, in trying to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority as the founders intended, lately seems to give increasing weight not merely to minority points of view, but to invalid points of view. I won't expound any further, but I think that saying "The controversy itself, however, is covered in context at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories." makes a neutral statement that doesn't seem to validate that there is an argument on both sides. As I am familiar with it, the main definition of "argument" includes the word "reason", and accusations that the President of the United States is not American seem entirely unreasoned.

While I'm at it, I'd see as polish the change from "is currently a fairly minor issue in overall terms, and has had no significant legal or mainstream political impact" to "is a fairly minor issue in overall terms, as it has had no significant legal or mainstream political impact." In other words, currency is implicit in the words "is" and "has"; at such time and in such universe as there would be such significant legal or mainstream political impact, then "is" and "has" would legitimate the argument. "Currently" seems to hover there as an invitation to imagine us moving to a different reality—and/or to pursue the appearance of one.

In summary, my suggestion for a rewrite:

"The Barack Obama article consists of an overview of major issues in the life and times of the subject. The controversy over his eligibility, citizenship, birth certificate, etc., is currently a fairly minor issue in overall terms, and has had no significant legal or mainstream political impact. In addition, the lack of major prevalence of this point of view and its inherent disregard of verifiable evidence would make any mention of the controversy at all unduly weighted in comparison to the rest of the article. It is therefore not currently appropriate for inclusion in an overview article. These claims are covered separately in The controversy itself, however, is covered in context and with both sides of the argument at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories." Abrazame (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks okay, but I would work on it a bit. I don't like the word "inherent" because I don't think a POV can be inherent, and verifiability is mainly a wiki editing concept, not a comment on the political opinions people hold. How about something like "the non-prevalence of this point of view, and its disregard for the generally understood facts of the matter, would make any mention..." - Wikidemon (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

There is obvious vandalism here - but because this page is protected I can't fix it! It says "...goal is to destroy the United States from the inside out". Could someone with enough access please fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave downunder (talk • contribs) 04:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

So there was some foolish writing on this article. Haha. ;) Did someone write he was from Saudi Arabia too? || TwilightDog || (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal life

The last sentence of personal life says that Obama will not smoke in the White House. This might be removed or moved to the campaign section. Obama says that he does still smoke, but not in front of his daughters, and does it outside.

DO you have a WP:RS that he still smokes?--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's one each from two different news organizations, the LA Times and the Washington Times:

Dinan, Stephen (2008-July-09). "Obama rejects Russians' invite to light up". News > Politics. The Washington Times. Retrieved 2009-July-26. ...America's most famous wannabe ex-smoker was having none of it... the White House says the president doesn't smoke in front of his wife and children [emphasis added] {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)

Editor (2008-June-28). "The news that fits its times". Opinion. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2009-July-26. Here are some things we learned this week: Barack Obama still smokes the occasional cigarette when his children aren't looking. [emphasis added] {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)

However, just because it is well-sourced, I'm not certain that the reports of the President still trying to quit smoking is sufficiently notable for inclusion - but it might be. Discussion? --4wajzkd02 (talk)

After some review & reflection, I think it is notable. Perhaps the statement, "and said he will not smoke in the White House.", should have this sentence added after it: 'The White House has noted that he "still smokes the occasional cigarette when his children aren't looking."' (with the LA Times citation as a reference).--4wajzkd02 (talk) 02:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see something sounder than an assertion that the "White House says" before adding a sentence about this to the article. Like, for example, a press release from the White House. I have a big problem with citing en passant comments. No big deal if it's true: Millions of people know it's hard to quit ciggie butts, especially under stress, and O is surely under stress. PhGustaf (talk) 04:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I doubt there'd be a press release on something like this. Perhaps that's a sign its not notable enough? However, both sources make a definitive statement, particularly the "the White House says" comment. Plenty of things get reported by the MSM by unnamed sources. Although not a J-School grad., it is my understanding such things have to be verified before being reported. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk)

Actually, we only need a realiable source to say that the White House says that he still smokes. I propose a slight change in tense/ mood such as:" While Obama said he would not smoke in the White House, the White House reports that he still smokes the occasional cigarette when his wife and children aren´t looking." Or something to that effect. It was notable enough for inclusion for all this time, no reason for it not to be just because the situation may appear slightly less favorable( Bold just to desmonstrate change from "will").--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your comments. Let's see if there's consensus, and then the text can be altered as (or close to) your suggestion. Thanks, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems like noone else has an opinion. How long ya wanna wait?--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Waiting is better than not, it seems (see below). It is a very small part of the article, but worthwhile doing right, IMHO. I'd rather get it on the record here than edit it and then have reversions. --4wajzkd02 (talk)

A reliable source would be nice. Casual mentions in gossip and op-ed columns don't count. PhGustaf (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I do believe that both sources do meet the criteria of being reliable, but I accept that you do not. I will go read WP:RS again and come back with some commentary. If need be, we can do an RFC. Before going to that step, I would like to ask if all the issues are on the table? Those mentioned have been:

1. Is it notable? Although few comments have been made, the position seems to be that it is notable. To paraphrase Die4Dixie "smoking, and quitting, have been notable enough to be included in the article for some time, so why would an update not continue to be notable?". Pardon if I didn't nuance that well, but it makes sense to me.

