Talk:Barack Obama

Archive 69: Religion

OP banned as sockpuppet; no compelling reason to refute current and historical RSs and mischaracterization of consensus - no change to be made to article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The consensus for that discussion was that Obama's religion is United Church of Christ. There was some support for Protestant. Christianity was not the consensus but a 3rd choice. Judith Merrick (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Are you saying the choices ranked 1. United Church of Christ, 2. Protestant, and 3. Christianity? I should point out that the United Church of Christ is part of Reformed Christianity ("Protestant"), which in turn is part of Christianity. This is almost like asking whether he's a human, a primate, or a mammal. The answer would be "All of the above"! The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Given how sock-infested it was by JB5000/Gaydenver, there is no consensus that can be drawn from such a tainted discussion. Start anew if you like, but it really seems like a lot of quibbling over a minor issue. Tarc (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Sounds like Al Gore and those wanting a re-vote! If Gore were president, Obama would never have become president. Romney might be. Palin would still be an unknown governor. Judith Merrick (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Gaydenver was found not to be a sock of JB50000 but Tarc was accused of being a sock. Huh? It seems that the pro-Christianity people were quibbling over "a minor issue". In terms of objectivity, Christianity's sources are SPS (self published sources) which are deemed unreliable. References show that he is United Church of Christ. Obama distanced himself from Rev. Wright, not the Church. Obama was on TV yesterday and he did not repudiate the United Church of Christ. He just doesn't go to church often but has designated Camp David as his church for now. Judith Merrick (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC) As you yourself note, labeling him as United Church of Christ is potentially problematic, given some ambiguities on the issue. Better to just simply say Christian. Grunge6910 (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC) And Christian is not potentially problematic, it is problematic. Putting Camp David church is just making things up and fiddling with facts. United Church of Christ is the most accurate and specific. If accuracy and specificity is not desired, then change his name to Bernard H. Obama II since that is almost correct. Bernard, Barack, very similar. Judith Merrick (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Got to point out how horribly flawed and fallacious your argument is; the United Church is at least part of Christianity. To compare Barack with a name which is nothing more than similar is absurd. Christianity might not be the precise answer, but it seems no one is completely sure what BO's true affiliation is, other than...drum roll...Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.213.122 (talk) 08:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Wrong, that was not the consensus. Also, the sock puppet investigation did not find anyone to be different people, in fact the conclusion was that they were either the same person or in close contact IRL. I would call that either sockpuppets or meatpuppets. While I appreciate the work done by the admins and CUs, it's unbelievable to me that you and the others listed are not either the same person or working to undermine Wikipedia together. In any case, it doesn't matter right now. All of your proposals were rejected and claiming 'consensus' when there is none is eerily familiar. DD2K (talk) 23:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Eerily familiar? "change his name to Bernard H. Obama II since that is almost correct" vs. "why don't we just say he's the president of a large North American country?" At the very least it seems like a couple of editors flunked the same Logic and Comprehension classes. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC) This is pretty silly. United Church of Christ is a subset of Christianity. Saying that Obama is Christian is accurate if he belongs to any Christian church or denomination. The example about Bernard is totally irrelevant. The 888th Avatar (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Christianity is accurate and we shouldn't be more precise or detailed than that at this time without additional reliable sources. Technically, Obama is a former member of the United Church of Christ, see this correspondence, and the cited Associated Press article says as much: "The United Church of Christ, the denomination from which Obama resigned when he left Wright's church, issued a written invitation to join a UCC denomination in Washington and resume his connections to the church." Obama has not yet resumed his connections, so the UCC is most likely is, and will remain, his former denomination, yet these sources are not quite enough verification to assert that the UCC is indeed his former denomination, e.g. United Church of Christ (until 2008) added underneath Christianity. To do so, I think we may need additional secondary or tertiary sources that verify his break with the UCC as a consequence of leaving Trinity. --Modocc (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC) So Modocc seems to be saying "United Church of Christ (until 2008), Christianity (2008-present)". This is honest. I'm not sure he quit the church, just the Trinity United Church of Christ so I was thinking United Church of Christ. But either one is better than Christianity alone, which is almost a coverup, shame on Wikipedia. Judith Merrick (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC) No, Modocc seems to be saying his personal opinion is that "United Church of Christ (until 2008), Christianity (2008-present)" might be accurate but it would be improper to post that without clearer reliable sources. "almost a coverup"? A cover-up of what? He's a secret Coptic or Gnostic? Fat&Happy (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Modocc isn't even saying that, he specifically stated at the beginning of his post that "Christianity is accurate and we shouldn't be more precise or detailed than that at this time without additional reliable sources". The editor(Judith Merrick that makes these leaps into "consensus" by completely ignoring real consensus does the same things over and over. The same exact leaps and muddying of issues that JB50000 had done over and over. I tried pointing that out in an official manner, and let the results be what they were. But this is just ridiculous. DD2K (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC) I've had this discussion watched for some time, and I agree that User:Judith Merrick is another likely sock of User:Gaydenver / User:JB50000, so I've blocked him accordingly. Spellcast (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC) I don't think it will come as a surprise that I totally agree with that assessment. DD2K (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Hasn't Obama self-identified as a Christian since at least as far back as when people started claiming he was Muslim (i.e., before the Wright hoopla)? Can't someone self-identify their own darn religion? I don't see why this is a big issue. Barring some unusual circumstance, he should be called whatever religion he calls himself: in this case, Christian.LedRush (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC) :::::::::Crazy, if this easy point can be agreed upon, can we agree that Obama is a male? Willie Sutton Bank President (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC) (striking comments of banned sockpuppet) It's amazing that you guys are squabbling about such a petty issue. He's a Christian, he's a Protestant, and he went to a United Church of Christ. It should be mentioned, however, that Protestant and United Church of Christ are not actually religions, but denominations or subgroups of Christianity. Does the term Christian offend you so much that it has to be erased from the sitting president's biography? I'm surprised there isn't an argument yet to simply call him a theist. I shouldn't be surprised by this discussion, since this page has long been the home of liberal zealots content with erasing any aspect of Obama's past that doesn't live up to the idol they have in their minds.72.201.251.230 (talk) 11:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC) If you'd actually read the discussions though, you would see that it is the so-called "liberal zealots" that are the ones who were in favor of keeping the entry as "Christianity". Tarc (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Zealots' opinions should be noted but not necessarily considered. I looked up the United Church of Christ and it is not controversial or radical so mention seems neutral. The McChicken costs $1 (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Since Barak Obama Sr. was a Muslim, Barak Obama II is a Muslim by birth. So that needs to be added to the information, please.75.57.121.90 (talk) 04:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No for two reasons, 1, judeo-christian religions are based on the mother. Second of all, religion has nothing to do with birth, it is a belief system, not a race.--Iankap99 (talk) 04:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Iankap99, you need to take a Comparative Religion class. Barak Obama II is a Muslim by birth.75.57.121.90 (talk) 06:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This is true that he was born a Muslim. However, only if the bio is book length should there be discussion about how his father was a Muslim, later Atheist. If the bio is only a page long, then it could be misleading to mention it like 75.57.121.90. The McChicken costs $1 (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Iankap99 is right, you are both wrong. Religion has nothing to do with birth. Obama was not born a Muslim just like I was not born a Christian. BrendanFrye (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, he was born into a Muslim family but did not accept the religion. That's one trouble with 30 seconds spots, people just zero into on the word Muslim. He is not a Muslim.

