Misplaced Pages

Talk:Barack Obama: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:37, 20 February 2009 editDoulos Christos (talk | contribs)Rollbackers12,943 editsm Reverted edits by 68.41.246.248 to last revision by Dylan620 (HG)← Previous edit Revision as of 02:37, 20 February 2009 edit undo68.41.246.248 (talk) ←Replaced content with '== Barrack is a Racist and Hates White People == Our beloved President is trying to create a new Africa and our white brothers need to rise up. Democrats facin…'Next edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
== Barrack is a Racist and Hates White People ==
{{pp-move-indef}}
<!--Archive bots-->{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Barack Obama/Archive index
|mask=Talk:Barack Obama/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes
}}{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 51
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = Talk:Barack Obama/Archive %(counter)d
}}<!--End of archive bots-->{{skiptotoctalk}}<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THIS TAG. SMALLER SCREEN LAPTOPS NEED IT TO NAVIGATE.-->
{{talkheader}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=FAC
|action1date=12 August 2004
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Barack Obama
|action1result=Promoted
|action1oldid=5174535


Our beloved President is trying to create a new Africa and our white brothers need to rise up. Democrats facing corruption charges and we have a President who wants to shut down Gitmo and leave us vulnerable to a new September 11th. Under Obama's rule, we'll be attacked by even more terrorists.
|action2=WPR
|action2date=18 August 2004
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/August 18, 2004
|action2result=Maindate
|action2oldid=5294576


BARRACK AND HIS ADMINISTRATION IS A RACIST AND HE HATES WHITE PEOPLE.
|action3=FAR
|action3date=09:53, 23 January 2007
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive1
|action3result=pass
|action3oldid=102622704

|action4=FAR
|action4date=22:24, July 26, 2007
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive2
|action4result=pass
|action4oldid=147098144

|action5=FAR
|action5date=06:08, 15 April 2008
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive3
|action5result=kept
|action5oldid=205714008

|action6=FAR
|action6date=12:56, 16 September 2008
|action6link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive4
|action6result=kept
|action6oldid=239534110

|action7=WPR
|action7date=4 November 2008
|action7link=Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/November 4, 2008
|action7result=Maindate
|action7oldid=249529065

|action8=FAR
|action8date=17:30, 2 December 2008
|action8link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive5
|action8result=kept
|action8oldid=255411914

|maindate=November 4, 2008
|itndate=November 5, 2008
|currentstatus=FA
}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=yes}}
{{WPBS|blp=yes|collapsed=yes|
{{WikiProject Barack Obama|class=FA|importance=Top|nested=yes}}
{{WPBiography|class=FA|priority=top|politician-work-group=yes|listas=Obama, Barack|living=yes|nested=yes}}
{{USP-Article|class=FA|importance=Mid|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject United States presidential elections|class=FA|importance=Top|nested=yes}}
{{Project Congress|class=FA|subject=person|importance=High|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Illinois|class=FA|importance=Top|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Hawaii|class=FA|importance=Mid|nested=yes}}
{{ChicagoWikiProject|class=FA|importance=top|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Columbia University|class=FA|importance=high|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Indonesia|nested=yes|class=FA|importance=mid}}
{{AfricaProject|class=FA|importance=low|nested=yes|Kenya=yes|Kenya-importance=low}}
{{Project afro|class=FA|importance=mid|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProjectPolitics|importance=Top|class=FA|nested=yes}}
{{Talk Spoken Misplaced Pages|class=FA|Barack_Obama_1-31-2007.ogg|nested=yes}}
{{WPCD-People|class=FA|nested=yes}}
}}
{{Community article probation|main page=Barack Obama|BASEPAGENAME=Barack Obama|] for full information and to review the decision.}}
{{pressmulti|collapsed=yes
| title = On Misplaced Pages, Debating 2008 Hopefuls' Every Facet
| author = Jose Antonio Vargas
| date = 2007-09-17
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601699.html
| org = The Washington Post
| section = September
| title2 = 'Round the Clock: Obama, Clinton Wiki-Warfare
| author2 = ], Rachel Martin
| date2 = 2008-04-03
| url2 = http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89333759&sc=emaf
| org2 = ], NPR
| title3 = Editors in Chief
| author3 = ], ]
| date3 = 2008-04-04
| url3 = http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2008/04/04/02
| org3 = ], NPR
| title4 = Wiki Woman
| author4 = Eve Fairbanks
| date4 = 2008-04-09
| url4 = http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=4f0c6aa3-3028-4ca4-a3b9-a053716ee53d&p=1
| org4 = The New Republic
| section4 = March
| title5= Hillary's Wiki Defender
| author5 = Jesse Brown
| date5= 2008-04-10
| url5=http://www.cbc.ca/searchengine/blog/2008/04/this_weeks_show_april_1008.html
| org5= ], ]
| title6= Misplaced Pages Wars
| author6 = ]
| date6= 2008-04-12
| url6= http://www.charter.net/video/?vendid=35&vid=142269
| org6= ], ]
| title7= Liberal Web
| author7 = ]
| date7= 2008-04-21
| url7=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_7_60/ai_n25474310/print?tag=artBody;col1
| org7= ]
| section7=April 2008
| title8= Clinton's entry in Misplaced Pages has a watchdog
| author8 = Kelly Heyboer
| date8= 2008-05-28
| url8=<!--http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-13/1211949334324290.xml&coll=1--> http://blog.nj.com/digitallife/2008/05/hillary_clintons_wikipedia_wat.html
| org8= ]
| title9=one of two pieces aired
| author9 = Paul Murnane
| date9= 2008-05-28
| url9=http://www.wcbs880.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=2400703
| org9= ]
| title10= Updating a Reference Site on the Fly
| author10= Noam Cohen
| date10= 2008-11-09
| url10= http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/technology/internet/10link.html
| org10= ]
| title11= Obama Misplaced Pages page under possible security attack
| author11= Adrian Bridgwater
| date11= January 22, 2009
| url11= http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,1000000567,10011960o-2000458459b,00.htm
| org11= ]
}}
{{Round In Circles}}
{{tmbox
| text = <inputbox>
bgcolor=transparent
type=fulltext
prefix=Talk:Barack Obama
break=yes
width=60
searchbuttonlabel=Search Barack Obama talk archives
</inputbox>
}}
{{Talk:Barack Obama/topics}}
{{archivebox|auto=yes|
; Special discussion pages:
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barack}}
{{TOClimit|limit=4}} <!-- PLEASE LEAVE THIS AS LIMIT=4; 2 IS TOO SMALL -->
<!-- please add new sections to the bottom -->

