![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 |
Since the issue of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories has been discussed here before, I thought it would be worth mentioning here that there is currently an RfC ongoing concerning whether the article should be renamed to remove "conspiracy theories" from the title. Please see Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#RfC: Is the phrase "conspiracy theories" accurate for the article title?. -- ChrisO ( talk) 20:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Obviously Burris cannot be listed as the successor. However, there could be a footnote on the TBD with a comment pointing to Burris as the "tentative" (some such) appointee, subject to (doubtful) certification by the Illinois Secretary of State as well as the U.S. Senate. I think this is some sort of cynical game Blagojevich is playing, with Roland stuck in the middle. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I think he has to be one of the most sung about US Presidents in the Caribbean region. The Calypsonian named "De Fosto" from Trinidad and Tobago made a song about Obama for 2009.
Then Teddy Ranks.
And now 3rd Bass.
140.247.23.83 ( talk) 07:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Saying he "is an American politican" and "the President-elect" in the same sentence is redundant. If he's the President-elect, then of course he's a politician. Does George Washington's article say "George Washington was an American politican and the first President"? "American politician" should be removed from the lead in. -- Tim010987 ( talk)
When you go to the 'Trinity United Church of Christ' page it says that "On May 31, 2008, Obama resigned his membership in the church.[52]" and yet on the Barack Obama page it says "He was baptized at the Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988 and was an active member there for two decades.[188][189]" but no mention of him resigning over the Jeremiah Wright controversy. Does this need a fix or is it OK as is? RM 220.244.47.52 ( talk) 22:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that Obama was related to Brad Pitt on yahoo. Shouldn't that be included in his bio? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebutton ( talk • contribs) 23:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
It is 100% True
The introduction and first section are inconsistent. The introduction indicates Obama is the first "African-American" elected president, yet the first sentence of the first section indicates his mother is white. It does not matter that the FAQ indicates this is what Obama considers himself, it is factually incorrect. If half of ones ancestry can arbitrarily take precedence over the other half, Obama could just as accurately be called a "white" president, and this would be accurate as well. The assignment of "African-American" is thus arbitrary and incorrect. Erstats ( talk) 05:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
First: Barack Obama is NOT half "African-American". He is half African. Nevertheless, Barack Obama is African American.
Second: If Obama isn’t black then neither are his children. To go by percentages, for the sake of argument, Obama’s children are “25% white”. How come then people don’t argue that is children “aren’t black”. From eyeballing the local African American population, I would say a plurality look like Obama’s children, yet I can say with almost absolute certainty that the people living here view them as black. In accordance with the argument that Obama isn’t black because he is “50 percent white” wouldn’t the same argument hold for a sizable number of African Americans who have white ancestry whether the white ancestry is 50% or 10%? In other words, why is someone 50% white and 50% black argued to be “not black”, yet someone 75% black and 25% white is seen “as black”? And who is to enforce these blood quantums? I personally don’t think African Americans go around on witch hunts to figure out who is “100% black” and who is not. I have personally never met a black person who thinks in strict percentages. If anything, I’ve met black people who think in terms of nationality: “I am 100% Jamaican; I am 100% Somali, etc”. NEVER have I met a black person say: “You are only 98% black? Then I don’t accept you because I only accept 100% blacks”. The phrase “100% black” is ludicrous. Blood quantums are ludicrous. LzqTAnFKVf7 ( talk) 10:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
(Unindent) I think the real root of the problem is a lack of understanding of the basics of how such ethnic terms have come about, and I wonder if the FAQ might be better actually addressing the situation directly beyond "most sources call him that". Ethnicity is not a strict biological area but a cultural construct (sometimes entrenched by laws past or present, sometimes not) based on perceptions and understandings. An ethnic grouping becomes "recognised" as such by a combination of individuals self-identifying as such a grouping, wider society identifying them as such and, sometimes, laws entrenching division. There is usually a common history as well, which can go beyond mere ancestry and into the shared experience and history of a people.
You may have noticed that some of the objections to labelling Obama as "African American" (although rarely raised on this talk page) come not on the basis of his European ancestry but because his African ancestry doesn't include American slaves, with the argument being that "African American" only encompasses the descendents of slaves. However not all of African descent in America were enslaved. And during the era of segregation those with both African and European ancestry were deemed African - indeed the Supreme Court case that upheld the principle of "separate but equal" as the basis for segregation was one that involved a man who was 1/8th black - Homer Plessy. See Plessy v. Ferguson. Historically Obama too would have been on the black side of the segregation laws. Discrimination against a people has often had the effect of binding them together as a grouping in society, with the result that they remain a self-identified group long after the legal apparatus of discrimination has been removed. There is still a huge amount of discrimination in the US today and it rarely stops to discriminate on the basis of precise ancestry.
Recognising "mixed race" as a distinct group in society is a very modern concept and one that not everyone has accepted, particularly in societies with a history of racial divides. Off the top of my head I can only think of pre-1994 South Africa (and the individual colonies pre-Union) as a country that had an explicit legal identity given to people of mixed race descent - Coloured (and even then the legal classification was often amiss - see the story of Dimitri Tsafendas). More generally people with multiple ethnic parentage tended to be classified as one group or another - for instance the "Irish American" who takes pride in their Irish heritage even though they have only one great, great, great grandparent who was Irish (and said Irish American might not be accepted as "Irish" by other Irish - see Plastic Paddy. People with both African and European ancestry, even parents, have long been recognised as leading African Americans - see Booker T. Washington, W. E. B. Du Bois, Frederick Douglass, Hiram Rhodes Revels or P. B. S. Pinchback for but a few.
