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 45 | ← | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | → | Archive 55 |
There are a ton of redirects on every possible spelling directing to this article. Any particular reason not to go through and RFD any misspellings that aren't currently being used? RFD says that deleting redirects could break older versions of the articles, but I can't imagine that people for the foreseeable future wouldn't be able to figure out where to look.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 14:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: Since the following discussion had becoming very long, with arguments on both sides becoming quite repetitive, I boldly "archived" it. Contributors should feel free to open a new section to offer any new thoughts or present a clearer encapsulation of what they'd already presented or argued. ↜Just me, here, now … 06:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Discussion closed: tl;dr spam about discrepancies in RS on Obama's birth hospital and the need to cover a controversy over this. -- Bobblehead (rants) 19:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Regarding the following from today's (February 8, 2009) version of the article: "Barack Obama was born at the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu, Hawaii, United States,[4][5]" Here are two sources that state Queen's Hospital as the birthplace of Obama: Obama described his birth at Queen's Medical Center in Hawaii Aug. 4, 1961, to a young white woman from Kansas and a father of Luo ethnicity from Nyanza Province in Kenya, as an "all-America" story transcending orthodox racial stereotypes and experience. Sen. Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois Published: Nov. 4, 2008 at 11:14 PM (United Press International) http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/02/Sen_Barack_Obama_Democrat_of_Illinois/UPI-33901225647000/ (Retrieved on February 8, 2009) Barack Hussein OBAMA was born on 4 August 1961 at the Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein OBAMA, Sr. of Nyangoma-Kogelo, Siaya District, Kenya, and Ann DUNHAM of Wichita, Kansas. http://genealogy.about.com/od/aframertrees/p/barack_obama.htm (Retrieved on February 8, 2009) The first article antedates the two sources currently cited by the current article for Obama's birthplace: 4 Maraniss, David (24 August 2008). "Though Obama Had to Leave to Find Himself, It Is Hawaii That Made His Rise Possible". Politics (Washington Post). http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/23/AR2008082301620.html. Retrieved on 27 October 2008. 5 Serafin, Peter (21 March 2004). "Punahou grad stirs up Illinois politics" (Article). Special to the Star-Bulletin (Honolulu Star-Bulletin). http://archives.starbulletin.com/2004/03/21/news/story4.html. Retrieved on 30 November 2008. and also Will Hoover's Nov. 9, 2008 Honolulu Advertiser article explicitly states that the hospital is unverified: While most Obama residences can be traced, the hospital where he was born is difficult to document. The desire of historians to pinpoint where Obama's life began has crashed head-on with the modern American propensity toward confidentiality. The federal Health Information Privacy Act of 1999 — a law passed to protect medical records from public scrutiny — prevents hospitals from confirming births, administrators contend. Will Hoover (November 9, 2008). "Obama's Hawaii boyhood homes drawing gawkers". Honolulu Advertiser. http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081109/NEWS01/811090361/-1/SPECIALOBAMA08. Retrieved on 6 February 2009. Therefore with all due respect I request amending the current main Obama article in the following manner to reflect the above conflicting reports: Barack Hussein OBAMA was allegedly born on 4 August 1961 at either the Queen's Medical Center or the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu, Hawaii, United States,[new][old4][old5]" ... where "[new]" refers to the November 2, 2008 UPI article given above. Also I note that the Wikipedia article for Chester A. Arthur contains a passage discussing the contemporary controversy regarding Arthur's eligibility to become president under the natural born citizen clause of the US Constitution. From the Feb. 8, 2009 article on Chester A. Arthur: Most official references list Arthur as having been born in Fairfield in Franklin County, Vermont on October 5, 1829. However, some time in the 1870s Arthur changed it to 1830 to make himself seem a year younger.[2][3] His father had initially migrated to Dunham, Quebec, Canada, where he and his wife at one point owned a farm about 15 miles (24 km) north of the U.S. border.[1] There has long been speculation that the future president was actually born in Canada and that the family moved to Fairfield later. If Arthur had been born in Canada, a minority opinion is that he would not have been a natural-born citizen, even though his mother was a U.S. citizen, and would have been constitutionally ineligible to serve as vice president or president.[4] During the 1880 U.S presidential election a New York attorney, Arthur P. Hinman, was hired to explore rumors of Arthur's foreign birth. Hinman alleged that Arthur was born in Ireland and did not come to the United States until he was fourteen years old. When that story failed to take root Hinman came forth with a new story that Arthur was born in Canada. This claim also fell on deaf ears.[5] The previous arguments on Wikipedia talk to block references to the Obama Constitutional qualifications controversy do not seem to go very far beyond citing Rush Limbaugh as a source. Arthur's detractor Arthur P. Hinman (allegedly traced to the Democratic Party) wrote a book, but evidently did not even file a lawsuit in any court to challenge Arthur's candidacy or assumption of duties. In contrast, Phillip J. Berg, Dr. Orly Taitz and about a dozen other plaintiffs have filed their lawsuits in federal and state courts; Obama replied to some of the lawsuits through his lawyers by filing publicly available responding briefs (so the lawsuits had a public impact on his life and his political career). Both controversies occurred during the respective election campaigns. Yet the Arthur natural born citizen controversy is currently permitted by Wikipedia, while the Obama natural born citizen controversy is currently censored. This is uneven treatment and expressly uneven application of Wikipedia policy. Regrettably, this gives rise to the appearance that an Obama article without any reference to any birthplace controversy is substantially biased. Eclectix ( talk) 00:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
And we care about the name of the hospital where Obama was born because ...???? And we care about where Chester A. Arthur was born because ...???? Talk to me like I'm a three-year-old; I'm have a very hard time grasping what any of this has to do with anything. Ward3001 ( talk) 03:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Personal biases aside, (and you all know who you are), if Wikipedia is going to survive as a viable entity and stop being the butt of every teacher's and student's jokes (and trust me I hear them all of the time), then articles on wikipedia must have a semblance of balance. The Chester A. Arthur argument is very important, and I am glad someone had brought it up. Some time ago, there was a discussion about having bios of the presidents conform to a standard. Mainly about the name in the infobox. It was decided on this talk page to use the name Barak Obama, without his middle name, in the info box because it conformed with the bios of the other presidents. Now I am hearing that the article on C.A. Arthur has nothing to do with this article. If conformity was so important then, how is not now? I had heard of the Chester A. Arthur birth place controversy years ago, but like most historians, I dismissed it as politicing. Yet is was a controversy at the time, just as Obama's birth place is a controversy today. Adding the information here to conform to the article on Arthur would not make Obama not be president. Only the SCOTUS can rule on that, but I have said it before, this controversy will not go away, no matter how much some editors wish to ignore it. Ignoring the problem, rather than working with other editors on a compromise has only made the problem worse. Calling the "birth place controversy" only in the mind of a few wack jobs can and is now being construed as a personal attack. Please refrain from making those attacks in the future, whoever made them.