I am not certain why there is the fuss about being a Protestant. Some want him to be called a Protestant but some are opposed. I can't figure out why. Also Brendan and my comments are recent and it is bad practice to hide them in a box. The McChicken costs $1 (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. Respectfully, if one wishes to figure out why some have one opinion and some another, that's the very reason we archive these talk pages; the expressions of those opinions are found there. You could also do some reading at reliable sources elsewhere. If you're interested in being a part of such a conversation, you might take a class on comparative religion, find a chat room off Wikipedia, or discuss this at a Wiki Project for religion.

This page isn't actually here for any and all comers to participate in an open discussion about and and all general or specific themes related directly or indirectly to the article subject or data herein. It is here so specific, rational and well-sourced suggestions for improvements to the article may be discussed and potential changes honed; or, alternatively, for explanation of why edits or suggestions are found to be inappropriate for this brief bio. Discussions viz a viz this subject have already transpired several times over and, contrary to your comment in a "censorship" thread below, you didn't add anything new to that broader discussion. One's very first thought and very second thought on an issue (particularly when they are hunches and not actually rooted in fact) isn't necessarily helpful, especially as it is apparently not your intent to change the wording in the article, and for all of these reasons your comments are irrelevant to the purpose of this page in general and this thread in particular.

We welcome your educated suggestions on other issues that might be appropriate for article inclusion, and that's best done by participating in an active thread or beginning a reliably sourced thread of your own, as you did with the Uganda situation. Hopefully you can understand that reopening or appending multiple closed threads without understanding the reasons for closure and without any compelling turn of events altering the situation, and without even intending to change the consensus in every case, is not the best way to enter the editorial process.