Not sure how best to summarise this for the FAQ or the best place to link to though. Timrollpickering ( talk) 22:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the Obama should be called the first mixed race president, having a African father and an Caucasian mother. I do not think his mother should be described as American since Americans are not really defined by race but rather nationality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AuCourantStory ( talk • contribs) 22:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Or, why not just give the intended respect to the nationalities of both his parents, and refer to him as Kenyan-American? ( 216.54.1.35 ( talk) 23:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC))
Ethnic/Racial Terminology and Appropriate Usage
Regardless of whether one considers Barack Obama "African-American" or "Kenyan-American", as a US citizen he is "African American." Other incorrect, offensive, or inappropriate ethnic/racial notations in this article are the references to Barack Obama being "half white" and his mother being a "white" American. "White" would be appropriate in a slang or colloquial article, just as "Black" would be; however, in this article the appropriate terminology should be "half Caucasian" being born to a "Caucasian" American mother. ( JohnHarvard 1636 ( talk) 20:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)JohnHarvard_1636)
Why is Wikipedia important?
"At any given moment, right now, if you go to Wikipedia you're going to find the most comprehensive article on Barack Obama. You're not going to find it on the Washington Post or the New York Times, you're going to find it on Wikipedia. Why? Because all of these people care about information have gone there to edit it and re-edit it and add as much information as they can."
Jose Antonio Vargas, Reporter for the Washington Post
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)Smallbones ( talk) 19:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of as much information as we can: In the lead up to President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration later this month, Tipperary native Lucy Carrigan reflects back on working for the Obama campaign --➨♀♂ Candlewicke S T # :) 12:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
basically, the Obama article is great, yet is missing what is needed to keep neutrality in all of wiki. the article needs a criticism section. this is simply to stay neutral in all cases. is there a specific article about criticism of obama? if so, then the main article should link directly to it. i understand the majority of editors are liberal, imcluding myself, yet this section needs a specific neutrality. User:Zarzhu ( talk) 04:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
His former nickname is already in the "early life" section; no need to put it in the lede. An RS suggesting he's been regularly called by that name after college might change my mind. PhGustaf ( talk) 03:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Why was that previous picture of Barack Obama with his arms crossed replaced? I saw nothing wrong with it. The new picture is too alike and almost mirrors his portrait as Senator of Illinois. - 64.91.158.52 ( talk) 00:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of the very reliable fact that Barak Obama's citizenship is in question, that there have been at least a dozen court cases filed challenging it and that the supreme court is still examining the legitimacy of the claims? This is a veri important aspect of Barak Obama's life and and a crucial concern of all Americans. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Truthbeknown67 (
talk •
contribs) 19:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
This article has a great deal of top-level sections (14) and very few subsections (2). This makes the table of contents of limited use and gives an unrealistic weight to less important topics (i.e. inauguration). I suggest we merge some of the sections that cover similar topics. The George W. Bush article for example makes do with nine top-level sections, and uses appropriate subsections. Thoughts? Skomorokh 18:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Several anchors on the CBC made some REALLY tasteless racial jokes 1 2 3 4 5 on Obama and it's all the rage in Canada on the news. -- Crackthewhip775 ( talk) 22:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
the citizenship article has no right to be in the main article but we should mention it in the see also heading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories
it's not biased and fair and balanced.who agrees? manchurian candidate 05:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate ( talk • contribs)
Archiving section. This has been discussed before and material without a shred of verifiability has no place in a biography of a living person. SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 19:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
According to Mr. Obama's own biography he traveled on an Indonesian passport to Pakistan. I suggest adding 'Indonesian' as an additional Nationality, on another note Barry Soetorno appears to be his (real) Indonesian name. Source: http://www.obamacrimes.com/ (i'm not affiliated, just interested in this piece of info) Editors can delete this if they believe its not relevant; I thought it could be. I agree with the posting above this one, yet is it an established fact that Mr. Obama has an Indonesian passport ? If so, this needs to be mentioned at the front page, after proper verification, even with his Indonesian name ?
can't i edit this article? Expl0sIILPEXPLoSiil ( talk) 16:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I placed my previous post in the wrong location. The fact that Obama's citizenship is in question and cases challenging it are under review by The Supreme Court of the United States is not open for debate and is an essential part of any Barak Obama biography. Here is a man who is to be the next president of our great country who may very well have been born in Kenya, as is clearly stated by his own grandmother. If the same questions were facing a republican candidate wiki would surely make at least a minor note of it. Please be fair as you continually ask those who contribute to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthbeknown67 ( talk • contribs) 19:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Obama is clearly a non-smoker. Anybody saying he is still a smoker is calling him a liar. All we have to go on is his word here and he has said that he has been able to quit successfully with the help of nicorrette gum. That means he quit. Smokers and non-smokers are going to disagree about the definition of quitting I guess, based upon a review of the previous arguments, however some reference needs to be made to this. If you asked Obama he would tell you he has quit. We do not have the right to say with certainty that he is lying by publishing the opposite, this is the biography of a living person after all DegenFarang ( talk) 03:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC) ===former smoker=== LaidOff ( talk) 03:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The article mentions his relationship with Tony Blair, saying he is the current British Prime Minister. Someone please fix this to reflect that Tony Blair is now the FORMER Prime Minister. 75.69.152.83 ( talk) 04:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why is Barak Obama listed as a christin? He is openly muslim? why can't I edit this portion of the article to correct the very incorrect information? why does wiki allow this false information to be posted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.153.76 ( talk) 13:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Was Obama Phi Beta Kappa or did he receive any other education honors at graduation? I think it's only mentioned in Barack Obama: Early life and career section that he was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review.