== Redundant discussions ==

In case anyone is wondering if they have an original comment about one of the frequently-discussed issues for this article, here is a list of '''discussions at length''' which have taken place just in the past couple of months.

'''Race'''
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]

'''Religion'''
*]
*]

'''Citizenship'''
*]
*]
*]
*]

'''Full name'''
*]
*]

Give this some consideration before deciding to start another one. ] (]) 14:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Please skim this page first (and ideally the FAQ) before starting a new discussion on the "president elect" designation, or Obama's race/ethnicity. You'll probably find there's already a section there where you can add your comments. Thanks, ] (]) 00:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

== Disambiguation ==

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."--] (]) 10:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
:Thanks for spotting that. Someone must have just been having some fun on the disambiguation page. I'll check it out and probably remove the link.] (]) 17:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

=== Multiple unexplained redirections to Barack Obama ===

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.
] (]) 23:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
:In the English language, "George" is an extremely common name, and "bush" is most often associated with plant-life, not the former Presidents. "Barack" and "Obama" on the other hand are almost universally associated with the current President. In cases like that, it makes sense to have them redirect to this article instead of disambiguation. --<font color="green">]</font>] 23:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
::Perhaps you should read ], but the short form is that in cases where there is a primary usage of a term where that term is not the name of the article, then a redirect is used. In the case of ], there was a discussion at ] about whether it should be a redirect or a dab page back in 2007 and it seems redirect won out there. There was also a discussion on ] about whether that article should be move to ] or remain a redirect here and it seems there was no consensus on moving ] over the redirect. As far as why ] and ] are not redirects to the article on ], I can think of a ] ] ] ] ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 23:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
:::I presume you were replying to Pikacsu, not me? --<font color="green">]</font>] 23:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
::::Actually both names are not very common. Redirects to this article seems to be OK. By the way, if you just type in '''Nixon''', it will take you to Richard Nixon's article, so there is precident for this particular redirect.--] (]) 00:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
::::And you are correct, GoodDamon.;) My comment was aimed at Pikacsu. :) --] <sup>]</sup> 00:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::Besides it saves having to type both names and/or learn to spell both names for that matter (n'yuk n'yuk)] (]) 07:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

== Obama recently mistated law regarding terror trial rights? ==

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: (). ] (]) 04:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
:No, blogs are never acceptable as ]. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 04:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
::In ], yes. In some very specialized cases with very specialized "blogs", they can be acceptable--but definitely not on a BLP. Another thing to be watchful of is to not blanket against "blog" formatted news--like ABC News does a lot of this now, along with CNN and the NY Times, or Politico, and those are OK. But this one, here? It's some random blog site that "anyone" could have put together. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 05:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
:::It seems to be a theme with Obama, but not quite notable enough just yet.--] (]) 05:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
:::: We're supposed to be discussing how to improve the article, not what we think of Obama's positions. Thanks. <strong>]</strong>/<small>]</small> 06:00, 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? ] (]) 06:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
:I just looked on Lexis-Nexis. There was only one thing that appeared to be related to this. It is from the Washington post, is an editorial, and does not provide details or explain precisely what errors he has supposedly made. Not very reliable if you ask me. ] (]) 07:18, 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 ] article, but that depends on the kind of sourcing found and the relative weight compared to the rest of the piece. <strong>]</strong>/<small>]</small> 09:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

== Obama is NOT a muslim, please read below ==

I am dismayed that Misplaced Pages 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. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Cool down. The article is locked because of high IP vandalism but it doesn't prevent registered users to add nonsense as one did here and was quickly reverted.--] (]) 23:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

== Obama's picture ==

Why is his picture not centered? His face is off to the right, why is this? Do we not have a better one lol? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:It's his official presidential photo, and it's free. Those are two excellent reasons to keep it in the infobox. It's probably not centered so the flag can be seen behind him. His official photo may be replaced some day, so then it can change. ] (]) 02:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