Incidentally, something is technically amiss with the formatting of the now-closed thread above, as prior to McChicken's post there of 5/12 it had lingered several days past the current 10-day auto-archive date, in fact 150% of the current standard archival period. Can someone adept at this sort of thing give it a look? Abrazame (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Race Specification

original question answered - no change to be made to article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article says that Obama is the first African American to become president. While it is true he is not white like the previous presidents, he is not completely African American. His father is African American and his mother is white, which makes him the first mixed president. Just a quick fixup would be much appreciated.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Architectheroes (talk • contribs) 21:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC) See Q2 in the FAQ above. This question comes up about once a week. Acroterion (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC) If a mixed man robs a store, the description is going to be "African American male". This is true even if the eyewitness has no evidence that the suspect is American, much less completely black. Could very well be a man who had a Nigerian father and a British mother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The McChicken costs $1 (talk • contribs) 21:03, April 28, 2010 (UTC) If i knew the man that robbed the store was of mixed race than i would tell the police that because he would be easier to identify.XavierGreen (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Just because a piece of information is repeatedly, even by sources often considered reliable, does not make something true, especially if the information is heavily tinged with cultural bias. Calling Obama "African-American" and leaving it at that is misleading. Like so many other cases when we focus on the "otherness" of someone we identify as a minority, we make the privileged group invisible. Since it is taken for granted that somebody is white, straight, or male, (etc) we only give specifics when they belong to the less-privileged group. Calling Obama "African-American" instead of "biracial" or "multiracial" enforces white hegemony. I understand this topic has been discussed extensively, but I don't see any evidence that this harmful aspect has been addressed. Sabbrielle (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC) The job of Wikipedia isn't to establish the "truth." --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC) The job of Wikipedia is not to spread falsity, on the other hand. Wikipedia should be as accurate as possible. This comment is a statement of fact, not an effort to convince one way or another for a specific edit. The McChicken costs $1 (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC) African American Abrazame (talk) 06:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Consider my answer to a similar question at the Robert C. Weaver discussion page: Talk:Robert_C._Weaver#Ethnicity. Dave Golland (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC) McChicken, if your goal here isn't to convince us one way or another of a specific edit, then your comments do not belong on this talk page at all. Talk pages are for discussing changes that need to be made to article, they are not here to be your soap box. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Still he is not completely black and saying simply that he is is a form of this thing called Selective OmissionDerBarJude (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC) You do not have to convince people here – it's all the sources that have described Obama that you need to "correct". Johnuniq (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It may be noteworthy to mention that Obama is biracial but chose African-American/Black/Negro on the census form instead of multiracial.

Maybe it could read after it says where his mother was white and father Kenyan Luo that "Obama declared his race as 'African-American/Black/Negro on the 2010 census form and not 'some other race' or both black and 'white'." (This last part, not some other race, is quoted from the NY Times article and is not my conclusion. It's their conclusion)

References: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/what-the-wild-things-are/201004/president-obama-checks-the-black-box

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/03/us/politics/03census.html

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/2137473,obama-census-black-040210.article

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/02/politics/main6357568.shtml

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/04/nation/la-na-obama-census4-2010apr04

I am surprised that there are so much coverage over this issue and makes one think that Wikipedia should also devote one sentence to it (summarizing dozens of news reports into one simple sentence). The McChicken costs $1 (talk) 01:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Please read FAQ2 and the articles linked therein. Abrazame (talk) 08:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Honorary Doctoral Degree

Obama received an honorary doctoral degree of law from the university of michigan as of today (May 1st 2010). Perhaps somebody could include that information? VonLoyola 18:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I am guessing that he has lots of honorary degrees, titles, and awards. For most anyone, those are not terribly significant to the biography, unless there is something particularly noteworthy about them. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe another article? The Honorary Degrees of Obama. The McChicken costs $1 (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The awards of Obama would be more appropriate, so how about it? I'll help out!--Iankap99 (talk) 04:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Obama's endorsment of ACTA

I'll leave this to someone else to write up but.... One thing that should be noted is Obama's strong support of Acta. Some people are widely support his stance, others strongly opposing, I think this is enough of an issue to be warrent a mention....

and article by cnn is here http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20000347-261.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Primefalcon (talk • contribs) 11:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I don't see anything significant about this yet. Maybe if it passes, but even then it needs to prove important. The existence of vehement debate doesn't make it notable. Vehement debate happens all the time over trivial and important things. Bottom line here is that nothing has passed and there is no way to know how important ACTA will be yet.23:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlund (talk • contribs)