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 04:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Addendum (from Eclectix)-- I contend that I have established, without any credible doubt or possibility of challenge, that multiple credible citations yield at a minimum two Barack Obama, Jr. birthplaces. It is noteworthy given that Obama was born in 1961 (in contrast to a time period in which it is generally accepted that accurate records were not kept or difficult to preserve). The criterion for inclusion is, or at least should be, whether a fact is noteworthy-- not whether it is noteworthy to or for Obama in particular. That Obama has chosen not to release more specific information concerning his birthplace during a presidential election is also noteworthy. It is not merely a we-versus-them issue. Here is a reasonable person test: if there is no controversy, then no one should be able to envision or anticipate any problem erecting a National Historical Landmark at the place where our current president, Barack Obama, was born. But wait, according to UPI (note: not a fringe source) above he was born at Queen's Medical Center, while according to the Washington Post (note: not a fringe source) he was born at Kapi'olani Medical Center. So which one is it? Why would two non-fringe sources not agree on this basic attribute of Obama? Now stand back a moment and think what other recent president has more than one birthplace according to non-fringe sources. For example, according to the New York Times (note: not a fringe source), George W. Bush was born at the Grace New Haven Community Hospital in New Haven, Conn.. No controversy is noted about this (at least in Wikipedia discussion on the George W. Bush entry). By contrast, controversy about birthplace is noted, not just for former president Chester A. Arthur as I noted previously, but also for former president Andrew Jackson. From the February 9, 2009 main Wikipedia article about Andrew Jackson, References: 4 "Museum of the Waxhaws and Andrew Jackson Memorial". http://www.perigee.net/~mwaxhaw/faq.html. Retrieved on 2008-01-13. Controversies about Jackson's birthplace went far beyond the dispute between North and South Carolina. Because his origins were humble and obscure compared to those of his predecessors, wild rumors abounded about Jackson's past. Joseph Nathan Kane, in his almanac-style book Facts About the Presidents, lists no fewer than eight localities, including two foreign countries, that were mentioned in the popular press as Jackson's "real" birthplace – including Ireland, where both of Jackson's parents were born. Thus the main article about Obama excludes controversies about birthplace, citizenship and presidential office qualifications concerns under the U.S. Constitution that for whatever reasons were *not* excluded in main Wikipedia articles for at least two other presidents, Jackson and Arthur. I venture to state that the controversies surrounding Obama have received orders of magnitude more recognition in the contemporary public record than the controversies surrounding Arthur and Jackson, but the Wikipedia treatment in the main articles as they currently (February 9, 2009) exist is in inverse proportion to that contemporary public awareness. I think readers would, if they ever go so far as to read the Wiki discussions about these issues, be tempted to consider that Wiki editors are (for whatever reasons) whitewashing the main Obama article and censoring controversy that might be viewed by readers who vote as unflattering to Obama. It is indeed true that anyone can file a lawsuit. However, it is also true that anyone can write a book. I contend it is much more unlikely to arrange one's vital records (or lack thereof in the public arena) so as to have two non-fringe sources claim two different birthplaces for the same (contemporary, and allegedly born in the US) person. It is even more unlikely if the person who succeeds in that happens to be the current President of the United States. Before the "rush" to assert that Obama has been extensively vetted commences in this forum, the California State Elections Code ( http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=elec&codebody=&hits=20) (for one) regrettably contains no vetting specifics (see Division 6-- too long to quote here) to check for attributes such as candidates' natural born citizenry. It is non-partisan (no party nor candidate is mentioned here) to contend that the existing procedure for vetting candidates may be insufficient to guarantee that the U.S. Constitution is not violated, at least during the time up until the Electoral College votes are announced, discussed, and recorded in Congress. Finally Andrew Jackson's main page contains a "See Also" section that mentions other Wikipedia articles associated with Jackson. Why not have a "See Also" section for Barack Obama? Should there not be a policy enforced in which any split-off pages from the main page are at least cited in the main page itself, for any given topic? How would a reader in good faith use Wikipedia if it does not even reference itself for ancillary pages from the main topic page? Does not the lack of a complete and accurate See Also section imply that Wikipedia is -- de facto-- hiding rather than providing information to readers who use it in good faith on the presumption of accuracy and completeness? Or would that be too much to presume? Specifically a See Also section could be added such as the following: See Also Controversies and Discrepancies Concerning Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.'s Citizenship and Other Concerns regarding Eligibility for Federal Offices under the U.S. Constitution Note: I have consciously avoided the (IMHO pejorative) current Wikipedia title "Barack Obama Citizenship Conspiracy Theories," because it suggests to readers that Wikipedia is less than sufficiently governed by a "neutral point of view" policy-- as far fetched of a likelihood as that may seem with this audience. Eclectix ( talk) 09:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Propose closing this thread. No new arguments here. Dozens (hundreds?) of reliable sources state his birth place hospital clearly. A single source whose reliability is in doubt states a different hospital... so what? If there is a controversy or allegation, then that specific controversy MUST be documented in multiple reliable sources before we can mention it here. We can't use words like alleged unless the RS's use those words. We cannot on our own say that he was allegedly born in one hospital or the other unless a significant weight of RS's specifically state that complete phrase, or else we are engaging in original research which is specifically forbidden in our bio policy. Instead, we follow reliable sources and give no weight to fringe sources or editor original research per policy. The business above about vetting, etc. is also pure original research. If you have something specific about Obama, then provide a reliable source that discusses Obama and your suggested addition to the article. Do not use this talkpage as a forum to engage in presenting your original ideas. -- guyzero | talk 16:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Addendum (from Eclectix): Regarding 50 words or less-- I already explained why it was of interest using the National Historical Landmark hypothetical as an example motivation. Here is a fourth constructive suggestion, instead of adding a See Also section, I noticed that there is a side bar for this ("This article is part of a series about Barack Obama"), so to conform with that, I suggest adding the "See Also" title there and including there the new entry about Obama birthplace and citizenry controversies (retitled as I suggested per Wiki NPOV policy) along with gathering the other pointers (like the legislative history article) that are currently scattered throughout the existing article. At a minimum, having three different conventions for the related articles in the current main article is confusing and inconsistent. I have given one conflicting UPI source which not only conflicts but also ANTEDATES the other sources currently cited. You all have not clearly explained why UPI, a credible source unless proven otherwise, should not be assumed any less true than the prior sources. I also cited the genealogist article in about.com, which is from a third party with no bone to pick-- also established as an allowable source under existing Wikipedia policy. I also gave the Honolulu Advertiser article in which the writer explicitly mentioned difficulty determining the hospital (if any) of birth of Obama. More articles citing the Kapi'olani Medical Center does not dispel the possibility that bad data was injected without a higher level of proof (i.e., a primary source). With all due respect, those three points of information from sources acceptable according to established Wikipedia source policy are new (not old)-- the challenges to date do not conform with Wikipedia policy. I have also now put forth three constructive alternatives, and a fourth was proposed by someone else in response to mine. I have also shown where Wikipedia treatment of Obama in the main article is inconsistent with at least two other presidents in main articles. What