== Allegations of vote fraud ==
{{discussiontop}}
{{hat|this is ] for general griping about politics or about what's wrong with Misplaced Pages.}} '''] (]) 02:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
:The liberal bias reeks here, by no piece on this subject being seen herein. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Obama received $800,000 in contributions from ACORN, no? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::ACORN was found to have extreme irregularities in its voter registration process in hundreds of cases, all in favor of Obama, so it is a pertinent issue <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::I am not a pro editor and this is ''not'' a rant, just a topic posed for discussion and possible developing, fully within the rules, you bias liberals (and dinosaur Republicans) can stop your idiotic deleting twitches. Develop a proper article on this fully sourced or don't go away mad just go away if you can't do anything constructive!
::::ACORN had 400,000 forms that were rejected for various reasons, including duplications, incomplete forms, and fraudulent registrations:
::::ACORN-submitted registrations in San Diego County, California had a rejection rate of 17 percent for all errors, compared to less than five percent for voter drives by other organizations, according to county officials <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Readding my post which was removed by ]. Im sorry but it was a rant and you attacked editors by claiming they were "Stupid liberals". If you wish to see something mentioned or added to the article please state your case providing reliable sources and explain in a calm way why you think its inclusion is justified. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
:Im glad you made a change to your original post however in future please dont remove other editors posts and you should strike out your comments if you change your mind rather than simply remove previous made comments. Now on the issue of ACORN, if this was justified to be included anywhere it would not be on this article but on ]. Please look at that article and ask on there for something to be mentioned about ACORN if its not, hopefully in a more balanced way and without attacking people. Thanks ] (]) 12:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
::If you would now look, now that I had a chance to get it posted before having my talk section being deleted (in 3 minutes!) it is now sourced, linked above for you pro editors to do your buz, please and thank you. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::FYI User is deleting talk space without discussion and causing the contention, 4 already in one hour, "he" should be blocked. "He" initiated the bias by deleting talk. The issue has new information just comming out and that is why it is here now in present time. If you pro editors don't do an article "I" will and I'm certain it will be a long drawn out food fight. So, I think I'm trying to be nice, I even tried to be ballancing and comment on republicans as well... no?
::Now all the margins are trashed from restoring from copy! What a joke!
:You've forgotten the Jews and Bill Ayers helping out. But seriously, get your head out of your ass. ACORN didn't steal the election for Obama. And while we're on it, Bush ''did'' win Florida... by a small margin of votes. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 13:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

::What is a "dinosaur republican"?] (]) 21:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
::Nevermeind, I guess he meant "RHINOs", and got his parties confused.] (]) 21:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
{{hab}}
{{discussionbottom}}
{{hat|Nothing meaningful - ] ]. Nothing constructive coming.}}
:::All the pointless name calling aside, this story most certainly has legs and is certainly current, seeing how Obama and admins seem to have an overactive interest in gerrymandered votes like these ACORN votes, immigrant votes, seeing how it is big news of late that Obama and staff attempted to move the 2010 census under whitehouse control with little fanfair from Republicans or Dems At the very least this affair is a clear compound scandal of note in conflict of interest. ] (]) 01:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
::::Get some reliable sources and I promise I will help you add it to his Presidency page, but it is not needed here. Blogs do not qualify on that page either. Check out ] for some tips on what acceptable sourcing is.] (]) 02:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

*If there is a reliable source out there ''you can find it''. So instead of feeding what appears to be a troll go and search and proof the "others" wrong. Till then, just hold back and just ''work on it quietly''. Everything else seems like soap to me and this thread is ''closed'' if you didn't notice.--] (]) 03:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
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?] (]) 03:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

:If you don't like the comments don't reply to them. If you don't understand them don't reply either. And what part of "''Please do not modify it.''" and "''Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.''" don't you get? No, please don't tell me. Thanks. BTW, nice fake Latin :)) . Have a nice day, --] (]) 03:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I rather imagine my Latin is good enough to read the ]. 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.] (]) 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. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 04:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
:The two situations are barely comparable. Bush lost the popular vote and "won" the electoral vote - at least he prevailed in the election - by legal process through the intervention of the Supreme Court in the political process that in the view of many legal scholars seriously hurt the credibility of the Court. There are always people trying to tilt the balance of election through any means possible, but there was no credible allegation that Bush operatives "stole" the election in any literal way - both sides resorted to court challenges and Bush's side prevailed. The event is highly notable, sourceable, etc. By contrast, Obama won the most recent election in a near landslide. The claim here, which is not credible and seems to be a rehash of off-wiki partisan nonsense that is equal parts populist conspiracy theory and cynical propaganda, is that ACORN and Obama actually rigged the election. But Obama won in a near landslide. If even the nuttiest of the theories were true, he still would have won. There is no significant legal challenge, no major legal issue, and nothing at all to the story. The agitating here seems to be borderline trolling, a disgruntled IP editor claiming in at least two articles that Wikipdia is a liberal whitewash. These days, anytime I see a new thread in a BLP with words like "whitewash" or "hagiography" I tune out. Nothing good ever comes of such threads. ] (]) 04:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. This is why I suggested reliable sources and the appropriate arcticle.] (]) 04:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
:Indeed; ] seems to be useful here. Mind you, the lunatics are the most vocal; sadly, of the criticism of Obama we see, about ten percent is legitimate (such as dissent against the stimulus), while the other ninety is conservative butthurt (waah, ACORN! waah, birth certificate! waah, Bill Ayers! waah, Rev. Wright!) ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 04:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
: Sorry folks. I removed the wrong section. Sorry for the level of antagonism and lack of collegial tone on my part. I´ll be back tomorrow when I hope I will feel less contrary.] (]) 05:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


:Further Sourcing and text to that:
:Maricopa County Arizona is a microcosm, analogues to how the influx of illegal aliens is causing huge population increases raising serious questions about their nefarious, rising influence on our elections and the fairness, legality and constitutionality thereof as assessed by prime-time television CNN anchor Lou Dobbs upon his analysis of the latest census figures ramifications. This is the case because in Maricopa County, much like other counties in the United States population not citizenship determines voting districts. And there's clear evidence that both illegal and legal aliens are replacing long time residence and partisans are using people that can't vote as "filler people" to fill up the extra people needed to make up a given district along with the people that favor their political party. Such is particularly the case because the census figures don't distinguish the difference between legal and illegal aliens and most of the illegals are coming across the border from Mexico who is actively investing in and interfering in our electoral process, overwhelmingly in favor of Democrats