Citizenship conspiracy theories

Note: I have reported this matter to AN/I, here. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

proposal perennial proposal, considered and rejected - please see FAQ #5-9
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
wasn't this a big deal when the elections were going on? where's the controversy? ie http://westernfrontamerica.com/2008/11/08/obama-coming-constitutional-crisis/ and all the other sites. O.o —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.203.26 (talk) 06:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC) See answer to Q5 in FAQ, above. Fat&Happy (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC) I feel it's worth mentioning in the article.TheiGuard (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Well, there are currently 69 volumes of archived discussions linked at the top of this page. Feel free to browse through them and estimate the odds of establishing a consensus for inclusion. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Well said, I must say I love the satirical sarcasm on wikipedia. --Iankap99 (talk) 04:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Like many criticisms of Obama, it is mentioned on a subpage, but won't be mentioned here since this is the page everyone visits. Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC) So, conspiracy theories are a criticism now? Someone is full of it. BrendanFrye (talk) 03:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC) I think the fact you think they can't be shows a need for further education. For one thing, if they can't be criticisms, then I think you'll have a tough time explaining why his citizenship is mentioned on a page of its own. So it has its own page, but not because it's a criticism? You haven't thought this through well enough. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 05:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC) No, it's not a criticism. A criticism is a sincere or plausible opinion voiced about facts. The birther stuff is somewhere between a fringe conspiracy theory and a political smear. But anyway, even if it were a criticism we don't divide the article into criticism and praise sections, but rather work things into the right article(s) in due proportion to their biographical importance and relevance. This stuff isn't terribly important or relevant to the overall scope of Obama's life or career, and is best mentioned in other articles about more narrow, related subjects. The subject has been discussed again and again, and has never gained substantial support among legitimate editors for its inclusion. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Source, WikiDemon? Wikipedia's page on Criticism simply defines it as "the judgement (using analysis and evaluation) of the merits and faults of the actions or work of another individual." I have a hard time believing you're trying to place as a definition of criticism that it has to have basis in fact. Criticism by many reliable definitions would simply be negative statements. According to Princeton's definition, for example, a critic can be defined simply as "someone who frequently finds fault or makes harsh and unfair judgments". Logically then, I'm not sure where you're coming up with this definition of the word. As for whether that merits mention in the article, you are again trying to read into this standards that are inaccurate. Regardless of whether it is fact-based (and I have my doubts), supported by 'legitimate editors' (I notice you are going to try and disqualify some of the many editors who have in the past brought this up), and regardless of whether it is a fringe theory, it can still be discussed if notable and reliably sourced. According to Wikipedia:Fringe theories, "A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory... Subjects receive attention in Wikipedia in proportion to the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written." Furthermore, according to that same article, "Likewise, exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources, and, with clear editorial consensus, unreliable sources for exceptional claims may be rejected due to a lack of quality." While consensus can block sources due to a lack of quality, it cannot block simply because they claim consensus. Logically, Wikipedia consensus should not be all that's needed to make a fringe theory notable, just as it should not be all that's needed to reject notable and well-sourced criticisms. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC) "I think the fact you think they can't be shows a need for further education." Ha ha. You're a troll. BrendanFrye (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Yeah, right, the guy here since February 2007 is a troll because the guy here since December 2009 said so. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC) The difference is that I've been not trolling since December. Your argument (like your logic) above is basically gibberish and just a huge waste of time. BrendanFrye (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC) I'll stop feeding the trolls now. Have fun spinning your wheels. BrendanFrye (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC) I feel he deserves a criticism section, he is one of the most controversial presidents of all time.TheiGuard (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Indeed. I have found in the past that no matter how notable a criticism of Obama, or how well-sourced it may be, that the editors on the Obama page will fight it tooth and nail, bringing in other liberal editors from elsewhere on Wikipedia and then claiming 'consensus' regardless of past editors who provided opposite consensus who just aren't present at the time. I would think consensus alone should not be enough to block mention of topics that are notable and reliably sourced. For example, Wikipedia mentions notable criticisms of Barack Obama, but none are mentioned on the main page because of how strongly the editors there fight it. Supposedly, though worthy of mention elsewhere on Wikipedia, they are somehow not valid on the page of the person they most concern. Furthermore, there is no denying the notability or relevance thereof, given that each of these issues, even apart from their mention on separate Wikipedia articles, has substantial independent media references. Obama's voting record on live birth abortion: Sourced on Wikipedia Pages: Barack_Obama_social_policy, United States Senate election in_Illinois, 2004, Nat Hentoff, James Dobson, David Freddoso, Jill Stanek, Gianna Jessen, Alan Keyes, The Committee for Truth in Politics Sourced Independently: FactCheck.org/Newsweek[4], New York Times[5][6], CNN[7][8], FOX News[9], National Right to Life Committee[10], New York Sun[11], Real Clear Politics (Time Magazine blog)[12][13], Chicago Tribune[14], National Review[15], MSNBC[16] Sourced additionally for Obama's present votes on these controversial bills: ABC News[17], PolitiFact[18][19], Chicago Tribune[20][21], Washington Post[22], Time Magazine[23], New York Sun[24], Huffington Post[25], Chicago Sun-Times[26] Obama's Own Words in IL Senate Transcripts for Bills: Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act[27] (pp. 84-90), Induced Birth Infants Liability Act[28] (pp. 29-35) Obama's Citizenship: Sourced on Wikipedia Pages: Natural born citizen of the United States, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, Andy Martin (American politician), Alan Keyes, Political positions of Sarah Palin, Ken Cuccinelli, Ted Poe, Wiley Drake Knocked off all candidates in 1st election by disqualifying petition signatures on technicalities: Sourced on Wikipedia Pages: Illinois Senate elections of Barack Obama, Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama, Alice Palmer (politician) Sourced Independently: CNN[29][30], Chicago Tribune[31] , Boston Globe[32], New York Times[33] Asked Emil Jones, head of Illinois Senate, to make him a U.S. Senator, following which he was appointed head of high-profile pieces of legislation worked on by other Illinois Senators: Sourced on Wikipedia Pages: Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama, Emil Jones Sourced Independently: Time Magazine [34], CBS News[35], Boston Globe[36], Houston Press[37] Left off citizenship sourcing since I'm sure most realize that can be provided readily enough. Will provide upon request. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Going for another topic ban Jzyehoshua? Your last topic ban on this page was what, three months ago? You were doing so well. Please stop posting walls of text, if you can't make your point succinctly than it probably isn't a point worth making. :) BrendanFrye (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC) It's been a while since Scjessey and others here (whether you were one I don't know) got banned/disciplined much more seriously for your attacks on members on this topic. I know you can't address the points other than to try and distract by focusing on the person rather than the argument, so I'll humor you for now. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC) What points? BrendanFrye (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC) I suppose your disregard for 'walls of text' led you to overlook them. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC) I realize I'm acting a bit edgy, but then so too would most people, I'm sure, who'd just provided 50 sources on controversial material being excluded from an article, only to be told they hadn't made any points. One wonders, was there a right answer? I provided too many sources, and got accused of making 'walls of text'. And had I provided no sources, I'd have doubtless been accused of not providing sources. It seems, no matter how much sourcing or facts I provide, I cannot generate any response from critics other than personal attacks about racism or Wikipedia history. Instead of answers, there are inflammatory remarks followed by edit war attempts to prevent said remarks from being removed, and vandalism attacks on the page. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Responding to Jzyehoshua's point, you are referring to a different meaning of the word "criticism". What you initially proposed is that we include negative facts about Obama for the sake of including negative facts, which is not criticism at all. It would fit the Wikipedia concept of a coatrack. Others refer to criticism as negative opinions about the facts of a thing, the oppositve of praise. That is the more serious proposal, covering people's negative opinions about Obama, and that is precisely what is discouraged on Wikipedia and has been rejected time after time. That is normally based in fact, although there is a different sense (one wholly unsuitable here) for baseless negative assertions - but even those are assertions of opinion. A factual claim, right or wrong, is not criticism. And what you're referring to is criticism in the sense of critique, something we don't really do for articles about people, but we do in say films, where many have a "critical reception" section. And yes, I am disqualifying many of the accounts from which this was brought this up in the past - they are now banned as fake accounts, and the long-term editors here have been very wary of new accounts making similar proposals. Anyway, it's very unlikely that the editors would agree now to adding a criticism section, and I'm not sure how productive a protracted discussion would be here. It's heading in the wrong direction as it is. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC) I never said that we should include negative facts for the sake of including them. Where are you getting this from? What I actually said was that if criticisms are notable and reliably sourced, then they should be included, and that consensus without a valid objection, such as on the basis of sourcing or notability, should not be enough to prevent the subject's mention. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC) @TheiGuard, after an edit conflict - That's a load of old cobblers, quite frankly. Obama has been among the least controversial of presidents by any legitimate measure. His policies and actions have been entirely predictable and mainstream. Just because a tiny band of ill-educated racists and a few political opponents regard Obama as controversial, this does not make it so. While there are indeed legitimate criticisms one can make against Obama, they are minor in scope and have attracted little notoriety. Certainly there is nothing substantive enough to warrant a criticism section. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC) I would appreciate if you would reframe from calling me a racist. I will no longer be engaging in this conversation. You are guarding this article as if it is yours. Wikipedia is about sharing information, and I plan to share plenty of knowledge on this article. TheiGuard (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC) I did not call you a racist. I was referring to that group of FOX News viewers calling themselves "Teabaggers" and the like. Besides, Wikipedia is not about "sharing information". It's not a social network. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC) I have attended several Tea parties, so that makes me a racist? There is no need for hatred. TheiGuard (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC) It may not make you racist, but it does make you uninformed on how reality works. Half-jokes aside, these are non-controversies. #1 was opposing on states rights grounds, I believe (we wouldn't raise this on, say, Ron Paul), #2 is a "shout loud enough and someone will hear you" 'controversy', and #3 and #4... seriously, Obama is a politician. If you're going to criticise him on this why not criticise every politician for every backroom deal they ever did? Sceptre (talk) 00:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Any politician with backroom deals that prominent (and I gave very reliable and prominent sources) would be expected to have the deals mentioned prominently on their Wikipedia page, and if not, they should be. No conservative politician on Wikipedia would be excluded from such standard, and you know it. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 04:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC) As for #1, if you mean Obama was opposing the bills on state's rights, then you're wrong, and I'm not sure where you are getting your sources. According to the IL Senate transcripts, which links I just included, Obama's reasons for opposing the bills can be seen as follows, from his words posted verbatim: "Senator O'Malley, the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was - is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the -- the fetus or child, as - as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living. Is that correct?" "Well, it turned out - that during the testimony a number of members who are typically in favor of a woman's right to choose an abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that your - you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the testimony. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest, not that I think it'll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny." "Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a - a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it - it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as - as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality. Now, as I said before, this probably won't make any difference. I recall the last time we had a debate about abortion, we passed a bill out of here. I suggested to Members of the Judiciary Committee that it was unconstitutional and it would be struck down by the Seventh Circuit. It was. I recognize this is a passionate issue, and so I - I won't, as I said, belabor the point. I think it's important to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we might have compromised and - and arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how a - a previable fetus or child was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. We're going much further than that in this bill. As a consequence, I think that we will probably end up in court once again, as we often do, on this issue. And as a consequence, I'll be voting Present." -Barack Obama. Born Alive Infants Protection Act. 92nd General Assembly Regular Session Senate Transcript. State of Illinois. pp. 84-90.[38][39] As such, the primary arguments made by Obama in fighting what he himself acknowledged were bills whose intent was to stop "a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the -- the fetus or child, as - as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb... not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living" were as follows: Not a full term. As Obama stated, "whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a - a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term." -Barack Obama. Born Alive Infants Protection Act. 92nd General Assembly Regular Session Senate Transcript. State of Illinois. pp. 84-90.[40] Logically then, he would consider children born prematurely, and who had not been born a "nine-month old... delivered to term" nothing more than a "previable fetus". Such logic cold-bloodedly places a new requirement beyond delivery outside the womb and capability of surviving as such, that you must have undergone a full 9-month term. I am sure that most can agree this is reprehensible. Don't burden doctors. As Obama stated, "As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child - however way you want to describe it - is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that it's nonviable but there's, let's say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just out limp and dead, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved... Because if these children are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they're looked after." -Barack Obama. Induced Birth Infants Liability Act. 92nd General Assembly Regular Session Senate Transcript. State of Illinois. pp. 29-35.[41]}} Ironically, Obama is asking Americans to place their trust in the abortion doctors making hundreds of thousands of dollars each year in potentially harming other human beings, when it is not in their best interests to even reveal that children are surviving their abortions, let alone care for those children, as it could endanger their industry and cause unnecessary expense. The bill's purpose was reasonable, to ensure at least 2 physicians were accountable for verifying live-born children were not in fact surviving the abortions, to prevent the same "infanticide" that led Congress to declare partial birth abortion illegal. This double-physician standard leads to further physician accountability and better assurance that children who survive abortions are not left to die unattended. Bill Unconstitutional. Obama declared that protecting children outside the womb who've survived abortions, or as he called them, "previable fetus[es]" would be unconstitutional simply because it would be an anti-abortion statute. According to his own rather muddled statements, "That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it - it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional." -Barack Obama. Born Alive Infants Protection Act. 92nd General Assembly Regular Session Senate Transcript. State of Illinois. pp. 84-90.[42] In other words, we shouldn't be concerned about whether or not it's killing a child, but whether it's placing restrictions on abortion. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 06:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Proposing close At this point the question has been posed and rejected, with no reasonable chance of gaining consensus (see FAQ #5) and I don't see anything productive coming out of this, particularly given the accusations here. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC) If it weren't for his most recent edit here, I would have held back from responding here for a day or two to see if Jzyehoshua was going to take my advice and fish out one issue from the several above to focus on calmly and patiently discussing a responsible edit for, but his going back over earlier edits to change them to red boldface text as is his first edit after my admonition suggests it's still more for him about attracting attention on and strewing and smearing this stuff throughout the talk and archive pages than it is about responsible and rationally presented editorial suggestions for the article. The argument that it's elsewhere at Wikipedia so it belongs here, too, seems particularly obtuse. Some poor kids in Greece can't even get their suggestions on satellite articles. (Clumsy attempt at paraphrasing the depression-era humor of my grandparents.) A third of the articles Jzyeoshoua notes here are already linked from this bio, half likely linked from those, and a few are really stretches. I second Wikidemon's proposal, before anybody teas wolf again. The whole point of the FAQs is to preclude this sort of post from turning into a rehashing of the same tired arguments for the 70th time. Abrazame (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC) I changed the format due to Sceptre and another user here suggesting that the issues were not controversial. While in the process, I realized I could make the posts more concise, and thus merged them as per the topic on the noticeboards. I also decided it was too tough to distinguish between parts of the post, the headings/bullets, and the subheadings. But just bold didn't seem enough, so I used color as well. I don't mind removing the formatting, it was just a spur of the moment idea done for readability. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 06:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Keep spinning those wheels. Vote to close and pretend this never happened. BrendanFrye (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC) It's painfully obvious that Jzyehoshua has learned absolutely nothing from his extended topic ban, and is continuing to violate the BLP guidelines, accusing a living person of murdering children. Not only do I vote to close, I vote for the offending edits from Jzyehoshua to be deleted. If not self-reverted, to be taken to the appropriate outlet for a permanent topic ban to be enforced. Which would include all living persons and anything to do with abortion. Dave Dial (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