is not new is all the invective surrounding the whitewashing and censorship here. And I suspect what you are not seeing is all the people who have already given up on Wikipedia as a reliable source or are unaware of the talk feature for suggesting/discussing change for an article that has been censored/locked. At the minimum I have established that there is confusion and doubt in multiple reliable sources concerning Obama's birthplace and that is noteworthy given Obama's current stature and recent events-- to continue denying the controversy even exists at this point only provides more fuel to the fire that Wikipedia is censored (and I submit that now, 24 hours after my first attempt to fix the problem, I believe I have established that Wikipedia *IS* unjustifiably censored and not following its own policy, and not congruent with the hype that certain entries can be fixed in anything near real time given new information.) What does come across to me and anyone who reads this in the future is that there is an active contingent of people who seem to have vested interests in keeping hints of controversy away from the Obama main entry. The length argument is style over substance-- and the detractors are being obstinate, so what do you expect? Keep it open, "gentlemen," until you all either modify your policies or modify the article because I have jumped through every single hoop all the detractors have put up so far. I'm trying to improve the article, which I thought was the whole point. (Isn't that the point?????) Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.203.225 ( talk) 18:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
|
Unrelated discussion focussing on individual conduct and not article content Bigbluefish ( talk) 03:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Users are reminded that canvassing in order to sway opinions on a Request for Comment is strictly prohibited. Users are also reminded that the initial statement explaining the issue(s) involved in an RfC must be absolutely neutral. Thank you. Ward3001 ( talk) 01:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
No Jojhutton, don't spin this away from the RfC. This canvassing was done to notify users about an upcoming RfC, not an archived thread. And there most certainly was canvassing. Here are some quotes in this canvassing, taken from users' talk pages in notifying about the RfC: "deletion without (IMHO) justification. Thanks for any support"; "I'm absolutely certain you know what it is like to have a justified but minority viewpoint.) Thanks for any explicit support". These are clearly not neutral and in the context of an RfC is a violation of policy. And here is a link where the same user set up an RfC. Don't pretend this is not about an RfC. Ward3001 ( talk) 02:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
|
this is a procedural mess and not the kind of thing to resolve by poll |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Let's all take a moment for a nice cup of tea.
That's better. Now. Eclectix ( talk · contribs) has produced two sources saying that Obama was born in the Queen's Medical Center, in conflict with the majority of other sources, and contends that this constitutes an ambiguity. This has been dignified with a number of responses predominantly considering the grounds presented unsufficient.
Eclectix has every right to disagree in good faith with any particular response and continue the discussion. The discussion is still there, you just have to click a link to let it eat your scrollbar.
The position I think most people are in agreement on is that of these sources, neither is as reliable as the sources for his actual birth hospital, neither constitutes a tertiary source to describe a disagreement or ambiguity and neither identifies the source of the claim he was born in the QMC. The Chester A. Arthur ambiguity is far more reliably documented and is a poor comparison.
Perhaps if this is inadequate explanation Eclectix could establish concisely why this does not justify the status quo of the article content. If there is any more to say on this matter let it be about content not disruptive wikipoliticking. Bigbluefish ( talk) 03:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Before this circular debate continues on, I highly recommend that each source that disputes where Barack Obama was born be posted up on WP:RSN where they can be independently judged to be reliable sources as per Wikipedia policies and standards. Brothejr ( talk) 11:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I can't believe this didn't occur to me before. There is talk above of "bad data injection". Well one of the first edits to this article in July 2004 introduced Queen's as the birthplace without a source. This lasted until September 2006. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the most "reliable" sources mentioning Queen's stems from misinformation stemming from Wikipedia. Journalists have set many precedents for lifting seemingly inconsequential and probably correct details from Wikipedia. But absolutely, a hint as to the original source of the notion that he was born in Kapi'olani would be great. If it's in Dreams From My Father I'd call that a better source than the Star Bulletin, and would recommend it for the article. Bigbluefish ( talk) 22:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Thought y'all might find this interesting [6]: 'More than 700 attended the recent centennial dinner at the Hawai'i Convention Center, marking 100 years of pediatric excellence at Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children and its predecessor, Kauikeolani Children's Hospital. When event co-chair Michael O'Malley asked for a hand count on who "was born at, had a child born at, or knows someone who was born at" Kapi'olani, nearly every hand in the house was proudly aloft. Congressman Neil Abercrombie read a letter from President Obama, who set the record straight about his origins: "Kapi'olani is the place of my birth."' thanks, -- guyzero | talk 00:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Bobblehead asks (rhetorically I would guess) if about.com is a reliable source. Well, I would have to say no as far as a source for Barack Obama. The article in question has the following blatant errors and/or outdated information - and quite possibly others:
So, please give me a break - to claim that this about.com article is any way a reliable source for a detail such as his birthplace being "Queen's Hospital" is laughable - this is an unsourced piece that is rife with error, and it is utterly unreasonable to rely on it. The UPI piece is an election-night bio sketch, unsigned, and with no evidence of in-depth research, so I would guess that it gleaned its details from other published sources, but without any investigation. David Maraniss, while certainly not infallible, is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist whose piece is in-depth and appears to be well-researched, and is published in a newspaper with some regard for accuracy and multiple sourcing. I think there is nothing more to say on this matter, and to continue to pursue it is disruptive. Tvoz/ talk 01:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Before we even spend any more time on this, can we PLEASE see a list of reliable sources that say his Hawaii birth certificate is NOT valid, or reliable mainstream sources that say he's not a natural born citizen? This talk page is not the place to discuss the controversy itself, but simply it's inclusion or lack of here. Nothing else. rootology ( C)( T) 15:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The article was just edited to say that Obama is the first president born outside the continental U.S. This may not be entirely true however, since several of the first Presidents were born in the American colonies, not in the United States. Tad Lincoln ( talk) 01:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
did not lead to viable proposal for article content |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
How many soldiers died under the Obama administration in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why isn't this data in the article? Under Bush it was known and news agency almost every day reported this growing number. Pikacsu ( talk) 00:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
|
proposal considered and rejected |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The newest threat: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/10/obama.threat/index.html There should be a section for this and other threats mentioned in the cnn article. Pikacsu ( talk) 15:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Pikacsu, please stop creating sections on this talk page about recent trivial events. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper that should scoop every minor event, innuendo, rumor, or fringe theory and write about it the same day it happens. You have a single purpose account and have created such sections repeatedly, most of which have been deleted or ignored. You have been warned about this several times on your talk page, and it's getting very tiresome. So I raise the issue here for everyone to see because apparently you ignored the messages on your talk page. Please don't continue to create new sections on this page that are not legitimate issues worthy of an encyclopedia. Ward3001 ( talk) 15:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