:Poles in Mexico indicate that the majority favored Obama and the election results showed clearly that such "minority" voters such as "Hispanic" and "African American" voters overwhelmingly voted for him and clearly won the election for Obama]

::I rarely point out spelling errors, but the implied image of Juan Stanley Garciaski is just too powerful to ignore. ] (]) 18:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

:Further, before anyone else makes any more "conspiratorial" accusations on conspired border breakdowns or Lou Dobbs and that this is just a populist hallucination, view it and weep, Vicente Fox the towering figure of power in Mexico himself advocating the North American Union (NAU):

:These herein set forth factual, historical occurrences and how such have been and continue to be used nefariously to gain unfair advantages in local and national elections evokes serious concerns upon the the quid pro quo between ACORN the very largest of all such organizations and Obama and how it relates to this situation and constitutes a serious and in his case continuing conflict of interest in voter fraud, considering his latest actions of usurping unconstitutional power over the census process.
:Further, ACORN is only one of these organizations involving themselves with this who mostly gerrymander for Democrats, another example of this would be the "]" that involves itself with this in Virginia and other states having similar aims of registering Democrats. Obama was involved with ACORN and was a principle therein and knew full well what ACORN was doing so this is clear and deliberate corruption for political gain and the volume of this corruption with all these "Voter Registration" groups, and the Democratic Party's continual activities to harass efforts to close the border thereto, and the large numbers of illegals involved certainly could have toppled and has toppled this election to Obama's favor. Note that ACORN is under FBI investigation for this voter fraud]

:(I am still sourcing, so please do not delete in minutes like my last post, however there is plenty enough sourcing for the time being to hold this article as is for discussion for now). ] (]) 18:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

::Um, you do know this is a biography on Obama and not ACORN? Plus, most of those sources fail ] as we do not accept blogs, youtube.come, and editorials as reliable sources. Unless there is some very ] and ] that pins Obama to some election victory, then it cannot go in this article. Maybe a slight mention in the presidential elections article, but not here. ] (]) 18:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Edit: Oh yea also I forgot to mention that the information cannot be ] nor can it be ] The very reliable sources has to explicitly say that "Barack Obama did this..." If the article does not say that and makes no mention that Obama committed electoral fraud, then it would be considered synthesis and original research to imply so. ] (]) 18:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

:::This discussion has already been closed multiple times, and is unlikely to lead to a change in article content. The only reason to keep it here at all instead of deleting it, as was done when the IP editor trolled elsewhere, is to preserve a record so people can read an explanation for why it is rejected. So please don't use this talk page as a ] for accumulating sources - you can use your user space, or your local computer for that. It's getting long and messy so I suggest leaving it open for a couple hours so anyone who wants can read it, then collapsing this along with the rest of the discussion. ] (]) 18:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

::::cc2po's position is sound. Misplaced Pages makes it very clear that in extraordinary cases as certainly exists here exceptions to its policy apply and this is a grand fraud committed by Obama as well as his admins including his media conspirators at the Bilderberg meeting he attended in Chantilly Virginia or other of his many associates, it goes directly to his personal character as his personal actions are involved therefor it is certainly current to this particular page: "Obama" biography. I have spent the last six hours searching sourcing on this and found several ''thousand'' sources virtually identical to the documentation that cc2po proffers, conversely I have found zero articles in the mainstream media that can be sourced here according to Misplaced Pages's "liberal" rules as asserted in the allegations at issue in the titling of this article. It is ''clear'' that the liberal bias is a fact both in the mainstream press and here. Headliner anchorman Dobbs is there speaking at length on it on his 7pm EST news broadcast saying ''exactly'' what cc2po wrote so I see no "synthesis" or original research on cc2po's part as he kept it almost to verbatim quotations and it is unlikely it is a fraud or Dobbs would be on it like flies on you know what along with CNN. Stop the bureaucratic liberal bias needling of the authors and deleting maliciously. Stop making excuses for this fraud Obama, there is no excuse for him. Further, why does a junior politician manage to make president? Ask yourselves that! Self-styled affirmative action by media and others clearly acting conspirators. If ever there was a conspiracy with evidence to prove it it is looking you right in the face here. I support a section herein on cc2po's contributions.] (]) 05:00, 17 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. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 05:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
{{hab}}

== occupation section of sidebar ==

So we've got community organizer, lawyer, and author... How about President? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Look right under his photo in the infobox. ] (]) 18:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

== Stimulus Presidency ==

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. -] (]) 19:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
::Maybe see the page dedicated to his presidency.] (]) 20:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Yes, mention of the passed stimulus is def. worthy of inclusion as it's the biggest thing he's passed in office. Not to mention that it's '''$800 billion'''.--] (]) 15:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
::::This would be the wrong article to talk about specific bills, unless they had some biographical relevance. -- ] (]) 15:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::Then let's do something about the rescindment of the Mexico City Policy, the closure of Guantanamo and the executive order on presidential records. Seriously, all of these things combine to define the type of president Obama has been so far, which is a defining part of his biography. As for the stimulus bill, it's huge. I would guess it will define his presidency at least half as much as the New Deal did FDR. If it's exceptionally successful or unsuccessful, make that more. My reluctance to get stuck into editing this section is that it's such a volatile area, but that shouldn't hold anyone back from keeping it current. The lack of mention of the stimulus bill is IMO currently a minor weight issue. ] (]) 17:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