president link

Hi, I was hoping to click "President of the United States" and be redirected to the page "President of the United States", but to no avail could I do this. It seems i can't edit the page and fix this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.22.155 (talk) 04:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you can click the link to that phrase in the infobox immediately below the primary photo. It is probably not linked in the article because Wiki policy dissuades from linking adjoining words and phrases because it can become difficult for readers/surfers to determine where the links split.

Apparently some links have been removed earlier today with those policies cited; I approve of the reinstated link to African American. I am also going to re-link Christianity. Those two phrases are apparently misunderstood by a good many of the most vehement visitors to this page. I'm agnostic on linking POTUS in the lead, given its link in the adjacent infobox; if someone else wants to weigh in on that and link it, I don't imagine I would be opposed. Abrazame (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No criticism?

The George W. Bush article contains the word "criticism" ten times, twice in the lead. This article only uses the word once, in the trifling matter of the Nobel Peace Prize. Obviously, Obama has received criticism for a number of his policies and activities in the last year, especially his push for health care legislation, his continuation of Bush's foreign policy, evinced by his decision to send additional troops into the field, and his unwillingness to close Gitmo, another Bush policy he's left unchanged. Those are major issues, and criticism of his positions on those issues is notable. 206.180.38.20 (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see questions 6-9 in the FAQ list at the top of this page. We cover major events in a logical / chronological order rather than highlighting criticism or praise sections. We generally just say what happened and not whether people are happy or unhappy about it, although critics and detractors are sometimes mentioned, particularly in some of the child articles about the "presidency of..." or the specific issues in question. Hope that helps. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If you enter "criticism" in the archive search box at the top of this page, you can view the numerous discussionsthat have taken place on the subject.--JayJasper (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not acceptable. Obviously there's no way to fit everything into this article, but it is notable and noteworthy to at least MENTION that he's received criticism for certain things. There's not even a link to a criticism page. The health care page doesn't include any criticism of his positions either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.180.38.20 (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you justify the large amount of criticism mentioned in the GWB article? Why the difference. I don't think they should be held to different standards. 206.180.38.20 (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't want a criticm section anyway, and A7 doesn't apply, because there has been massive coverage of criticism of his health care position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.180.38.20 (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

So what specifically do you want to add or change?Falcon8765 (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, the Presidency of Barack Obama article uses the word criticism four times, and the Presidency of George W. Bush article doesn't use the word at all. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 21:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Just off a random google search, something like: Gitmo or Obamacare —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.180.38.20 (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There are two ways to fix the inequality, have no criticisms in any article or have them in both articles. Some articles have criticisms without calling it such. If there are criticisms, they should be only the main ones. Otherwise, every politician could have an entire book chapter about how bad they are. The McChicken costs $1 (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What about criticism of the oil spill?[43] Truthsort (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Opinion columns are not reliable sources. We assert facts here, even fact about opinions, but we do not assert an opinion as fact, which is what an OpEd is. Tarc (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There's your sources.[44][45][46][47]

Nevertheless, this may be due to recentism and not worthy of a prominent mention on the article. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Censorship is wrong