FYI, Obama is not a Muslim but rather a Christian and always has been. It is sometimes erroneously stated that Barack is a Muslim because his father was one, but this is incorrect and unfounded. uriel8 (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
This section was closed in bad faith. Numerous questions were posed in this section which received ad hominem or personal attacks and no response. There is nothing more I can do. If another editor wants to raise the issue again, please see the discussion in the archive. I will no longer participate in such an adversarial environment in editing this article. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 20:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
This is not a general talkforum - once you are able to articulate *what* you want including, start a new section and tell us what that it is. Continued vagueness in an attempt to trick editors into giving you carte blanche is going nowhere and is now verging on the disruptive. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 12:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
That sure didn't seem very productive. I thought it was going somewhere a couple of times, but ultimately... nothing. It seems that we agree that criticisms should be included if it is verifiable and relevant. The election received so much coverage worldwide, that I believe we are all aware of the various "criticisms" that have been raised during campaigning, therefore listing them individually is not helpful. Nonetheless addressing this will be for the benefit of those in the future who wish to research the campaign, or who wish to understand popular perception of the president, or for those who just seek the convenience of having the most prominent criticisms listed in one place, with the useful links in the citations. Because of the similarity in the nature of these criticisms or accusations which have appeared in popular media, and because of the uses just mentioned, I still believe that the most plausible presentation of the content would be in a separate section. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 09:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Total ad hominem. I actually have a strong positive bias toward Obama, but I'm not going to POV-push at all. I'm just a wiki- hobbiest who wants to improve the article in an objective way. I can't give any examples without first researching and identifying some, which requires time up-front. I'm not going to waste my time if I'm going to be confronted by an editing war with editors who are unable to analyze the content logically. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 05:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
|
"and became the first African American to be elected President of the United States.[122][123][124][125]"
Why do we need four citations for this one sentence alone? ScienceApe ( talk) 04:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Closing this discussion that has been ground beyond dust form. Please see the answer to question 2 on this article's FAQ. -- Bobblehead (rants) 11:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Why is Mr. Obama referred to as "the first African American to be elected President of the United States"? Isn't he half white? Trent370 ( talk) 07:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Trent, the average black person has a lot of european and native american blood in him/her. The average white person has a lot of african and native american blood in him/her too. Therefore, designations like "black" and "white" go mostly on physical appearance. Not genetics. Obama looks black, so we call him black. Vin Diesel looks white, so people mostly call him white, even though he's half black. Mariah Carey is 25% African, but she looks white so we call her white. ScienceApe ( talk) 19:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, Scjessey, enough with the Wiki-lawyering and red-herrings. I am not suggesting that the article should say something contrary to reliable sources. The preponderance of reliable sources (as if citing material in Wiki is a popularity contest of reliable sources) state that Obama is descended of an African father and an American mother. He is by definition, "an African-American" and "of African-American descent", according to more than (pick any number less than eleventy-billion), say 30 reliable sources. Why not try a little bit of simple compromise, that doesn't cost anything? And, the editor above who claims that my "specific suggestion...really does not make sense. Obama does not descend from African-Americans - he is one." is logical nonsensicality. If he is African-American (and he is) the only way he could so be, is if he were descended from African-Americans, or from Africans and from Americans. If A=B and B=C, then C must=A. I frankly don't care how he is refered to herein. But, we are taking about the insertion of one word and rearranging two others. That some object so forcefully to this simple compromise is telling. Future members of congress, me thinks. Newguy34 ( talk) 20:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Since this has a) been rejected at every turn and b) we don't do that in *any* other article - why would we want to do it here? -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 00:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
President Barack Obama isn't half "African American". He is half African. Nevertheless, he is African American. LzqTAnFKVf7 ( talk) 00:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC) Obama Momma = White Kansan Her nationality is American. Obama Poppa, African from the African nation of Kenya. This would make Barack Obama, Half American, Half African. Hes African-American. If you want to go further, hes Kansas-Kenyan. 'For the love of god.' -- DemocraplypseNow ( talk) 03:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Trent, please see WP:CONSENSUS. It's how Wikipedia makes editorial decisions. You don't have consensus here (in fact consensus is clearly against you), and no one has ever had it for the change you are proposing to make. There are roughly 8 people who disagree with you. Please drop this and move on because you are not convincing anyone and you are repeating yourself over and over while ignoring countervailing arguments. This is not a productive use of anyone's time. Sometimes you lose arguments when editing Wikipedia - it happens to all of us - and it's important to be able to drop the debate when it's clear your position has not won out.-- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC) |
Closing this perennial discussion to halt the inevitable descent into off-topic Bigbluefish ( talk) 18:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Obama has decided to use his middle name during the swearing-in ceremony, in a conscious effort to "reboot America's image around the world." -- This appears to outweigh the (old, and still ongoing) conscious use by some media types of his middle name to slant his image (implying that he's Arab when he's in fact Christian -- on top of fomenting ethnic prejudice along the way). I know there have been a gazillion discussions about these issues here, but this is an entirely new development. Obama realises that "hiding" his middle name would send the wrong message (just speculating on this bit: he's also probably aware that if he omitted the middle name he'd just get criticised the same way by the same people who are criticising him now for using it). Moreover, he realises that prominently and officially using his middle name is a positive thing. So far, this article agrees with those on both sides of the "aisle" who think his name should better be "hidden", or at least is not his public name. But the article subject himself has decided that "the world is ready for that message" and sees it as a way to reach out. I have never understood those who don't understand that the main task when confronted by people who try to slant him by "pointedly" using his middle name is to just go ahead and use his middle name and be even prouder of what America achieved in electing him. Obama understands. So, could we please follow Obama's own insight and example and adjust the top of the infobox to prominently use his full name, the one under which he's going to be sworn into office? Or are we going to keep succumbing to those who wrongly imply that there is anything wrong with the name Hussein? 78.34.145.54 ( talk) 12:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
|
How can it be true when currently he is not the president? It will be only true from 20-th of jan. It should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.246.10 ( talk) 18:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The info box informs the reader he is the current President-elect of the United States, and is to be taking office on the 20th. 96.251.75.240 ( talk) 06:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
We should consider putting the page under full protection on, say, Tuesday and Wednesday. Not only are the vandals and well-meaning new or inept editors going to be very busy then, but the enthusiastic experienced editors are too, and there are going to be edit conflicts and quick reedits up the wazoo.