== Columbia University Error ==

After 2 years at Occidental, Barack transferred to Columbia College in Chicago, not Columbia University in New York.
] (]) 21:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

:Okay, you made me look :(. The answer is no. Even your source doesn't say that. Sigh... ] (]) 23:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

::JackMacy is confusing ], a sub-school of ], New York (which is the school Obama DID go to) with the very different ], and independent school in Chicago. There are several other ]s out there, and Obama most certainly attended the one in New York. --].].] 04:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

== British citizenship ==

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

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

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

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

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

Suggested Text:

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

Suggested footnote:

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

see also http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html & http://en.wikipedia.org/British_Overseas_citizen

] (]) 07:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

:The factcheck.org link that you provide does back up the gist of what you say. But you'd be more persuasive if you eschewed announcements in '''BOLD CAPITALS'''. Next question: Is this little matter of sufficient noteworthiness to deserve a mention in this article? Perhaps this article should be limited to material publicized in the mainstream media. (By the I mean newspapers that present ''news'', not "Fox News", AM radio and so forth.) Has this been so publicized? If so, where? If not, what makes you think it's so important? ] (]) 07:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

::Pass. You've got to have a ] to be able to include this stuff in Wiki. All you have is a link to a website that admits the ''Rocky Mountain News'' writer was wrong and some ] on your part, neither of which is sufficient grounds for inclusion. ] (]) 07:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

:::The website doesn't "admit" the ''RMN'' writer was wrong, it ''says'' he was wrong. It then goes on to say what Natwebb says above, pretty much. Where's the OR? Of course there are ''other'' objections to Natwebb's proposal. ] (]) 08:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
::::He says "tomato", she says "round, fruitlike veggie". The simple fact is that the sole RS on the subject that has been produced by anyone is the since-retracted article from the RMN. If we had something from ABC, BBC, MSNBC, Fox News, etc. then we could consider. ] (]) 08:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::Uh, hello? The tomato is a fruit, so perhaps that wasn't the best rhetorical flourish. Here's what the ''RMN'' wrongly said: ''Holds both American and Kenyan (since 1963) citizenship.'' Here's one part of what the factcheck.org article says: ''at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.'' Factcheck.org, which is a highly regarded authority (to my mind, hugely more so than "Fox News"), is quite persuasive about this. And it's something close to this -- and not some discredited silliness about how Obama is British ''now'' -- that Natwebb wants to add. has an edit summary THAT'S ALL IN CAPS, which of course isn't the right way to win friends and influence people. But had an edit summary with a completely unjustified charge of ''tinfoil nuttery''. Let's cut the crap: the US has a small but energetic minority of far-right nutballs who are so utterly bankrupt of ideas that they'll seize on the most trivial ambiguity about Obama in order to hang a loony conspiracy on it; also, Natwebb's addition is compatible with their rubbish (just as his use of capitals fits their rhetorical style). However, Natwebb has been polite, his addition was sourced, and the mere fact that what he wrote is compatible with far-right idiocy goes no more to prove it is either far-right idiocy or "tinfoil nuttery" than my occasional appreciation of the convenience of (Hitler-dictated) autobahns goes to prove that I'm a Nazi. This doesn't mean that Natwebb's addition should stay; indeed, I think it should go, as not of demonstrable significance. Nevertheless, we should read, or at least spend several seconds glancing at, what it is that Natwebb asserts. ] (]) 08:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

::::::What I proposed was the simple statement of fact, much like the simple statement of fact in the William Henry Harrison article. I agree that the lead is probably not the place for it. Early life was suggested and I expect that it is a better place. I note also that this proposal seems to have resulted in revision (vandalism) of the William Henry Harrison article. Additionally the level of vigilance given to this article seems sufficient to avoid the slippery slope argument (unlike William Henry Harrison).--] (]) 04:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If there were a source that is more reliable and more to the point than those given, I think a brief mention of Obama's (possible) dual citizenship during his early life might be possible to include in "Early life". It's ''definitely'' not lead material or anything like that. But we need some sources that say this in clear, non-retracted, and factual manners... some ] about what "must be true" is no good. <font color="darkgreen">]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">]</font> 08:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

:Factcheck.org says it, right . (Please keep reading that page ''beyond'' the start, in which it debunks the sloppy newspaper article.) Never heard of factcheck.org? 's Timothy Garton Ash praising it in the ''Guardian'', and 's an approving citation of it by none other than Dick Cheney. (Well, that's the kiss of death for sure.) NB I'd like to see it stated somewhere else, and I'm not sure that it's all that important. ] (]) 09:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
::All very (slightly?) interesting trivia, worth perhaps 1/2 a sentence in a chronological account of the circumstances of his birth and childhood, if such can be integrated in a way that enlightens rather than distracts form a telling of the life story.] (]) 10:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

::There are very few if any very reliable sources (I.E. ABC, CNN, NBC, AP, New York Times, Washington <s>Times</s> Post, etc) that mention his possible dual citizenship. The argument to include this boils down to this: we must include it so that people know that he had a dual citizenship. Boiled down even further and the true motives behind trying to include this is to enable those claiming the ] is real. One thing that must remembered is that if something like this is included, then some person doing research, who is a little bit lazy, will come to this article and look at the information presented, then say that it is fact. Then we will start to see this in various places including news articles, editorials, etc because they saw it in Misplaced Pages. That is why we need at least a couple very reliable sources to back up the information before we even present it in the article. Just because it seems to you to be important, interesting, or recent, is not a good justification to include it into the article. ] (]) 10:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