|
did not lead to viable proposal for article content |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Is it public? Or they hide it, because it's too low, or for another reason? I think that we should know it... And this is an inportant data for the bio Pikacsu ( talk) 19:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
|
For full disclosure, I have opened a discussion about Pikacsu in relation to this article's probation at WP:ANI#Pikacsu. Bigbluefish ( talk) 20:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have any idea what's wrong with reference #181? Bigbluefish ( talk) 22:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I have opened an ANI discussion and an seeking community input. [8]. Die4Dixie ( talk) 22:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
We need a reliable source to back this up. These guys cite Washington Times which is "ok", but I'd like to see a more respected source. Anyone else hear about this: ( read article here). 216.153.214.89 ( talk) 04:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I am asking for help in verifying the refered to "error" by Obama. I am not suggesting we use American Thinker, nor even Washington Times as our source. However, AT refers to and links to WT which asserts this error. WT is "almost" acceptable to me as a source, but I want a better one. Anyone with Lexis-Nexis access or perhaps anyone find a better web source? 216.153.214.89 ( talk) 06:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
←IN any event, I question whether this matter would be notable enough for this main biography of Obama - perhaps there could be a place for it in the Presidency of Barack Obama article, but that depends on the kind of sourcing found and the relative weight compared to the rest of the piece. Tvoz/ talk 09:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I am dismayed that Wikipedia editors have allowed 1) to indicate that Obama is a Muslim and 2) they have locked the page, so it cannot be corrected!
Obama has declared publicly and in many occasions that he is Christian and not a Muslim. Colin Powell confirmed this in his endorsement as well.
Please correct this obvious mistake ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faweekee ( talk • contribs) 22:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
This article is under the "Big O" disambiguation page? Really? I mean....really? I have never heard any source whatsoever call Obama the "Big O."-- Ryudo ( talk) 10:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
WHY? Both "Barack" and "Obama" redirects to this article directly. So both surname and even the first name! Just a quick try shows that this isn't true for the last president: "George" or "Bush" doesn't redirects to George W. Bush rocks Can somebody give me a clue? I would redirect them to the disambiguation page. Pikacsu ( talk) 23:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
So we've got community organizer, lawyer, and author... How about President? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.111.183.10 ( talk) 18:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
After 2 years at Occidental, Barack transferred to Columbia College in Chicago, not Columbia University in New York. [10] JackMacy ( talk) 21:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Why is his picture not centered? His face is off to the right, why is this? Do we not have a better one lol? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felliph3 ( talk • contribs) 01:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
this is not a forum for general griping about politics or about what's wrong with Wikipedia. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Wikidemon ( talk) 02:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
|
Nothing meaningful - fringey BLP issues. Nothing constructive coming. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Quod scripsi, scripsi. If you do´not like the comments, do not look at them. I do not know what you are talking about or where "proofing" came from. In fact, to whom are you directing your comments and what the hell are you talking about? Die4Dixie ( talk) 03:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I rather imagine my Latin is good enough to read the Vulgate. Anyone can put that shit anywhere. The comment was under it. Maybe you should brush up on your own Latin. I may be a redneck, but a redneck with a classical education. Die4Dixie ( talk) 04:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Just a note: any irregularities about the election belong in the election article, not the biography. This whole "ACORN stole the election" gripe is a re-hashing of the "Bush stole Florida" arguments from a conservative/Republican perspective, but with a lot less traction and a hell of a lot more unbelievable. For one, the "ACORN is evil" meme was pretty much started by McCain playing party politics (which was regrettable; McCain is normally a decent human being). Secondly, it's arguable that the ACORN additions and the electoral roll removals pretty much cancelled out. Finally, Obama won the popular vote by nine and a half million votes. It's just impossible for an organisation like ACORN, even if every single member was corruptively Democratic, to pull off something like that. Sceptre ( talk) 04:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. This is why I suggested reliable sources and the appropriate arcticle. Die4Dixie ( talk) 04:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
This section will bring nothing productive to this talk page, and I'm closing it accordingly. Reopening it can be considered in violation of this article's probation and can result in actions described there. Grsz 11 05:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC) |
Shouldn't the summary mention briefly that he inherited the subprime crisis and has worked to pass the stimulus bill through congress? Agree or disagree, it's likely to be one of the earliest defining actions of his presidency. Could wait until Tuesday until it becomes law, but it definitely should be mentioned IMO. - 137.222.114.243 ( talk) 19:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
In the caption for File:Five_Presidents_2009.jpg, it says "Presidents...[list of the 5]." My issue is that at the time of the photograph (January 7, as currently noted in the caption), Obama was not yet president. I think we should note it by saying something like "then president-elect Barack Obama (since inaugurated)" to have accuracy in the caption. It might not be the clearest wording, but something along those lines. Mahalo. -- Ali'i 15:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Brevity in captions is far more important than long digressions into pedantic correctness. LotLE× talk 21:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Considering what you see when you Google Barack presently (2009-02-17 ~5:35 PM GMT), I would suggest fully locking the article to prevent further highly public vandalism. Apeiron ( talk) 17:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
This is precisely why I've always argued in favor of permanent or extremely long term semiprotection of this and all of the Obama subarticles (not full), and it brings into focus why something like flagged revisions makes sense. "Anyone can edit", unfortunately, too often means any asshole can edit. And we have a responsibility, I think, to prevent crap like that from representing the hard work that constructive editors do, at the high rate of pay we receive for our efforts. Tvoz/ talk 02:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Not many people know that semi-protecton was implemented for the Bush article, back when Bush was in office. No protection would let in "idiot" vandalism, full protection would lock a lot of people out. This should be kept semi-protected for the same reason. Sceptre ( talk) 04:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a perfect example of why every page on Wikipedia should, also, be set NOCACHE for all search engines. rootology ( C)( T) 05:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
See here for a fairly incomprehensible (to me, anyway) explanation - and now to fix any affected page. Tvoz/ talk 07:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