Best to get a quick talk-page consensus for any change first. It's not exactly a tragedy if the page isn't updated before His Own Band finishes "Hail to the Chief". PhGustaf ( talk) 05:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
HE IS CHRISTIAN
Yes we know. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 16:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, we better not talk about him the wrong way. We might offend the Second Coming sect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.41.46 ( talk) 18:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Which sect? The one who believes he's the antichrist or the other that believes he's the 12th Imam. Better to just have his church affiliation listed in the info box. Truth has never been important to Wikipedia before why care now? Or a "rickroll" esque link that sends the user the the South Park episode where Obama, McCain, Michelle and Sarah Palin steal the Hope diamond. lol.
I would guess that we are going to be plenty busy on the 20th - in the same way that Obama has a transition process - it might be as well for us to discuss and consider the changes that we need or might need to make on the 20th. So that the reader can see a smooth changeover here. As far as I can see the article is basically structural sound and most of the context can be updated by removing the "elect" bit from the lead sections. Are there any major changes we need to think about? -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 19:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe that the edit tomorrow replacing the president elect table with the President of the United states should be done a bot that will edit it at 12 noon and the page should be put on full protection. The Same should be done for Joe Biden at 11:56 est. because that is when they will take the oath. Hereford 22:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Note:I am going to put this on Template:Cent. Hereford 23:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
It's not a big deal. rootology ( C)( T) 00:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The Same should be done for Joe Biden at 11:56 est. because that is when they will take the oath. I don't care that much about what the articles will say for four minutes, but more widely for the presentation of info in other articles I thought the Veep term still switches at noon. There is precedent for even Presidents taking the oath early (Hayes in 1877 took it privately on Saturday March 3rd because the inauguration wasn't until the 5th and there were fears of an attempted Democrat coup) and the swearing in of the Veep-elect early seems to be just about getting this bit out of the way before the big ceremony, not a formal handing over of power in advance. Timrollpickering ( talk) 02:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
See this page for the actual schedule--Biden is sworn in at 11:46 and Obama at 11:56. The actual transition is at noon exactly per the 20th Amendment. I imagine a lot of folks will edit the page when they see the ceremony on TV but will be a few minutes too early. I concur that it doesn't matter much (assuming everything goes as planned). 207.241.239.70 ( talk) 06:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Should we take out the header 'president elect of the united states'? It's a bit dated. :-) Asbruckman ( talk) 21:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm somewhat surprised that there's essentially no discussion of the impact of Obama's election on the civil rights movement. The link to the American civil rights movement is almost buried, and the impact statement limited to a quote. For what is clearly a watershed moment in African-American attitudes, this seems to be extremely little. Simesa ( talk) 01:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The article states that the Obama's net worth is $1.3m. Then it proceeds to mention his $4.2m income and $1.6m house. Unless the Obamas have a hefty mortgage and is spending a terrific some of money he is worth considerably more than $4.3m. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadentsoul ( talk • contribs)
If no one minds, I would like to be the one who changes "President elect" to "current President of the United States of America" at 12:00 ET tomorrow. Is this okay? 71.132.226.69 ( talk) 07:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I've started an article International congratulations offered to Barack Obama upon his inauguration to address edits made by (someone in) Thailand. This appears to be a somewhat sensitive issue, and I'd appreciate advice here. Simesa ( talk) 14:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Sweet mother of pearl, people... Is it really necessary to say he was inaugurated at 12:01/12:06/12:05 Eastern? Worse yet.. Do you have to edit war over it? Seriously, it isn't that important to have the exact time. Just round to noon or say he was inaugurated midday on January 20, 2009... -- Bobblehead (rants) 18:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Thats also wikipedia for you. 88.110.6.156 ( talk) 18:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
It can bw shown, it seems that President Obama is the SIXTH, not the first President with African ancestry (neglecting the trivial assertion (pace Darwin) that we are all Africans anyway). The others did not call themselves Afro-American as President Obama does, for they essentially denied their African roots (or may have been entirely ignorant of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.211.166 ( talk • contribs)
Obama was President at 12:00:00pm EST, irregardless of whether he said the oath. By law Bush, Cheney, and their entire cabinet and succession structure was out of a job at 12:00:00pm EST, and there is never "not" a President in the line of succession. Given that the Electoral College already ratified over a week ago, that's it--Obama and Cheney Biden were in office at 12:00:00pm EST sharp. His designation then became POTUS.
rootology (
C)(
T) 19:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
@rootology - "irregardless" - I hope to God you're not making edits to these pages. 75.83.26.243 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC).