2. Is it reliably sourced? I think it meets the criteria, but at least one editor, PhGustaf, does not, so there is a lack of consensus.

Are there any other issue to be discussed?

BTW, I don't have any POV on this issue, and assume no one else does. The reported information is the reported information. Since it is in the article already, and sources (albeit not agreed to as reliable, yet) have reported a change to what's in the article, it makes sense (to me) to update the article. Regardless, I hope no one thinks that this tiny refinement makes one whit of political or other difference regarding the President. Personally, as an ex-smoker, I hope he's able to quit, but know that it is tough. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The article currently reads, "Obama has tried to quit smoking several times,[223] and said he will not smoke in the White House.[223]" (For the record, I have not edited or discussed this issue before.) The White House, as a national historic landmark, is a smoke-free zone. Obama's statement as we present it in the bio, that "he will not smoke in the White House", does not state that he will never smoke again, nor does it state that he will not smoke during his presidency. As such, whatever reports about subsequent smoking as may exist or arise, be it in a blog or in Life magazine, would not affect the statement. As Obama's biography expands it may be necessary to remove such trivial issues entirely. At the very least we should not be appending them.

Our previous president is a recovering alcoholic who was arrested for DUI and had his license revoked for two years. I saw a tabloid that reported that George W. Bush was drinking in the White House, and if I were the sort to troll such places I'm sure there must've been a few blogs mentioning such reports, but it would not be reasonable to include such a claim in his Wiki bio.

So, 1.) No, it is not notable. 2.) The sort of coverage and meaning that this issue would need to be relevant to a brief bio of his life is not the sort that comes from blogs and gossip columns. (Such sources are most reasonable for primary subjects unlikely to be addressed elsewhere. Obama is not such a subject.) Furthermore, by including it here, we would be elevating such a minor detail to biographical information. We are not here to amplify trivia.

Thanks for the comments. I appreciate you taking the time to come here and make them, particularly over such a small proposed change. BTW, I agree with your points, with one clarification. My justification for believing that the change proposed was notable was because the information is already in the article, but slightly out of date. I have felt that there were three choices here:

1. If the 'smoking' issue is notable, update it.

2. If the 'smoking issue' is not notable, delete it.

3. Do nothing (but as you point out, in the future the 'smoking issue' may be deleted to make room for other text or as part of a general cleanup).

Point 2 has not been discussed, but perhaps this is really the best choice.

4wajzkd02, to your statement that you "hope no one thinks that this ... makes one whit of political or other difference regarding the President," in virtually every case where that could be said of an additive edit, then that edit shouldn't happen here. This is a bio of limited space and so of limited scope. While I know you meant for us to infer that the additional detail about what some view as a vice isn't "pro-Obama" or "anti-Obama", the point is that we aren't here to present information or details about Obama that don't make a difference regarding him. We are here to capture what is and becomes fundamentally relevant to the man with regards to his notability, which is as a Senator and President. Sneaking a cig here or there quite simply and quite obviously isn't one of those things.

You are correct.

As far as "waiting" goes, I'd point out, not simply because it's midsummer, that two days is not a reasonable amount of time to presume that all who would have an opinion have either spoken up or decided against doing so. Many editors avoid certain issues they find patently unencyclopedic, not because they don't have a response but because they think it's obvious what a responsible editor's response would be and why. Abrazame (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstood - I favor 'waiting' vice change without consensus. I think your comments were precisely of the kind worth waiting for. I accept your point of view that this topic may be beneath the level of some editors notice, although it is easy to consider that some might react pointedly if a change were made sans discussion, so, IMO, discussion is the responsible thing to do. Thanks again for adding to that discussion.

To conclude, I'm still going to wait for more input before doing anything, but am now inclined to delete the smoking issue in its entirety from the article. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk)

Simply put, if one smokes it is notable to their life for myriad reasons. It was deemed appropriate enough to be included in a stable concensus version for months. More information, from reliable sources (which establish notability),has become availible. It is, at best, disingenuous for it no longer to be notable, and the article should be updated. WP:BOLD doesn´t allow for monthlong waits before an editor adds relevant, sourced material to an article. Recibes un fuerte abrazo de tu buen amigo, --Die4Dixie (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

PD: RS sources are established not by capricious concensus; but rather, by the appropriate board.--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I see this as only a bit of minor trivia. To elevate it to something much bigger or much more noteworthy, we would need a reliable source, not a blog or editorial, that says it's much bigger then it is. Failing that, then we should either downgrade or remove this little bit of trivia.