It's all fixed now. rootology ( C)( T) 07:22, 18 February 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 45 | ← | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | → | Archive 55 |
There are a ton of redirects on every possible spelling directing to this article. Any particular reason not to go through and RFD any misspellings that aren't currently being used? RFD says that deleting redirects could break older versions of the articles, but I can't imagine that people for the foreseeable future wouldn't be able to figure out where to look.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 14:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: Since the following discussion had becoming very long, with arguments on both sides becoming quite repetitive, I boldly "archived" it. Contributors should feel free to open a new section to offer any new thoughts or present a clearer encapsulation of what they'd already presented or argued. ↜Just me, here, now … 06:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Discussion closed: tl;dr spam about discrepancies in RS on Obama's birth hospital and the need to cover a controversy over this. -- Bobblehead (rants) 19:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Regarding the following from today's (February 8, 2009) version of the article: "Barack Obama was born at the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu, Hawaii, United States,[4][5]" Here are two sources that state Queen's Hospital as the birthplace of Obama: Obama described his birth at Queen's Medical Center in Hawaii Aug. 4, 1961, to a young white woman from Kansas and a father of Luo ethnicity from Nyanza Province in Kenya, as an "all-America" story transcending orthodox racial stereotypes and experience. Sen. Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois Published: Nov. 4, 2008 at 11:14 PM (United Press International) http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/02/Sen_Barack_Obama_Democrat_of_Illinois/UPI-33901225647000/ (Retrieved on February 8, 2009) Barack Hussein OBAMA was born on 4 August 1961 at the Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein OBAMA, Sr. of Nyangoma-Kogelo, Siaya District, Kenya, and Ann DUNHAM of Wichita, Kansas. http://genealogy.about.com/od/aframertrees/p/barack_obama.htm (Retrieved on February 8, 2009) The first article antedates the two sources currently cited by the current article for Obama's birthplace: 4 Maraniss, David (24 August 2008). "Though Obama Had to Leave to Find Himself, It Is Hawaii That Made His Rise Possible". Politics (Washington Post). http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/23/AR2008082301620.html. Retrieved on 27 October 2008. 5 Serafin, Peter (21 March 2004). "Punahou grad stirs up Illinois politics" (Article). Special to the Star-Bulletin (Honolulu Star-Bulletin). http://archives.starbulletin.com/2004/03/21/news/story4.html. Retrieved on 30 November 2008. and also Will Hoover's Nov. 9, 2008 Honolulu Advertiser article explicitly states that the hospital is unverified: While most Obama residences can be traced, the hospital where he was born is difficult to document. The desire of historians to pinpoint where Obama's life began has crashed head-on with the modern American propensity toward confidentiality. The federal Health Information Privacy Act of 1999 — a law passed to protect medical records from public scrutiny — prevents hospitals from confirming births, administrators contend. Will Hoover (November 9, 2008). "Obama's Hawaii boyhood homes drawing gawkers". Honolulu Advertiser. http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081109/NEWS01/811090361/-1/SPECIALOBAMA08. Retrieved on 6 February 2009. Therefore with all due respect I request amending the current main Obama article in the following manner to reflect the above conflicting reports: Barack Hussein OBAMA was allegedly born on 4 August 1961 at either the Queen's Medical Center or the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu, Hawaii, United States,[new][old4][old5]" ... where "[new]" refers to the November 2, 2008 UPI article given above. Also I note that the Wikipedia article for Chester A. Arthur contains a passage discussing the contemporary controversy regarding Arthur's eligibility to become president under the natural born citizen clause of the US Constitution. From the Feb. 8, 2009 article on Chester A. Arthur: Most official references list Arthur as having been born in Fairfield in Franklin County, Vermont on October 5, 1829. However, some time in the 1870s Arthur changed it to 1830 to make himself seem a year younger.[2][3] His father had initially migrated to Dunham, Quebec, Canada, where he and his wife at one point owned a farm about 15 miles (24 km) north of the U.S. border.[1] There has long been speculation that the future president was actually born in Canada and that the family moved to Fairfield later. If Arthur had been born in Canada, a minority opinion is that he would not have been a natural-born citizen, even though his mother was a U.S. citizen, and would have been constitutionally ineligible to serve as vice president or president.[4] During the 1880 U.S presidential election a New York attorney, Arthur P. Hinman, was hired to explore rumors of Arthur's foreign birth. Hinman alleged that Arthur was born in Ireland and did not come to the United States until he was fourteen years old. When that story failed to take root Hinman came forth with a new story that Arthur was born in Canada. This claim also fell on deaf ears.[5] The previous arguments on Wikipedia talk to block references to the Obama Constitutional qualifications controversy do not seem to go very far beyond citing Rush Limbaugh as a source. Arthur's detractor Arthur P. Hinman (allegedly traced to the Democratic Party) wrote a book, but evidently did not even file a lawsuit in any court to challenge Arthur's candidacy or assumption of duties. In contrast, Phillip J. Berg, Dr. Orly Taitz and about a dozen other plaintiffs have filed their lawsuits in federal and state courts; Obama replied to some of the lawsuits through his lawyers by filing publicly available responding briefs (so the lawsuits had a public impact on his life and his political career). Both controversies occurred during the respective election campaigns. Yet the Arthur natural born citizen controversy is currently permitted by Wikipedia, while the Obama natural born citizen controversy is currently censored. This is uneven treatment and expressly uneven application of Wikipedia policy. Regrettably, this gives rise to the appearance that an Obama article without any reference to any birthplace controversy is substantially biased. Eclectix ( talk) 00:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
And we care about the name of the hospital where Obama was born because ...???? And we care about where Chester A. Arthur was born because ...???? Talk to me like I'm a three-year-old; I'm have a very hard time grasping what any of this has to do with anything. Ward3001 ( talk) 03:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Personal biases aside, (and you all know who you are), if Wikipedia is going to survive as a viable entity and stop being the butt of every teacher's and student's jokes (and trust me I hear them all of the time), then articles on wikipedia must have a semblance of balance. The Chester A. Arthur argument is very important, and I am glad someone had brought it up. Some time ago, there was a discussion about having bios of the presidents conform to a standard. Mainly about the name in the infobox. It was decided on this talk page to use the name Barak Obama, without his middle name, in the info box because it conformed with the bios of the other presidents. Now I am hearing that the article on C.A. Arthur has nothing to do with this article. If conformity was so important then, how is not now? I had heard of the Chester A. Arthur birth place controversy years ago, but like most historians, I dismissed it as politicing. Yet is was a controversy at the time, just as Obama's birth place is a controversy today. Adding the information here to conform to the article on Arthur would not make Obama not be president. Only the SCOTUS can rule on that, but I have said it before, this controversy will not go away, no matter how much some editors wish to ignore it. Ignoring the problem, rather than working with other editors on a compromise has only made the problem worse. Calling the "birth place controversy" only in the mind of a few wack jobs can and is now being construed as a personal attack. Please refrain from making those attacks in the future, whoever made them.