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 |
Since the issue of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories has been discussed here before, I thought it would be worth mentioning here that there is currently an RfC ongoing concerning whether the article should be renamed to remove "conspiracy theories" from the title. Please see Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#RfC: Is the phrase "conspiracy theories" accurate for the article title?. -- ChrisO ( talk) 20:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Obviously Burris cannot be listed as the successor. However, there could be a footnote on the TBD with a comment pointing to Burris as the "tentative" (some such) appointee, subject to (doubtful) certification by the Illinois Secretary of State as well as the U.S. Senate. I think this is some sort of cynical game Blagojevich is playing, with Roland stuck in the middle. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I think he has to be one of the most sung about US Presidents in the Caribbean region. The Calypsonian named "De Fosto" from Trinidad and Tobago made a song about Obama for 2009.
Then Teddy Ranks.
And now 3rd Bass.
140.247.23.83 ( talk) 07:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Saying he "is an American politican" and "the President-elect" in the same sentence is redundant. If he's the President-elect, then of course he's a politician. Does George Washington's article say "George Washington was an American politican and the first President"? "American politician" should be removed from the lead in. -- Tim010987 ( talk)
When you go to the 'Trinity United Church of Christ' page it says that "On May 31, 2008, Obama resigned his membership in the church.[52]" and yet on the Barack Obama page it says "He was baptized at the Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988 and was an active member there for two decades.[188][189]" but no mention of him resigning over the Jeremiah Wright controversy. Does this need a fix or is it OK as is? RM 220.244.47.52 ( talk) 22:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that Obama was related to Brad Pitt on yahoo. Shouldn't that be included in his bio? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebutton ( talk • contribs) 23:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
It is 100% True
The introduction and first section are inconsistent. The introduction indicates Obama is the first "African-American" elected president, yet the first sentence of the first section indicates his mother is white. It does not matter that the FAQ indicates this is what Obama considers himself, it is factually incorrect. If half of ones ancestry can arbitrarily take precedence over the other half, Obama could just as accurately be called a "white" president, and this would be accurate as well. The assignment of "African-American" is thus arbitrary and incorrect. Erstats ( talk) 05:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
First: Barack Obama is NOT half "African-American". He is half African. Nevertheless, Barack Obama is African American.
Second: If Obama isn’t black then neither are his children. To go by percentages, for the sake of argument, Obama’s children are “25% white”. How come then people don’t argue that is children “aren’t black”. From eyeballing the local African American population, I would say a plurality look like Obama’s children, yet I can say with almost absolute certainty that the people living here view them as black. In accordance with the argument that Obama isn’t black because he is “50 percent white” wouldn’t the same argument hold for a sizable number of African Americans who have white ancestry whether the white ancestry is 50% or 10%? In other words, why is someone 50% white and 50% black argued to be “not black”, yet someone 75% black and 25% white is seen “as black”? And who is to enforce these blood quantums? I personally don’t think African Americans go around on witch hunts to figure out who is “100% black” and who is not. I have personally never met a black person who thinks in strict percentages. If anything, I’ve met black people who think in terms of nationality: “I am 100% Jamaican; I am 100% Somali, etc”. NEVER have I met a black person say: “You are only 98% black? Then I don’t accept you because I only accept 100% blacks”. The phrase “100% black” is ludicrous. Blood quantums are ludicrous. LzqTAnFKVf7 ( talk) 10:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
(Unindent) I think the real root of the problem is a lack of understanding of the basics of how such ethnic terms have come about, and I wonder if the FAQ might be better actually addressing the situation directly beyond "most sources call him that". Ethnicity is not a strict biological area but a cultural construct (sometimes entrenched by laws past or present, sometimes not) based on perceptions and understandings. An ethnic grouping becomes "recognised" as such by a combination of individuals self-identifying as such a grouping, wider society identifying them as such and, sometimes, laws entrenching division. There is usually a common history as well, which can go beyond mere ancestry and into the shared experience and history of a people.
You may have noticed that some of the objections to labelling Obama as "African American" (although rarely raised on this talk page) come not on the basis of his European ancestry but because his African ancestry doesn't include American slaves, with the argument being that "African American" only encompasses the descendents of slaves. However not all of African descent in America were enslaved. And during the era of segregation those with both African and European ancestry were deemed African - indeed the Supreme Court case that upheld the principle of "separate but equal" as the basis for segregation was one that involved a man who was 1/8th black - Homer Plessy. See Plessy v. Ferguson. Historically Obama too would have been on the black side of the segregation laws. Discrimination against a people has often had the effect of binding them together as a grouping in society, with the result that they remain a self-identified group long after the legal apparatus of discrimination has been removed. There is still a huge amount of discrimination in the US today and it rarely stops to discriminate on the basis of precise ancestry.
Recognising "mixed race" as a distinct group in society is a very modern concept and one that not everyone has accepted, particularly in societies with a history of racial divides. Off the top of my head I can only think of pre-1994 South Africa (and the individual colonies pre-Union) as a country that had an explicit legal identity given to people of mixed race descent - Coloured (and even then the legal classification was often amiss - see the story of Dimitri Tsafendas). More generally people with multiple ethnic parentage tended to be classified as one group or another - for instance the "Irish American" who takes pride in their Irish heritage even though they have only one great, great, great grandparent who was Irish (and said Irish American might not be accepted as "Irish" by other Irish - see Plastic Paddy. People with both African and European ancestry, even parents, have long been recognised as leading African Americans - see Booker T. Washington, W. E. B. Du Bois, Frederick Douglass, Hiram Rhodes Revels or P. B. S. Pinchback for but a few.