:::''Washington Times'' a reliable source? Whew! You say: ''Boiled down even further and the true motives behind trying to include this is to enable those claiming the ] is real.'' Maybe, maybe not -- either way, aren't we supposed to "AGF"? (Sure, my good-faith-assumption gland shrivels in the face of '''BOLD CAPS''', but I try to be open minded. Yes, all right, "Obama was very briefly British too" is compatible with the obsessions of nutballs. But if you remove from Misplaced Pages everything that happens to be compatible with nutball obsessions, you remove some facts and material of value. However, I think you're right in one way: let's wait till this momentous fact (???) makes it to more news sources worth attending to (''Die Zeit, Le Monde, NYT, Guardian, Washington Post'', Reuter) before adding it to this article. ] (]) 11:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

:Indeed - consider that the article is almost entirely sourced by references that deal with Obama biographically - that is, they assert some sort of notability to the facts even if implicitly. The source here very much approaches the subject from the perspective of slightly facetious trivia. ] (]) 22:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

::Agree with Tarc. this is the chipping away - if included, it will soon be followed by some whacked out 'you can't have had two citizenships and still be president' jazz, which is totally nonsensical in the face of the first dozen or so presidents, born before the start of the nation. This is the same racist right wing nonsense attacks we see all over the fringes of the net, and should be summarily rejected. Regrettably, we will spend the next 4 or 8 years dealing with this, as some people can't accept that a non-white person is president, or that he might actually succeed at fixing the economy. The rancor from the right is expansive, and will only grow over the next 4 years. ] (]) 00:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

:::Well, I share all yall's suspicion that the British thing is bogus, but we do decide things by reliable sources around here and not slippery slope arguments. To date I haven't taken any of this seriously enough to look at in detail but I suspect the honest sourceable truth ''may'' be that Obama originally had dual Kenyan citizenship or an opportunity for the same but chose by his actions to be solely a US citizen, which became irreversible at some point. If that's true and ends up being sourced to and not contradicted by plentiful major sources of the type we can accept around here (say neutral books about him, newspapers, whitehouse.gov, etc) then sure, it's worth a parenthetical or half a sentence in a chronological account of his life, something like "Born on xxxx in Hawaii to a Kenyan father and American mother, Obama was initially eligible for dual Kenyan citizenship but chose only to..." (totally made up - just laying out the kind of language that would be neutral, fair, and non-sensationalistic if true and sourced). Just from the look of things, one's citizenship trajectory even if a technical matter is of some nontrivial importance in one's biography. On the other hand any synthesis or digression into constitutional matters and eligibility for the Presidency belongs if anywhere on some article far removed from this one. If nobody seriously challenges his legitimacy (the conspiracy theorists so far do not count as serious, and it would be hard to imagine anyone will be serious) then all that stuff is trivia. Not a slippery slope, more like a gaping precipice of common sense and reason, with a cliff's rlim that's pretty clearly delineated. ] (]) 00:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

::::I had the same initial thought, right down to a similar premise for inclusion in a similar construction, but ultimately, without context to how it affected and shaped his thought processes, personality, and politics, it's just a wedge. IF such material can be found, then, and only then, could I accept inclusion, in the quiet manner you suggest. On its own, however, it's inflammatory material placed without context to create alarmist 'traitor president' nonsense. ] (]) 00:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

:::::There seems an extraordinary willingness to see far-right nutballs at work here, and to do the reverse of "AGF". It's analogy time. Can we accept for a moment that Obama's middle name is Hussein? No doubt the Limbaugh-listening demographic likes to use this fact to suggest that Obama is Muslim, that Obama is going to bring on the Caliphate, that Obama is the antichrist, or I don't know what. But the compatibility of this fact with nutball delusions doesn't make it untrue or (in the minds of moderately educated and open-minded people) even make it unfortunate. And now, back to the matter, or non-issue, of childhood nationality. An article in factcheck.org asserts that, while Obama has always been a US citizen, he long ago also had one or other of two other nationalities. I have several reactions to this, among them: (i) "Oh, that's (very mildly) interesting, if true." (ii) "Hang on, this is the kind of thing that sells US newspapers. Why isn't it there as well?" And so I'm in no hurry to add it. On the other hand, I warmly suggest that people here don't assume that a fact (if it gets more evidence of being factual) is ''inflammatory material placed to create alarmist 'traitor president' nonsense'': of course some morons will take it that way, but the mere fact that Obama is neither "white" nor a crony capitalist is probably enough to set them off without this additional titillating tidbit. Misplaced Pages articles should not be dumbed down in an attempt to avoid any risk of inflaming fools. As for the call for ''context to how affected and shaped his thought processes, personality, and politics'', this is quite unreasonable, as you must surely know; it's also utterly unlike the way in which Misplaced Pages works: consider ], which is an article that's sure to be policed; yet after a paragraph about the Hungarian half of Sarko's family tree, and a Hungarian half of a graphic representation of this tree, the article says ''Sarkozy's father Paul did not teach him or his brothers Hungarian. There is no evidence suggesting that there was an attempt to educate the Sarkozy siblings about their paternal ethnic background.'' ] (]) 08:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