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 04:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Addendum (from Eclectix)-- I contend that I have established, without any credible doubt or possibility of challenge, that multiple credible citations yield at a minimum two Barack Obama, Jr. birthplaces. It is noteworthy given that Obama was born in 1961 (in contrast to a time period in which it is generally accepted that accurate records were not kept or difficult to preserve). The criterion for inclusion is, or at least should be, whether a fact is noteworthy-- not whether it is noteworthy to or for Obama in particular. That Obama has chosen not to release more specific information concerning his birthplace during a presidential election is also noteworthy. It is not merely a we-versus-them issue. Here is a reasonable person test: if there is no controversy, then no one should be able to envision or anticipate any problem erecting a National Historical Landmark at the place where our current president, Barack Obama, was born. But wait, according to UPI (note: not a fringe source) above he was born at Queen's Medical Center, while according to the Washington Post (note: not a fringe source) he was born at Kapi'olani Medical Center. So which one is it? Why would two non-fringe sources not agree on this basic attribute of Obama? Now stand back a moment and think what other recent president has more than one birthplace according to non-fringe sources. For example, according to the New York Times (note: not a fringe source), George W. Bush was born at the Grace New Haven Community Hospital in New Haven, Conn.. No controversy is noted about this (at least in Wikipedia discussion on the George W. Bush entry). By contrast, controversy about birthplace is noted, not just for former president Chester A. Arthur as I noted previously, but also for former president Andrew Jackson. From the February 9, 2009 main Wikipedia article about Andrew Jackson, References: 4 "Museum of the Waxhaws and Andrew Jackson Memorial". http://www.perigee.net/~mwaxhaw/faq.html. Retrieved on 2008-01-13. Controversies about Jackson's birthplace went far beyond the dispute between North and South Carolina. Because his origins were humble and obscure compared to those of his predecessors, wild rumors abounded about Jackson's past. Joseph Nathan Kane, in his almanac-style book Facts About the Presidents, lists no fewer than eight localities, including two foreign countries, that were mentioned in the popular press as Jackson's "real" birthplace – including Ireland, where both of Jackson's parents were born. Thus the main article about Obama excludes controversies about birthplace, citizenship and presidential office qualifications concerns under the U.S. Constitution that for whatever reasons were *not* excluded in main Wikipedia articles for at least two other presidents, Jackson and Arthur. I venture to state that the controversies surrounding Obama have received orders of magnitude more recognition in the contemporary public record than the controversies surrounding Arthur and Jackson, but the Wikipedia treatment in the main articles as they currently (February 9, 2009) exist is in inverse proportion to that contemporary public awareness. I think readers would, if they ever go so far as to read the Wiki discussions about these issues, be tempted to consider that Wiki editors are (for whatever reasons) whitewashing the main Obama article and censoring controversy that might be viewed by readers who vote as unflattering to Obama. It is indeed true that anyone can file a lawsuit. However, it is also true that anyone can write a book. I contend it is much more unlikely to arrange one's vital records (or lack thereof in the public arena) so as to have two non-fringe sources claim two different birthplaces for the same (contemporary, and allegedly born in the US) person. It is even more unlikely if the person who succeeds in that happens to be the current President of the United States. Before the "rush" to assert that Obama has been extensively vetted commences in this forum, the California State Elections Code ( http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=elec&codebody=&hits=20) (for one) regrettably contains no vetting specifics (see Division 6-- too long to quote here) to check for attributes such as candidates' natural born citizenry. It is non-partisan (no party nor candidate is mentioned here) to contend that the existing procedure for vetting candidates may be insufficient to guarantee that the U.S. Constitution is not violated, at least during the time up until the Electoral College votes are announced, discussed, and recorded in Congress. Finally Andrew Jackson's main page contains a "See Also" section that mentions other Wikipedia articles associated with Jackson. Why not have a "See Also" section for Barack Obama? Should there not be a policy enforced in which any split-off pages from the main page are at least cited in the main page itself, for any given topic? How would a reader in good faith use Wikipedia if it does not even reference itself for ancillary pages from the main topic page? Does not the lack of a complete and accurate See Also section imply that Wikipedia is -- de facto-- hiding rather than providing information to readers who use it in good faith on the presumption of accuracy and completeness? Or would that be too much to presume? Specifically a See Also section could be added such as the following: See Also Controversies and Discrepancies Concerning Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.'s Citizenship and Other Concerns regarding Eligibility for Federal Offices under the U.S. Constitution Note: I have consciously avoided the (IMHO pejorative) current Wikipedia title "Barack Obama Citizenship Conspiracy Theories," because it suggests to readers that Wikipedia is less than sufficiently governed by a "neutral point of view" policy-- as far fetched of a likelihood as that may seem with this audience. Eclectix ( talk) 09:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Propose closing this thread. No new arguments here. Dozens (hundreds?) of reliable sources state his birth place hospital clearly. A single source whose reliability is in doubt states a different hospital... so what? If there is a controversy or allegation, then that specific controversy MUST be documented in multiple reliable sources before we can mention it here. We can't use words like alleged unless the RS's use those words. We cannot on our own say that he was allegedly born in one hospital or the other unless a significant weight of RS's specifically state that complete phrase, or else we are engaging in original research which is specifically forbidden in our bio policy. Instead, we follow reliable sources and give no weight to fringe sources or editor original research per policy. The business above about vetting, etc. is also pure original research. If you have something specific about Obama, then provide a reliable source that discusses Obama and your suggested addition to the article. Do not use this talkpage as a forum to engage in presenting your original ideas. -- guyzero | talk 16:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Addendum (from Eclectix): Regarding 50 words or less-- I already explained why it was of interest using the National Historical Landmark hypothetical as an example motivation. Here is a fourth constructive suggestion, instead of adding a See Also section, I noticed that there is a side bar for this ("This article is part of a series about Barack Obama"), so to conform with that, I suggest adding the "See Also" title there and including there the new entry about Obama birthplace and citizenry controversies (retitled as I suggested per Wiki NPOV policy) along with gathering the other pointers (like the legislative history article) that are currently scattered throughout the existing article. At a minimum, having three different conventions for the related articles in the current main article is confusing and inconsistent. I have given one conflicting UPI source which not only conflicts but also ANTEDATES the other sources currently cited. You all have not clearly explained why UPI, a credible source unless proven otherwise, should not be assumed any less true than the prior sources. I also cited the genealogist article in about.com, which is from a third party with no bone to pick-- also established as an allowable source under existing Wikipedia policy. I also gave the Honolulu Advertiser article in which the writer explicitly mentioned difficulty determining the hospital (if any) of birth of Obama. More articles citing the Kapi'olani Medical Center does not dispel the possibility that bad data was injected without a higher level of proof (i.e., a primary source). With all due respect, those three points of information from sources acceptable according to established Wikipedia source policy are new (not old)-- the challenges to date do not conform with Wikipedia policy. I have also now put forth three constructive alternatives, and a fourth was proposed by someone else in response to mine. I have also shown where Wikipedia treatment of Obama in the main article is inconsistent with at least two other presidents in main articles. What is not new is