Not sure how best to summarise this for the FAQ or the best place to link to though. Timrollpickering ( talk) 22:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the Obama should be called the first mixed race president, having a African father and an Caucasian mother. I do not think his mother should be described as American since Americans are not really defined by race but rather nationality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AuCourantStory ( talk • contribs) 22:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Or, why not just give the intended respect to the nationalities of both his parents, and refer to him as Kenyan-American? ( 216.54.1.35 ( talk) 23:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC))
Ethnic/Racial Terminology and Appropriate Usage
Regardless of whether one considers Barack Obama "African-American" or "Kenyan-American", as a US citizen he is "African American." Other incorrect, offensive, or inappropriate ethnic/racial notations in this article are the references to Barack Obama being "half white" and his mother being a "white" American. "White" would be appropriate in a slang or colloquial article, just as "Black" would be; however, in this article the appropriate terminology should be "half Caucasian" being born to a "Caucasian" American mother. ( JohnHarvard 1636 ( talk) 20:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)JohnHarvard_1636)
Why is Wikipedia important?
"At any given moment, right now, if you go to Wikipedia you're going to find the most comprehensive article on Barack Obama. You're not going to find it on the Washington Post or the New York Times, you're going to find it on Wikipedia. Why? Because all of these people care about information have gone there to edit it and re-edit it and add as much information as they can."
Jose Antonio Vargas, Reporter for the Washington Post
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)Smallbones ( talk) 19:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of as much information as we can: In the lead up to President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration later this month, Tipperary native Lucy Carrigan reflects back on working for the Obama campaign --➨♀♂ Candlewicke S T # :) 12:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
basically, the Obama article is great, yet is missing what is needed to keep neutrality in all of wiki. the article needs a criticism section. this is simply to stay neutral in all cases. is there a specific article about criticism of obama? if so, then the main article should link directly to it. i understand the majority of editors are liberal, imcluding myself, yet this section needs a specific neutrality. User:Zarzhu ( talk) 04:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
His former nickname is already in the "early life" section; no need to put it in the lede. An RS suggesting he's been regularly called by that name after college might change my mind. PhGustaf ( talk) 03:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Why was that previous picture of Barack Obama with his arms crossed replaced? I saw nothing wrong with it. The new picture is too alike and almost mirrors his portrait as Senator of Illinois. - 64.91.158.52 ( talk) 00:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of the very reliable fact that Barak Obama's citizenship is in question, that there have been at least a dozen court cases filed challenging it and that the supreme court is still examining the legitimacy of the claims? This is a veri important aspect of Barak Obama's life and and a crucial concern of all Americans. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Truthbeknown67 (
talk •
contribs) 19:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
This article has a great deal of top-level sections (14) and very few subsections (2). This makes the table of contents of limited use and gives an unrealistic weight to less important topics (i.e. inauguration). I suggest we merge some of the sections that cover similar topics. The George W. Bush article for example makes do with nine top-level sections, and uses appropriate subsections. Thoughts? Skomorokh 18:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Several anchors on the CBC made some REALLY tasteless racial jokes 1 2 3 4 5 on Obama and it's all the rage in Canada on the news. -- Crackthewhip775 ( talk) 22:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
the citizenship article has no right to be in the main article but we should mention it in the see also heading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories
it's not biased and fair and balanced.who agrees? manchurian candidate 05:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate ( talk • contribs)
Archiving section. This has been discussed before and material without a shred of verifiability has no place in a biography of a living person. SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 19:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
According to Mr. Obama's own biography he traveled on an Indonesian passport to Pakistan. I suggest adding 'Indonesian' as an additional Nationality, on another note Barry Soetorno appears to be his (real) Indonesian name. Source: http://www.obamacrimes.com/ (i'm not affiliated, just interested in this piece of info) Editors can delete this if they believe its not relevant; I thought it could be. I agree with the posting above this one, yet is it an established fact that Mr. Obama has an Indonesian passport ? If so, this needs to be mentioned at the front page, after proper verification, even with his Indonesian name ?
can't i edit this article? Expl0sIILPEXPLoSiil ( talk) 16:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I placed my previous post in the wrong location. The fact that Obama's citizenship is in question and cases challenging it are under review by The Supreme Court of the United States is not open for debate and is an essential part of any Barak Obama biography. Here is a man who is to be the next president of our great country who may very well have been born in Kenya, as is clearly stated by his own grandmother. If the same questions were facing a republican candidate wiki would surely make at least a minor note of it. Please be fair as you continually ask those who contribute to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthbeknown67 ( talk • contribs) 19:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Obama is clearly a non-smoker. Anybody saying he is still a smoker is calling him a liar. All we have to go on is his word here and he has said that he has been able to quit successfully with the help of nicorrette gum. That means he quit. Smokers and non-smokers are going to disagree about the definition of quitting I guess, based upon a review of the previous arguments, however some reference needs to be made to this. If you asked Obama he would tell you he has quit. We do not have the right to say with certainty that he is lying by publishing the opposite, this is the biography of a living person after all DegenFarang ( talk) 03:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC) ===former smoker=== LaidOff ( talk) 03:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The article mentions his relationship with Tony Blair, saying he is the current British Prime Minister. Someone please fix this to reflect that Tony Blair is now the FORMER Prime Minister. 75.69.152.83 ( talk) 04:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why is Barak Obama listed as a christin? He is openly muslim? why can't I edit this portion of the article to correct the very incorrect information? why does wiki allow this false information to be posted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.153.76 ( talk) 13:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Was Obama Phi Beta Kappa or did he receive any other education honors at graduation? I think it's only mentioned in Barack Obama: Early life and career section that he was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review.