The two sources profered are neither blogs nor editorials. They are the opitome of WP:RS. Please sign your comments with the four tildes, as I have no idea who might think they are blogs.Die4Dixie (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Which two sources are you referring to? --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Dinan, Stephen (2008-July-09). "Obama rejects Russians' invite to light up". News > Politics. The Washington Times. Retrieved 2009-July-26. ...America's most famous wannabe ex-smoker was having none of it... the White House says the president doesn't smoke in front of his wife and children [emphasis added] {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)

Editor (2008-June-28). "The news that fits its times". Opinion. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2009-July-26. Here are some things we learned this week: Barack Obama still smokes the occasional cigarette when his children aren't looking. [emphasis added] {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)--Die4Dixie (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, one is an opinion piece, and therefore cannot be used as a source for factual material. And I'll set aside the question of the Washinton Times' thin record of journalistic integrity (professional journalists generally don't refer to the president as "America's most famous wannabe ex-smoker" in an article that purports to be a real news story and not a snarky editorial) and address the issue of notability. A sniping comment in a partisan source does not make this in any way notable to his biography. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with LM, here. This in no way is necessary to include in this article. It's trivia at best, WT sniping at worst. UnitAnode 01:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Why in the hel was the fluff about him not smoking let stand for so long if this shit is so trivial? The other piece is a opinion, and I was mistaken. A direct attribution should take care of that. I am a smoker. It is extremely important to my life. Just ask the fucking actuary who drilled me for USAA´s life insurance policy.--Die4Dixie (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

So because it is extremely important to you, means that it is extremely important to someone who is, at most, an infrequent smoker? If we ever write a bio on Die4Dixie, I think we'll be sure to include it. --Jleon (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Who says infrequently? Smoking is important to the life of the person, not just Die4Dixie. Ask the American Lung Association and the American Red Cross. I´m sure that you know sooooo much more than they. I suppose you know more than all the LIFE insurance companies actuaries too? You are brilliant. It was important enough to be included all this time: Why not now?--Die4Dixie (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Kessler's book

New information in the book In the President's Secret Service (article in progress) by Ronald Kessler. This edit, hilighting the new relevation about Obama's smoking, has been now double-reverted:

In his recent book ''[[In the President's Secret Service]]'' [[Ronald Kessler]] reveals, that Obama is still smoking regularly.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_secret_service/2009/08/03/243461.html|title=Secret Service Secrets: Obama Threats Up 400 Percent|last=Meyers|first=Jim|date=August 3, 2009|publisher=Newsmax|language=English|accessdate=2009-08-04}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/04/earlyshow/leisure/books/main5211273.shtml|title=Secret Service Cuts Endangering Obama?|date=August 4, 2009|publisher=CBS News|language=English|accessdate=2009-08-04}}</ref>

I don't see what is the problem; in my opinion the source is pretty trustworthy. Refer here for more info. Discuss? hydrox (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The first revert appears to have been a misunderstanding. hydrox (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I got and even better idea. Use the references and drop everything else. This is also not the place to plug a book not directly about Obama. The references themselves are just fine. Also, we do not need to add any more wording either, just add the references. Brothejr (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit: I also agree with ThuranX that while the ref's do say he smokes, this is mainly about gotcha politics and is not really noteworthy. The line should be removed anyway. Brothejr (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Who cares if he smokes? It's only notable inasmuch as it's gotcha politics as usual. Shouldn't be in. ThuranX (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I think his smoking/not smoking status is is pretty relevant in the personal life section of such a notable person, especially as the matter has been discussed in media outlets like Reuters. I edited the article after the biggest Finnish-language newspaper (Helsingin Sanomat) just published an article about this book on their main page. I'd like to see the wording changed so that it appropriately reflects the latest information. Whatabout: Obama has tried to quit smoking several times, and said he will not smoke in the White House, but his success has been questioned.<refs> hydrox (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not interested in if he smokes or not, but I doubt that this book is a reliable source at all. NewsMax isn't, and the book seems to be published at least under their editorial control. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

His smoking is relevant, especially given his goal of health reform. NewsMax is a reliable source, and the book is a reliable source as well. Arzel (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No, NewsMax is not a reliable source. It falls in that same category as WND and all the other pseudo-journalistic attack blogs. Explore the archives of RS Noticeboard for further details. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's only relevant to his health care reform as some sort of hypocrisy gotcha, which wikipedia cannot decide as that would be a SYNTH/OR violation. It's not notable. ThuranX (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

So waht do you call it when you seasoned editors let stand the feel-good fluff about his quitting for so long? Dishonest or diingenuous?--Die4Dixie (talk) 06:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I propose closing this discussion with a lack of consensus. WP is not a democracy, of course, but my vote, for what it is worth, would be to remove the current "smoking" text from the article. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)