all the invective surrounding the whitewashing and censorship here. And I suspect what you are not seeing is all the people who have already given up on Wikipedia as a reliable source or are unaware of the talk feature for suggesting/discussing change for an article that has been censored/locked. At the minimum I have established that there is confusion and doubt in multiple reliable sources concerning Obama's birthplace and that is noteworthy given Obama's current stature and recent events-- to continue denying the controversy even exists at this point only provides more fuel to the fire that Wikipedia is censored (and I submit that now, 24 hours after my first attempt to fix the problem, I believe I have established that Wikipedia *IS* unjustifiably censored and not following its own policy, and not congruent with the hype that certain entries can be fixed in anything near real time given new information.) What does come across to me and anyone who reads this in the future is that there is an active contingent of people who seem to have vested interests in keeping hints of controversy away from the Obama main entry. The length argument is style over substance-- and the detractors are being obstinate, so what do you expect? Keep it open, "gentlemen," until you all either modify your policies or modify the article because I have jumped through every single hoop all the detractors have put up so far. I'm trying to improve the article, which I thought was the whole point. (Isn't that the point?????) Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.203.225 ( talk) 18:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
|
Unrelated discussion focussing on individual conduct and not article content Bigbluefish ( talk) 03:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Users are reminded that canvassing in order to sway opinions on a Request for Comment is strictly prohibited. Users are also reminded that the initial statement explaining the issue(s) involved in an RfC must be absolutely neutral. Thank you. Ward3001 ( talk) 01:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
No Jojhutton, don't spin this away from the RfC. This canvassing was done to notify users about an upcoming RfC, not an archived thread. And there most certainly was canvassing. Here are some quotes in this canvassing, taken from users' talk pages in notifying about the RfC: "deletion without (IMHO) justification. Thanks for any support"; "I'm absolutely certain you know what it is like to have a justified but minority viewpoint.) Thanks for any explicit support". These are clearly not neutral and in the context of an RfC is a violation of policy. And here is a link where the same user set up an RfC. Don't pretend this is not about an RfC. Ward3001 ( talk) 02:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
|
this is a procedural mess and not the kind of thing to resolve by poll |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Let's all take a moment for a nice cup of tea.
That's better. Now. Eclectix ( talk · contribs) has produced two sources saying that Obama was born in the Queen's Medical Center, in conflict with the majority of other sources, and contends that this constitutes an ambiguity. This has been dignified with a number of responses predominantly considering the grounds presented unsufficient.
Eclectix has every right to disagree in good faith with any particular response and continue the discussion. The discussion is still there, you just have to click a link to let it eat your scrollbar.
The position I think most people are in agreement on is that of these sources, neither is as reliable as the sources for his actual birth hospital, neither constitutes a tertiary source to describe a disagreement or ambiguity and neither identifies the source of the claim he was born in the QMC. The Chester A. Arthur ambiguity is far more reliably documented and is a poor comparison.
Perhaps if this is inadequate explanation Eclectix could establish concisely why this does not justify the status quo of the article content. If there is any more to say on this matter let it be about content not disruptive wikipoliticking. Bigbluefish ( talk) 03:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Before this circular debate continues on, I highly recommend that each source that disputes where Barack Obama was born be posted up on WP:RSN where they can be independently judged to be reliable sources as per Wikipedia policies and standards. Brothejr ( talk) 11:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I can't believe this didn't occur to me before. There is talk above of "bad data injection". Well one of the first edits to this article in July 2004 introduced Queen's as the birthplace without a source. This lasted until September 2006. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the most "reliable" sources mentioning Queen's stems from misinformation stemming from Wikipedia. Journalists have set many precedents for lifting seemingly inconsequential and probably correct details from Wikipedia. But absolutely, a hint as to the original source of the notion that he was born in Kapi'olani would be great. If it's in Dreams From My Father I'd call that a better source than the Star Bulletin, and would recommend it for the article. Bigbluefish ( talk) 22:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Thought y'all might find this interesting [6]: 'More than 700 attended the recent centennial dinner at the Hawai'i Convention Center, marking 100 years of pediatric excellence at Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children and its predecessor, Kauikeolani Children's Hospital. When event co-chair Michael O'Malley asked for a hand count on who "was born at, had a child born at, or knows someone who was born at" Kapi'olani, nearly every hand in the house was proudly aloft. Congressman Neil Abercrombie read a letter from President Obama, who set the record straight about his origins: "Kapi'olani is the place of my birth."' thanks, -- guyzero | talk 00:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Bobblehead asks (rhetorically I would guess) if about.com is a reliable source. Well, I would have to say no as far as a source for Barack Obama. The article in question has the following blatant errors and/or outdated information - and quite possibly others:
So, please give me a break - to claim that this about.com article is any way a reliable source for a detail such as his birthplace being "Queen's Hospital" is laughable - this is an unsourced piece that is rife with error, and it is utterly unreasonable to rely on it. The UPI piece is an election-night bio sketch, unsigned, and with no evidence of in-depth research, so I would guess that it gleaned its details from other published sources, but without any investigation. David Maraniss, while certainly not infallible, is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist whose piece is in-depth and appears to be well-researched, and is published in a newspaper with some regard for accuracy and multiple sourcing. I think there is nothing more to say on this matter, and to continue to pursue it is disruptive. Tvoz/ talk 01:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Before we even spend any more time on this, can we PLEASE see a list of reliable sources that say his Hawaii birth certificate is NOT valid, or reliable mainstream sources that say he's not a natural born citizen? This talk page is not the place to discuss the controversy itself, but simply it's inclusion or lack of here. Nothing else. rootology ( C)( T) 15:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The article was just edited to say that Obama is the first president born outside the continental U.S. This may not be entirely true however, since several of the first Presidents were born in the American colonies, not in the United States. Tad Lincoln ( talk) 01:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
did not lead to viable proposal for article content |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
How many soldiers died under the Obama administration in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why isn't this data in the article? Under Bush it was known and news agency almost every day reported this growing number. Pikacsu ( talk) 00:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
|
proposal considered and rejected |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The newest threat: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/10/obama.threat/index.html There should be a section for this and other threats mentioned in the cnn article. Pikacsu ( talk) 15:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Pikacsu, please stop creating sections on this talk page about recent trivial events. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper that should scoop every minor event, innuendo, rumor, or fringe theory and write about it the same day it happens. You have a single purpose account and have created such sections repeatedly, most of which have been deleted or ignored. You have been warned about this several times on your talk page, and it's getting very tiresome. So I raise the issue here for everyone to see because apparently you ignored the messages on your talk page. Please don't continue to create new sections on this page that are not legitimate issues worthy of an encyclopedia. Ward3001 ( talk) 15:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