FYI, Obama is not a Muslim but rather a Christian and always has been. It is sometimes erroneously stated that Barack is a Muslim because his father was one, but this is incorrect and unfounded. uriel8 (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
This section was closed in bad faith. Numerous questions were posed in this section which received ad hominem or personal attacks and no response. There is nothing more I can do. If another editor wants to raise the issue again, please see the discussion in the archive. I will no longer participate in such an adversarial environment in editing this article. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 20:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
This is not a general talkforum - once you are able to articulate *what* you want including, start a new section and tell us what that it is. Continued vagueness in an attempt to trick editors into giving you carte blanche is going nowhere and is now verging on the disruptive. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 12:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
That sure didn't seem very productive. I thought it was going somewhere a couple of times, but ultimately... nothing. It seems that we agree that criticisms should be included if it is verifiable and relevant. The election received so much coverage worldwide, that I believe we are all aware of the various "criticisms" that have been raised during campaigning, therefore listing them individually is not helpful. Nonetheless addressing this will be for the benefit of those in the future who wish to research the campaign, or who wish to understand popular perception of the president, or for those who just seek the convenience of having the most prominent criticisms listed in one place, with the useful links in the citations. Because of the similarity in the nature of these criticisms or accusations which have appeared in popular media, and because of the uses just mentioned, I still believe that the most plausible presentation of the content would be in a separate section. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 09:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Total ad hominem. I actually have a strong positive bias toward Obama, but I'm not going to POV-push at all. I'm just a wiki- hobbiest who wants to improve the article in an objective way. I can't give any examples without first researching and identifying some, which requires time up-front. I'm not going to waste my time if I'm going to be confronted by an editing war with editors who are unable to analyze the content logically. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 05:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
|
"and became the first African American to be elected President of the United States.[122][123][124][125]"
Why do we need four citations for this one sentence alone? ScienceApe ( talk) 04:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Closing this discussion that has been ground beyond dust form. Please see the answer to question 2 on this article's FAQ. -- Bobblehead (rants) 11:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Why is Mr. Obama referred to as "the first African American to be elected President of the United States"? Isn't he half white? Trent370 ( talk) 07:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Trent, the average black person has a lot of european and native american blood in him/her. The average white person has a lot of african and native american blood in him/her too. Therefore, designations like "black" and "white" go mostly on physical appearance. Not genetics. Obama looks black, so we call him black. Vin Diesel looks white, so people mostly call him white, even though he's half black. Mariah Carey is 25% African, but she looks white so we call her white. ScienceApe ( talk) 19:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, Scjessey, enough with the Wiki-lawyering and red-herrings. I am not suggesting that the article should say something contrary to reliable sources. The preponderance of reliable sources (as if citing material in Wiki is a popularity contest of reliable sources) state that Obama is descended of an African father and an American mother. He is by definition, "an African-American" and "of African-American descent", according to more than (pick any number less than eleventy-billion), say 30 reliable sources. Why not try a little bit of simple compromise, that doesn't cost anything? And, the editor above who claims that my "specific suggestion...really does not make sense. Obama does not descend from African-Americans - he is one." is logical nonsensicality. If he is African-American (and he is) the only way he could so be, is if he were descended from African-Americans, or from Africans and from Americans. If A=B and B=C, then C must=A. I frankly don't care how he is refered to herein. But, we are taking about the insertion of one word and rearranging two others. That some object so forcefully to this simple compromise is telling. Future members of congress, me thinks. Newguy34 ( talk) 20:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Since this has a) been rejected at every turn and b) we don't do that in *any* other article - why would we want to do it here? -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 00:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
President Barack Obama isn't half "African American". He is half African. Nevertheless, he is African American. LzqTAnFKVf7 ( talk) 00:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC) Obama Momma = White Kansan Her nationality is American. Obama Poppa, African from the African nation of Kenya. This would make Barack Obama, Half American, Half African. Hes African-American. If you want to go further, hes Kansas-Kenyan. 'For the love of god.' -- DemocraplypseNow ( talk) 03:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Trent, please see WP:CONSENSUS. It's how Wikipedia makes editorial decisions. You don't have consensus here (in fact consensus is clearly against you), and no one has ever had it for the change you are proposing to make. There are roughly 8 people who disagree with you. Please drop this and move on because you are not convincing anyone and you are repeating yourself over and over while ignoring countervailing arguments. This is not a productive use of anyone's time. Sometimes you lose arguments when editing Wikipedia - it happens to all of us - and it's important to be able to drop the debate when it's clear your position has not won out.-- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC) |
Closing this perennial discussion to halt the inevitable descent into off-topic Bigbluefish ( talk) 18:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Obama has decided to use his middle name during the swearing-in ceremony, in a conscious effort to "reboot America's image around the world." -- This appears to outweigh the (old, and still ongoing) conscious use by some media types of his middle name to slant his image (implying that he's Arab when he's in fact Christian -- on top of fomenting ethnic prejudice along the way). I know there have been a gazillion discussions about these issues here, but this is an entirely new development. Obama realises that "hiding" his middle name would send the wrong message (just speculating on this bit: he's also probably aware that if he omitted the middle name he'd just get criticised the same way by the same people who are criticising him now for using it). Moreover, he realises that prominently and officially using his middle name is a positive thing. So far, this article agrees with those on both sides of the "aisle" who think his name should better be "hidden", or at least is not his public name. But the article subject himself has decided that "the world is ready for that message" and sees it as a way to reach out. I have never understood those who don't understand that the main task when confronted by people who try to slant him by "pointedly" using his middle name is to just go ahead and use his middle name and be even prouder of what America achieved in electing him. Obama understands. So, could we please follow Obama's own insight and example and adjust the top of the infobox to prominently use his full name, the one under which he's going to be sworn into office? Or are we going to keep succumbing to those who wrongly imply that there is anything wrong with the name Hussein? 78.34.145.54 ( talk) 12:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
|
How can it be true when currently he is not the president? It will be only true from 20-th of jan. It should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.246.10 ( talk) 18:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The info box informs the reader he is the current President-elect of the United States, and is to be taking office on the 20th. 96.251.75.240 ( talk) 06:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
We should consider putting the page under full protection on, say, Tuesday and Wednesday. Not only are the vandals and well-meaning new or inept editors going to be very busy then, but the enthusiastic experienced editors are too, and there are going to be edit conflicts and quick reedits up the wazoo.