← I'm with Tarc and Thuran on this. I find it hard to see this as anything other than an attempt to back-door bogus citizenship questions. In addition, this factoid has not been shown to have any relevance to the man's life and career, which is what this biography covers. We make decisions all the time about what goes in here or not - and I mean valid, verifiable, well-sourced points of interest - because of space and weight concerns, and we have left out many items from this biography for those reasons. This is trivia, and unless some relevance can be attached to how it affected his life, his thinking, his educational and career decisions, etc., and unless we have good sourcing for it, it doesn;t belong here. We don't even have a source that verifies that he even knew about this at his 21st birthday or any time later until perhaps the recent intense interest in his birthright. For example, does he talk in his memoir about deciding not to affirm Kenyan citizenship? Has he acknowledged this anywhere? Did it have any impact on his life whatsoever? <strong>]</strong>/<small>]</small> 10:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
:And by the way - my reading of the factcheck piece is that it itself is what we would classify as synthesis - they don't quote sources that confirm Obama's actions, inactions, decisions, or knowledge of any of this - they take the facts about Kenyan law and make an assumption about Obama's status. That's not the kind of sourcing we would accept even if we wanted to include this. <strong>]</strong>/<small>]</small> 10:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
::Just a quick point of order: We can accept the syntheses of reliable third party sources, and do on almost every article on the project. We are only perscribed from making those syntheses ourselves, instead relying on reliable 3rd party sources to make them for us. That said, I have no opinion on this. Possible backdoor arguments have no place in countering properly reliably sourced material. The true argument seems to be ], which is not a valid argument for non inclusion either.] (]) 10:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
:::To add onto D4D's comment, this is also a ] argument. No reliable sources mentions his dual citizenship if he truely had one. To garner any such information from other sources would be ] and ]. ] (]) 10:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
::::This is an angle of the situation that I had not thought of. Perhaps we need to ammend the Harrison article to reflect this information. It is odd though to pick and choose sources to suit the POV. I wouldn't say that being born with dual citizenship would disqualify Obama, if the other articles on other presidents talk about it, then it should be added here.--] (]) 17:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

:ThuranX wrote: '' context to how it affected and shaped his thought processes, personality, and politics could I accept inclusion.'' I pointed out that such a stringent requirement is cruel and unusual, and showed how it's not observed--not just unobserved in this or that junky article but instead unobserved in the vigorously edited and carefully watched article on Sarkozy. So I thought I'd demolished that argument. But no, Tvoz followed up my comment with ''unless some relevance can be attached to how it affected his life, his thinking, his educational and career decisions, etc., it doesn;t belong here.'' I'm perfectly willing to have my argument shown to be defective or wrong, but I sense that I am instead attempting in vain to argue with people who have already made their minds up. ] (]) 08:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

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

:This kind of analysis is unnecessary. For a start, as I understand it US law doesn't allow you to be recognised as a British citizen (except under the age of 21?). So the UK diplomatic status would be relevant anyway. But this is about the article, and there is no reliable source for anything about this subject so let it lie. ] (]) 19:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
::I agree, Wait until there is a reliable source.--] (]) 19:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
::: see ] and ]. The footnote I proposed makes it clear that this British citizenship was short-lived (as was that of William Henry Harrison) and I do not suggest it is an impediment to his presidency. What could be more reliable a source than reference to the laws of Great Britain on the subject? Frankly, as I composed the footnote it began much longer and was shortened as a three paragraph footnote seemed too much. It can also be footnoted to the text of the referenced British law: http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm and http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1965.htm (European Nationality law finder at http://uniset.ca/). I have kept this non-partisan and hope others can too. --] (]) 04:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

:DN's kind of analysis isn't merely unnecessary, it doesn't even merit the term "analysis". First DN seems to concede that Obama briefly was regarded by the British as a British citizen. Then DN suggests something very bizarre about US citizenship. I suggest that the US recognizes Obama has a natural born citizen because he qualifies as a natural born citizen, and not at all because the US doesn't abide by British law. Then DN says that "he was born an American", a fact that nobody here has questioned and also one that's irrelevant to whether he was ever additionally British. Look, if Y is a nation, the question of whether person X has Y nationality is a matter for Y to decide, and not for X, let alone for nation Z. If the British briefly regarded him as British (as has been asserted), then he was British. If it can be shown that he was British (and I'm not certain that it has), then we have an additional fact t consider. All sorts of facts about Obama are too trivial to go in the article, and it's arguable that a fact such as this (if it is indeed a fact) is trivial too. ''There is no reliable source for anything about this subject'' says Bigbluefish. ''I agree'' says Jojhutton. There ''is'' a reliable source, and it's called factcheck.org. Whether factcheck.org is adequate as a ''single'' reliable source for an assertion, if true, one would expect to find in other reliable sources--now ''that'' is a good question. ] (]) 08:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

== Photo caption issue ==

In the caption for ], it says "Presidents...." 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. --] 15:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

:It is his official presidential portrait, that's what the government says. The photo is in all government offices across the country. --] (]) 18:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

::No, no no... the picture in the ] section. Not the official portrait. Someone else? Mahalo. --] 18:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

:::I changed it to paraphrase the image description found over at the Commmons, where it notes the electoral state of both Bush and Obama at the time it was taken. ] (]) 18:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Brevity in captions is far more important than long digressions into pedantic correctness. <font color="darkgreen">]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">]</font> 21:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
:But I'd wager accuracy in an encyclopedia article (especially where it can be verified) trumps saving a few words. ;-) --] 22:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
::Yes. Captions are special (along with infobox fields). Verbiage that can be placed into main body often should be. <font color="darkgreen">]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">]</font> 22:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
:::If you want to edit it down, no one is preventing you. I just changed it so it would reflect, y'know, the facts. Relax. ] (]) 01:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

== Fully lock this article, please. ==

Considering what you see when you Barack presently (2009-02-17 ~5:35 PM GMT), I would suggest fully locking the article to prevent further highly public vandalism. ] (]) 17:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
:I don't see what Google has to do with this article. Why lock it? Be more specific please.--] (]) 18:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
::Likely referring to the fact that that Google search is unfortunately reflecting the state of the article upon , which was only up for 2 minutes. It is a stupidity of Google's web page caching, not much we can do about it here. ] (]) 18:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Locking the article will not fix that. Only time will fix it. Periodically the Google search bot moves around the net scanning page after page to use in the search. This bot will sooner or later come back to scan the article again. Locking the article will not fix what is being shown in the Google search. Instead the best solution is to continue to monitor for vandalism and hope that the Google search bot scans a good copy and not one that has been vandalized. ] (]) 18:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
::::I wonder if that was on purpose, or just luck on the part of the vandal. Is it possible to predict or influence the timing of the google spider?] (]) 19:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::Agreed, it was just the timing of the search and the vandalism.--] (]) 19:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::Well, wait a minute, as Wikidemon implies, intentional vandalism timing can lock the vandalism into Google searches for a relatively long time. I'd expect smart vandals to start adopting this technique. ] (]) 04:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
::::Looking back at the article history, the page has been in a state of blanked vandalism for between 5 and 9 minutes in the last month. This means there's a maximum 0.2% chance of getting a vandalised page at any one time. The same applies to Google, except the sample is more granular. If this search result lasts on search results for two days, the next expected occurrence would be in about 27 years. Or if Google updated their refresh rate to 1 per hour, it would be a year until the next one - and it would only affect an hour's worth of searches. Considering Misplaced Pages's vulnerability to vandalism is well known, it's far more valuable to have a consistently good quality article maintained by a substantial pool of registered users. ] (]) 19:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

: We've notified the Google search team about this and they've purged the cache for the page, but unfortunately it will take a while longer for the change to propagate.--]] 19:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

::Thanks for being on this, Erik. Bad PR of the political sort is not what we need right now. ]] 23:58, 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. <strong>]</strong>/<small>]</small> 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. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 04:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of why every page on Misplaced Pages should, also, be set NOCACHE for all search engines. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 05:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
:Actually, in light of what happened to our #1 most visible BLP here, I've written ]. Please weigh in there. If ''this'' BLP article ain't safe, none of them are. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 07:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

== Archive glitch ==

{{resolved}}
:What happened to the Archive pages at the top, they are all zeros??--] (]) 05:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
::The archives are back to normal, does anyone know what happened? --] (]) 06:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

:::::I had a couple of notices that said "Server is having problems" during that time period
:::::--] (]) 07:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

See for a fairly incomprehensible (to me, anyway) explanation - and now to fix any affected page. <strong>]</strong>/<small>]</small> 07:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's all fixed now. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 07:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

== Free media relevant to Obama and stimulus plan ==

I just took a look at and it appears that all content on the site - even the content produced by third-party vendors - is either public domain or CC-BY. In particular there's a high-quality video on the front page that would be a great demonstration of Obama's oratory style. Might be other media to dig out of there too, for this article and for the ] article. ] 01:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
:It's nothing new; a good proportion of our free content is PD-USGov. I'll take a look, to see if there's anything juicy. Maybe Obama's first weekly address? ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 01:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
::Which, incidentally, turns out to be about the stimulus. Awesome. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 02:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
:::] kindly converted Obama's first weekly address to Misplaced Pages format. The image can be found ]. Now, the question is: where to put it? ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 02:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
::::Awesome. Off the top of my head, I'd say either ] or ]. I'm not sure if it should go in this article too - if so I'd either put it in the section on his presidency, or add a section about his addresses and add it there. ] 06:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::The inaugural address is also public domain, also in HD, if you want an example of his crowd-working style. ] (]) 15:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::Re Dcoetzee: part of this article, "Cultural and public image", talks about Obama's weekly addresses. Though I agree, it would also be suitable for the Presidency of... article. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 23:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

== LEAD ==

Why is the lead so short all of a sudden? An article of this size should have 4 bulky paragraphs. — ]] 22:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
:Agreed. It's not a good encapsulation of the article, per ]. ] (]) 01:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
::I was wondering this too and tracked it down to this edit, , which removed the third paragraph of the lead. I undid that edit, his explanation is that it would prevent further reoccuring debates but it seems to me it would be better to debate and change that paragraph than simply delete it, which made the lead far too short. ] says three to four paragraphs, so three well-written paragraphs could probably be enough, considering it would probabably cause a good deal of debate over what to include in a fourth paragraph if one was written. There's nothing wrong with a debate over that though. ] (]) 02:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

== President Obama ==

He is multiracial. His mother was caucasion. See NNDB for details.fjw75@yahoo.com <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Understood and agreed. This information is already included in the article. However, judging by the majority of sources we've seen and discussed here, history will record Obama as America's first African American president (or black president, depending on where you are) - not multiracial or biracial. Please see the FAQ at the top of this page for more information. <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 14:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:37, 20 February 2009

Barrack is a Racist and Hates White People

Our beloved President is trying to create a new Africa and our white brothers need to rise up. Democrats facing corruption charges and we have a President who wants to shut down Gitmo and leave us vulnerable to a new September 11th. Under Obama's rule, we'll be attacked by even more terrorists.

BARRACK AND HIS ADMINISTRATION IS A RACIST AND HE HATES WHITE PEOPLE.

Talk:Barack Obama: Difference between revisions Add topic