|
did not lead to viable proposal for article content |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Is it public? Or they hide it, because it's too low, or for another reason? I think that we should know it... And this is an inportant data for the bio Pikacsu ( talk) 19:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
|
For full disclosure, I have opened a discussion about Pikacsu in relation to this article's probation at WP:ANI#Pikacsu. Bigbluefish ( talk) 20:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have any idea what's wrong with reference #181? Bigbluefish ( talk) 22:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I have opened an ANI discussion and an seeking community input. [8]. Die4Dixie ( talk) 22:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
We need a reliable source to back this up. These guys cite Washington Times which is "ok", but I'd like to see a more respected source. Anyone else hear about this: ( read article here). 216.153.214.89 ( talk) 04:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I am asking for help in verifying the refered to "error" by Obama. I am not suggesting we use American Thinker, nor even Washington Times as our source. However, AT refers to and links to WT which asserts this error. WT is "almost" acceptable to me as a source, but I want a better one. Anyone with Lexis-Nexis access or perhaps anyone find a better web source? 216.153.214.89 ( talk) 06:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
←IN any event, I question whether this matter would be notable enough for this main biography of Obama - perhaps there could be a place for it in the Presidency of Barack Obama article, but that depends on the kind of sourcing found and the relative weight compared to the rest of the piece. Tvoz/ talk 09:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I am dismayed that Wikipedia editors have allowed 1) to indicate that Obama is a Muslim and 2) they have locked the page, so it cannot be corrected!
Obama has declared publicly and in many occasions that he is Christian and not a Muslim. Colin Powell confirmed this in his endorsement as well.
Please correct this obvious mistake ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faweekee ( talk • contribs) 22:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
This article is under the "Big O" disambiguation page? Really? I mean....really? I have never heard any source whatsoever call Obama the "Big O."-- Ryudo ( talk) 10:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
WHY? Both "Barack" and "Obama" redirects to this article directly. So both surname and even the first name! Just a quick try shows that this isn't true for the last president: "George" or "Bush" doesn't redirects to George W. Bush rocks Can somebody give me a clue? I would redirect them to the disambiguation page. Pikacsu ( talk) 23:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
So we've got community organizer, lawyer, and author... How about President? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.111.183.10 ( talk) 18:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
After 2 years at Occidental, Barack transferred to Columbia College in Chicago, not Columbia University in New York. [10] JackMacy ( talk) 21:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Why is his picture not centered? His face is off to the right, why is this? Do we not have a better one lol? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felliph3 ( talk • contribs) 01:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
this is not a forum for general griping about politics or about what's wrong with Wikipedia. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Wikidemon ( talk) 02:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
|
Nothing meaningful - fringey BLP issues. Nothing constructive coming. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Quod scripsi, scripsi. If you do´not like the comments, do not look at them. I do not know what you are talking about or where "proofing" came from. In fact, to whom are you directing your comments and what the hell are you talking about? Die4Dixie ( talk) 03:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I rather imagine my Latin is good enough to read the Vulgate. Anyone can put that shit anywhere. The comment was under it. Maybe you should brush up on your own Latin. I may be a redneck, but a redneck with a classical education. Die4Dixie ( talk) 04:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Just a note: any irregularities about the election belong in the election article, not the biography. This whole "ACORN stole the election" gripe is a re-hashing of the "Bush stole Florida" arguments from a conservative/Republican perspective, but with a lot less traction and a hell of a lot more unbelievable. For one, the "ACORN is evil" meme was pretty much started by McCain playing party politics (which was regrettable; McCain is normally a decent human being). Secondly, it's arguable that the ACORN additions and the electoral roll removals pretty much cancelled out. Finally, Obama won the popular vote by nine and a half million votes. It's just impossible for an organisation like ACORN, even if every single member was corruptively Democratic, to pull off something like that. Sceptre ( talk) 04:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. This is why I suggested reliable sources and the appropriate arcticle. Die4Dixie ( talk) 04:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
This section will bring nothing productive to this talk page, and I'm closing it accordingly. Reopening it can be considered in violation of this article's probation and can result in actions described there. Grsz 11 05:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC) |
Shouldn't the summary mention briefly that he inherited the subprime crisis and has worked to pass the stimulus bill through congress? Agree or disagree, it's likely to be one of the earliest defining actions of his presidency. Could wait until Tuesday until it becomes law, but it definitely should be mentioned IMO. - 137.222.114.243 ( talk) 19:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
In the caption for File:Five_Presidents_2009.jpg, it says "Presidents...[list of the 5]." My issue is that at the time of the photograph (January 7, as currently noted in the caption), Obama was not yet president. I think we should note it by saying something like "then president-elect Barack Obama (since inaugurated)" to have accuracy in the caption. It might not be the clearest wording, but something along those lines. Mahalo. -- Ali'i 15:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Brevity in captions is far more important than long digressions into pedantic correctness. LotLE× talk 21:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Considering what you see when you Google Barack presently (2009-02-17 ~5:35 PM GMT), I would suggest fully locking the article to prevent further highly public vandalism. Apeiron ( talk) 17:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
This is precisely why I've always argued in favor of permanent or extremely long term semiprotection of this and all of the Obama subarticles (not full), and it brings into focus why something like flagged revisions makes sense. "Anyone can edit", unfortunately, too often means any asshole can edit. And we have a responsibility, I think, to prevent crap like that from representing the hard work that constructive editors do, at the high rate of pay we receive for our efforts. Tvoz/ talk 02:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Not many people know that semi-protecton was implemented for the Bush article, back when Bush was in office. No protection would let in "idiot" vandalism, full protection would lock a lot of people out. This should be kept semi-protected for the same reason. Sceptre ( talk) 04:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a perfect example of why every page on Wikipedia should, also, be set NOCACHE for all search engines. rootology ( C)( T) 05:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
See here for a fairly incomprehensible (to me, anyway) explanation - and now to fix any affected page. Tvoz/ talk 07:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
It's all fixed now. rootology ( C)( T) 07:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)