My comments were shoved into a box as well as many others. The excuse is that there is no change to the article. Most discussions do not lead to change but that doesn't mean discussion should be silenced. What's the big deal? The ACLU is for discussion. The John Birch Society is against discussion. Right wingers should not have the final say here. The McChicken costs $1 (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I've reclosed these discussions. They have run their course. Please don't throw arround accusations like "censorship" casually - that's a big word, and managing talk pages is not censorship. If you have a specific change to propose to the article, talk page, or the way we're doing things, please articulate it directly and we can discuss, but be aware that issues like Obama's religion and race have been discussed over a long period of time by many editors, and what we have in the article now reflects a long-term stable consensus, supported by the reliable sources on which Wikipedia is built rather than individual opinions, and that is unlikely to change. We get many visitors to this page, and we don't always entertain a full discussion on a subject that is already decided everytime someone wants to talk about it. Hope you can understand the dynamics of collaborative editing here. Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I made comments different from anyone else. If we close discussion, then we could ban Congress or have Congress meet every 2 years, like in some states. The fact is that whenever there is new discussion, it should be heard.

That is like gun control. People could say that everyone has hashed and rehashed but there is always something new. In the 1980's, there was not Columbine and now there is. So that is one (tragic) example of new ideas for an old subject. Best, The McChicken costs $1 (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:CONS, "While past "extensive discussions" can guide editors on what influenced a past consensus, editors need to re-examine each proposal on its own merits, and determine afresh whether consensus either has or has not changed. Wikipedia remains flexible because new people may bring fresh ideas, growing may evolve new needs, people may change their minds over time when new things come up, and we may find a better way to do things. A representative group might make a decision on behalf of the community as a whole. More often, people document changes to existing procedures at some arbitrary time after the fact. But in all these cases, nothing is permanently fixed. The world changes, and the wiki must change with it. It is reasonable and indeed often desirable to make further changes to things at a later date, even if the last change was years ago."

As such, I agree with you.--Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Condemnation of Uganda

Obama condemned Uganda for their support of the death penalty.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8693560.stm In Uganda, plans to introduce draconian new laws against homosexuality look likely to go ahead despite mass protests, a major petition, and condemnation from the international community.

The bill, which proposes the death penalty for so-called 'serial offenders', has already been described as 'odious' by President Obama.

We could add under foreign relations that "In 2010, Obama described as 'odious' planned Ugandan laws sentence homosexuals to the death penalty". The McChicken costs $1 (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me like it belongs in Presidency of Barack Obama, not a biographical article. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's less appropriate for Presidency than it is for something more like Barack Obama social policy, in the "Death penalty" or "LGBT" sections, but even there I'd rather see a ref that gives Obama's reaction to it more than a half a sentence aside. People should be able to click a source and read about why it's relevant to Obama or his presidency, or what the context of his comments were. The text and video at the ref you cited doesn't even give the actual sentence Obama said, merely name-drops that he used the word "odious" in reference to it, and it's not covered there as a foreign relations issue. Don't get me wrong, I think most people find "odious" the use of the death penalty or life in prison for something that isn't even a crime in most places, and I think it's a subject worth the world's attention. However, as presented at your ref, it seems more a story about Uganda, the sway of religious extremity in society, the mixture of church and state, LGBT rights, and the death penalty (and likely appropriate in one or more articles covering any of those topics), than it is a notable position of Obama's presidency. I'd be interested to know if you find a source for his comments, and if there were any diplomatic efforts that the public is aware of; sometimes administrations use what is called "soft power", and communicate through back channels, insofar as the law has apparently not actually been passed or enacted yet and so may not actually be an issue. Feel free to post at my talk if you're interested in my input once you find a better ref or two, as I don't currently watch the social policy page. Best, Abrazame (talk) 09:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Navbox/template problems

Obama cabinet navbox

I wanted to add the Obama cabinet navbox template to this article (since I wanted to compare the Clinton and Obama cabinets to see if any were the same), but it appears to be mal-formed, as adding it showed it screwing up the rest of the bottom part of the page. Can anyone figure it out and add it? --Habap (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Broken templates

The Time person of the year, and featured article templates are broken. I've tried fixing them but honestly have no idea how to. Sir Richardson (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that too and tried to figure out how to fix it. Unfortunately, I found myself in the same situation as you and was unable to understand how to fix the errors. Hopefully someone who better understands the templates will get to it. It's at the bottom of the page and does not interfere much with any of the information, but it is irritating once you know it's there and should be fixed. Dave Dial (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Didn't this come up awhile back, where someone pointed out that there's some sort of wiki-limit on # of navboxes, and going over limit won't display them properly? Thought for sure we had discussed this here but I cannot at the moment locate anything in the archives. Tarc (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I just did a page preview from editing the article, and there's a shiny, red "Warning: Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included" message. Tarc (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)