Best to get a quick talk-page consensus for any change first. It's not exactly a tragedy if the page isn't updated before His Own Band finishes "Hail to the Chief". PhGustaf ( talk) 05:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
HE IS CHRISTIAN
Yes we know. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 16:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, we better not talk about him the wrong way. We might offend the Second Coming sect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.41.46 ( talk) 18:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Which sect? The one who believes he's the antichrist or the other that believes he's the 12th Imam. Better to just have his church affiliation listed in the info box. Truth has never been important to Wikipedia before why care now? Or a "rickroll" esque link that sends the user the the South Park episode where Obama, McCain, Michelle and Sarah Palin steal the Hope diamond. lol.
I would guess that we are going to be plenty busy on the 20th - in the same way that Obama has a transition process - it might be as well for us to discuss and consider the changes that we need or might need to make on the 20th. So that the reader can see a smooth changeover here. As far as I can see the article is basically structural sound and most of the context can be updated by removing the "elect" bit from the lead sections. Are there any major changes we need to think about? -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 19:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe that the edit tomorrow replacing the president elect table with the President of the United states should be done a bot that will edit it at 12 noon and the page should be put on full protection. The Same should be done for Joe Biden at 11:56 est. because that is when they will take the oath. Hereford 22:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Note:I am going to put this on Template:Cent. Hereford 23:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
It's not a big deal. rootology ( C)( T) 00:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The Same should be done for Joe Biden at 11:56 est. because that is when they will take the oath. I don't care that much about what the articles will say for four minutes, but more widely for the presentation of info in other articles I thought the Veep term still switches at noon. There is precedent for even Presidents taking the oath early (Hayes in 1877 took it privately on Saturday March 3rd because the inauguration wasn't until the 5th and there were fears of an attempted Democrat coup) and the swearing in of the Veep-elect early seems to be just about getting this bit out of the way before the big ceremony, not a formal handing over of power in advance. Timrollpickering ( talk) 02:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
See this page for the actual schedule--Biden is sworn in at 11:46 and Obama at 11:56. The actual transition is at noon exactly per the 20th Amendment. I imagine a lot of folks will edit the page when they see the ceremony on TV but will be a few minutes too early. I concur that it doesn't matter much (assuming everything goes as planned). 207.241.239.70 ( talk) 06:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Should we take out the header 'president elect of the united states'? It's a bit dated. :-) Asbruckman ( talk) 21:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm somewhat surprised that there's essentially no discussion of the impact of Obama's election on the civil rights movement. The link to the American civil rights movement is almost buried, and the impact statement limited to a quote. For what is clearly a watershed moment in African-American attitudes, this seems to be extremely little. Simesa ( talk) 01:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The article states that the Obama's net worth is $1.3m. Then it proceeds to mention his $4.2m income and $1.6m house. Unless the Obamas have a hefty mortgage and is spending a terrific some of money he is worth considerably more than $4.3m. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadentsoul ( talk • contribs)
If no one minds, I would like to be the one who changes "President elect" to "current President of the United States of America" at 12:00 ET tomorrow. Is this okay? 71.132.226.69 ( talk) 07:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I've started an article International congratulations offered to Barack Obama upon his inauguration to address edits made by (someone in) Thailand. This appears to be a somewhat sensitive issue, and I'd appreciate advice here. Simesa ( talk) 14:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Sweet mother of pearl, people... Is it really necessary to say he was inaugurated at 12:01/12:06/12:05 Eastern? Worse yet.. Do you have to edit war over it? Seriously, it isn't that important to have the exact time. Just round to noon or say he was inaugurated midday on January 20, 2009... -- Bobblehead (rants) 18:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Thats also wikipedia for you. 88.110.6.156 ( talk) 18:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
It can bw shown, it seems that President Obama is the SIXTH, not the first President with African ancestry (neglecting the trivial assertion (pace Darwin) that we are all Africans anyway). The others did not call themselves Afro-American as President Obama does, for they essentially denied their African roots (or may have been entirely ignorant of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.211.166 ( talk • contribs)
Obama was President at 12:00:00pm EST, irregardless of whether he said the oath. By law Bush, Cheney, and their entire cabinet and succession structure was out of a job at 12:00:00pm EST, and there is never "not" a President in the line of succession. Given that the Electoral College already ratified over a week ago, that's it--Obama and Cheney Biden were in office at 12:00:00pm EST sharp. His designation then became POTUS.
rootology (
C)(
T) 19:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
@rootology - "irregardless" - I hope to God you're not making edits to these pages. 75.83.26.243 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC).