Talk:Barack Obama: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:07, 29 March 2009 editSoxwon (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers7,494 edits →Political Photo Bias: reverting rant← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 20:38, 8 January 2025 edit undoA. Randomdude0000 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users15,288 edits removing non-constructive comments per WP:NOTFORUM/WP:TALK
(1,000 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<!--

	============ARCHIVE BOTS============

	-->{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 150K
	\|counter = 56
	\|minthreadsleft = 5
	\|algo = old(5d)
	\|archive = Talk:Barack Obama/Archive %(counter)d
	}}
	{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
	\|target=Talk:Barack Obama/Archive index
	\|mask=Talk:Barack Obama/Archive <#>
	\|leading_zeros=0
	\|indexhere=yes
	}}
	{{pp-move-indef}}
	<!--

	============START OF VISIBLE TEMPLATES============

	-->
	{{purge\|page=Barack Obama\|1=Click to manually purge the article's cache}}
	{{Skip to talk}}		{{Skip to talk}}
			{{Talk header\|search=yes}}
	{{talkheader}}
			{{FAQ\|quickedit=no}}
	{{Round In Circles}}
			{{Article history\|action1=FAC
	{{ArticleHistory
	\|action1=FAC
	\|action1date=12 August 2004		\|action1date=12 August 2004
	\|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Barack Obama		\|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Barack Obama
Line 41:		Line 15:

	\|action3=FAR		\|action3=FAR
	\|action3date=09:53, 23 ~~January~~ 2007		\|action3date=09:53, 21 December 2007
	\|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/~~archive1~~		\|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive0
	\|action3result=pass		\|action3result=pass
	\|action3oldid=~~102622704~~		\|action3oldid=8658294

	\|action4=FAR		\|action4=FAR
	\|action4date=22:24, ~~July~~ ~~26,~~ 2007		\|action4date=09:53, 23 January 2007
	\|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/~~archive2~~		\|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive1
	\|action4result=pass		\|action4result=pass
	\|action4oldid=~~147098144~~		\|action4oldid=102622704

	\|action5=FAR		\|action5=FAR
	\|action5date=06:08, 15 ~~April~~ ~~2008~~		\|action5date=22:24, July 26, 2007
	\|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/~~archive3~~		\|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive2
	\|action5result=~~kept~~		\|action5result=pass
	\|action5oldid=~~205714008~~		\|action5oldid=147098144

	\|action6=FAR		\|action6=FAR
	\|action6date=12:56, 16 ~~September~~ 2008		\|action6date=06:08, 15 April 2008
	\|action6link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/~~archive4~~		\|action6link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive3
	\|action6result=kept		\|action6result=kept
	\|action6oldid=~~239534110~~		\|action6oldid=205714008

	\|action7=~~WPR~~		\|action7=FAR
	\|action7date=4 ~~November~~ 2008		\|action7date=12:56, 16 September 2008
	\|action7link=Misplaced Pages:~~Today's featured~~ article/~~November~~ ~~4, 2008~~		\|action7link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive4
	\|action7result=~~Maindate~~		\|action7result=kept
	\|action7oldid=~~249529065~~		\|action7oldid=238756853

	\|action8=~~FAR~~		\|action8=WPR
	\|action8date=~~17:30,~~ ~~2 December~~ 2008		\|action8date=4 November 2008
	\|action8link=Misplaced Pages:~~Featured~~ ~~article~~ ~~review~~/~~Barack~~ ~~Obama/archive5~~		\|action8link=Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/November 4, 2008
	\|action8result=~~kept~~		\|action8result=Maindate
	\|action8oldid=~~255411914~~		\|action8oldid=249658914

	\|action9=FAR		\|action9=FAR
	\|action9date=03:36, 10 ~~March~~ ~~2009~~		\|action9date=17:30, 2 December 2008
	\|action9link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/~~archive6~~		\|action9link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive5
	\|action9result=kept		\|action9result=kept
	\|action9oldid=~~276168026~~		\|action9oldid=255411914

			\|action10=FAR
	\|maindate=November 4, 2008
			\|action10date=03:36, 10 March 2009
	\|itndate=November 5, 2008
			\|action10link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive6
	\|currentstatus=FA
			\|action10result=kept
	}}
			\|action10oldid=276168026
	{{Community article probation\|main page=Barack Obama\|BASEPAGENAME=Barack Obama\|] for full information and to review the decision.}}
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|blp=yes\|collapsed=yes
	\|1={{WPBiography\|class=FA\|priority=top\|politician-work-group=yes\|listas=Obama, Barack\|living=yes\|nested=yes}}
	\|2={{USP-Article\|class=FA\|importance=Mid\|nested=yes}}
	\|3={{WikiProject United States presidential elections\|class=FA\|importance=Top\|nested=yes}}
	\|4={{WikiProject Barack Obama\|class=FA\|importance=Top}}
	\|5={{Project Congress\|class=FA\|subject=person\|importance=High\|nested=yes}}
	\|6={{WikiProject Illinois\|class=FA\|importance=Top\|nested=yes}}
	\|7={{WPHawaii\|class=FA\|importance=Mid\|nested=yes}}
	\|8={{ChicagoWikiProject\|class=FA\|importance=top\|nested=yes}}
	\|9={{WikiProject Columbia University\|class=FA\|importance=high\|nested=yes}}
	\|10={{WP Indonesia\|nested=yes\|class=FA\|importance=mid}}
	\|11={{AfricaProject\|class=FA\|importance=low\|nested=yes\|Kenya=yes\|Kenya-importance=low}}
	\|12={{Project afro\|class=FA\|importance=mid\|nested=yes}}
	\|13={{WikiProject Politics\|importance=Top\|class=FA\|nested=yes}}
	\|14={{Talk Spoken Misplaced Pages\|class=FA\|Barack_Obama_1-31-2007.ogg\|nested=yes}}
	\|15={{WPCD-People\|class=FA\|nested=yes}}
	}}
	{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barack}}
	{{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 = ]
	\| 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 = ], ]
	\| 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 = ]
	\| 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= 2008-04-11
	\| 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=NJ Man Appoints Himself Misplaced Pages Watchdog
	\| 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= ]
	\| title12= Misplaced Pages scrubs Obama eligibility
	\| author12= ]
	\| date12= March 8, 2009
	\| url12= http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114
	\| org12= ]
	\| title13= Obama's Misplaced Pages Page Distances President from Wright and Ayers
	\| author13= Joshua Rhett Miller
	\| date13= March 9, 2009
	\| url13= http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,507244,00.html
	\| org13= ]
	}}
	{{FAQ\|collapsed=no}}<!--Please leave the FAQ uncollapsed during media-triggered influx of newbies to avoid talk page floods. --slakr -->
	{{Auto archiving notice\|bot=MiszaBot I\|age=5\|small=yes}}
	{{archives\|auto=yes\|search=yes\|
	; Special discussion pages:
	* ], ]
	* ], ], ]
	}}
	{{pbneutral}}
	{{notaforum}}
	{{calm talk\|#FFCCCC}}

			\|action11=FAR
	== Redundant discussions ==
			\|action11date=23:34, 16 March 2010
			\|action11link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive7
			\|action11result=kept
			\|action11oldid=349918777

			\|action12=FAR
	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.
			\|action12date=12:32, 17 March 2010
			\|action12link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive8
			\|action12result=kept
			\|action12oldid=350447914

			\|action13=FAR
	'''Race'''
			\|action13date=12:32, 17 June 2012
	*]
			\|action13link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive9
	*]
			\|action13result=kept
	*]
			\|action13oldid=497955278
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]

			\|action14=FAR
	'''Religion'''
			\|action14date=20:51, 22 October 2012
	*]
			\|action14link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive10
	*]
			\|action14result=kept
			\|action14oldid=519144660

			\|action15 = FAR
	'''Citizenship'''
			\|action15date = 2021-12-04
	*]
			\|action15link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive11
	*]
			\|action15result = demoted
	*]
			\|action15oldid = 1058343247
	*]

			\|currentstatus=FFA
	'''Full name'''
			\|maindate=August 18, 2004
	*]
			\|maindate2=November 4, 2008
	*]
			\|itndate=November 5, 2008
			\|otd1date=November 5, 2013
			\|otd1oldid=579954170
			\|otd2date=November 4, 2016
			\|otd2oldid=747850418
			\|otd3date=2022-11-04\|otd3oldid=1119935935
			}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|collapsed=yes\|vital=yes\|listas=Obama, Barack\|1=
			{{WikiProject Barack Obama}}
			{{WikiProject Biography\|politician-work-group=yes\|politician-priority=top\|s&a-work-group=yes\|s&a-priority=top}}
			{{WikiProject United States\|importance=Top\|DC=yes\|DC-importance=High\|USGov=yes\|USGov-importance=Top\|USSL=yes\|USSL-importance=Low\|USPresidents=yes\|USPresidents-importance=Top\|USPE=yes\|USPE-importance=Top\|portal1-name=United States\|portal1-link=Selected biography/4\|portal2-name=Illinois\|portal2-link=Selected biography/1\|portal3-name=Chicago\|portal3-link=Selected biography/7\|portal4-name=Hawaii\|portal4-link=Selected biography/11}}
			{{WikiProject U.S. Congress\|importance=High\|subject=person}}
			{{WikiProject Politics\|importance=high\|American=y\|American-importance=Top}}
			{{WikiProject Hawaii\|importance=high}}
			{{WikiProject Illinois\|importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject Chicago\|importance=Top}}
			{{WikiProject New York (state)\|importance=Low\|Columbia=yes\|Columbia-importance=high}}
			{{WikiProject African diaspora\|importance=Mid}}
			{{WikiProject Africa\|importance=Mid\|Kenya=yes\|Kenya-importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject 2010s\|importance=Top}}
			{{WikiProject Law\|importance=Top}}
			\| blp=yes
			}}
			{{press
			\| collapsed=yes
			\| title = On Misplaced Pages, Debating 2008 Hopefuls' Every Facet \| author = ] \| date = September 17, 2007 \| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601699.html \| org = ]
			\| title2 = 'Round the Clock: Obama, Clinton Wiki-Warfare \| author2 = ], Rachel Martin \| date2 = April 3, 2008 \| url2 = http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89333759&sc=emaf \| org2 = ], ]
			\| title3 = Editors in Chief \| author3 = ], ] \| date3 = April 4, 2008 \| url3 = http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2008/04/04/02 \| org3 = ], NPR
			\| title4 = Wiki Woman \| author4 = Eve Fairbanks \| date4 = April 9, 2008 \| url4 = http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=4f0c6aa3-3028-4ca4-a3b9-a053716ee53d&p=1 \| org4 = ]
			\| title5 = Hillary's Wiki Defender \| author5 = Jesse Brown \| date5 = April 10, 2008 \| url5=http://www.cbc.ca/searchengine/blog/2008/04/this_weeks_show_april_1008.html \| org5 = ], ]
			\| title6 = Misplaced Pages Wars \| author6 = ] \| date6 = April 11, 2008 \| url6 = http://www.charter.net/video/?vendid=35&vid=142269 \| org6 = ], ]
			\| title7 = Liberal Web \| author7 = ] \| date7 = April 21, 2008 \| url7=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_7_60/ai_n25474310/print?tag=artBody;col1 \| org7 = ]
			\| title8 = Clinton's entry in Misplaced Pages has a watchdog \| author8 = Kelly Heyboer \| date8 = May 28, 2008 \| 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=NJ Man Appoints Himself Misplaced Pages Watchdog \| author9 = Paul Murnane \| date9 = May 28, 2008 \| 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 = November 9, 2008 \| 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/0,1000000567,1001960o-2000458459b,00.htm \| org11 = ]
			\| title12 = Misplaced Pages scrubs Obama eligibility \| author12 = ] \| date12 = March 8, 2009 \| url12 = http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114 \| org12 = ]
			\| title13 = Obama's Misplaced Pages Page Distances President from Wright and Ayers \| author13 = Joshua Rhett Miller \| date13 = March 9, 2009 \| url13 = http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,507244,00.html \| org13 = ]
			\| title14 = Barack Obama 'receives preferential treatment on Misplaced Pages', report claims \| author14 = Mark Coleman \| date14 = March 10, 2009 \| url14 = http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/wikipedia/4965132/Barack-Obama-receives-preferential-treatment-on-Misplaced Pages-report-claims.html \| org14 = ]
			\| title15 = Misplaced Pages May Be a Font of Facts, but It’s a Desert for Photos \| author15 = Noam Cohen \| date15 = July 19, 2009 \| url15 = http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/arts/20funny.html \| org15 = ]
			\| author16 = Staff \| date16 = August 17, 2009 \| url16 = http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6043534/The-50-most-viewed-Misplaced Pages-articles-in-2009-and-2008.html \| title16 = The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008 \| org16 = ]
			\| subject17 = article
			\| author17 =
			\| title17 = Misplaced Pages co-founder Larry Sanger says online encyclopedia scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics
			\| org17 = ]
			\| url17 = https://www.foxnews.com/media/wikipedia-co-founder-larry-sanger-says-online-dictionary-scrapped-neutrality-favors-lefty-politics
			\| date17 = 2020-05-21
			\| quote17 = The first example pointed out by the ] is that President Barack Obama’s page “completely fails to mention many well-known scandals” such as ], the ], the ] and the so-called ] operation.
			\| archiveurl17 =
			\| archivedate17 =
			\| accessdate17 = 2020-05-22
			}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 75K
			\|counter = 84
			\|minthreadsleft = 3
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
			\|algo = old(30d)
			\|archive = Talk:Barack Obama/Archive %(counter)d
			}}
			{{tmbox
			\| image = ]
			\| text = '''Bookmarks:'''
			{{Columns-start}}
			* ]
			* ]
			{{Column}}
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			{{Columns-end}}
			}}

			{{Banner holder\|collapsed=yes\|
	Give this some consideration before deciding to start another one. ] (]) 14:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
			{{All time pageviews\|155}}

			{{Top 25 Report\|Jan 20 2013\|Jul 24 2016\|Nov 6 2016\|Jan 15 2017\|Nov 1 2020\|Nov 8 2020}}
	Please skim this page first (and ideally the FAQ) before starting a new discussion about Obama's birthplace, citizenship, race/ethnicity, etc. You'll probably find there's already a section there where you can add your comments. Thanks, ] (]) 00:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
			{{Annual report\|], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]}}

			{{Annual readership}}
	'''If you want to read about where Obama was born''' and have concerns about it, read ] and in particular which is heavily utilized in the article.
			{{Section sizes}}
	:Where is the archive on Ayers? ] (]) 19:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
			}}
	::Should we select one from ?] 19:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
			{{pp-move-indef}}
	::Any of those should do. I do wonder why the Ayers topic is not included in the "Discussions". Admins getting censor happy?] (]) 02:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
			{{Spoken Misplaced Pages request\|Catfurball\|Important}}
	:::Did you miss the whole WND invasion? They spammed the page and we even got mentioned on Drudge and Fox News for having "whitewashed" the article. ] (]) 02:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
			__toc__

	::Where did the discussion on Teleprompters go? I don't believe that was finalized.] (]) 02:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	This recent creation was tagged as an attack page for speedy deletion, and I just deleted it. I just wanted to make sure we're clear ... well-sourced, balanced information about anyone, including Barack Obama, is and always has been welcome in Misplaced Pages, but pages which exist only to disparage their subject will be deleted on sight, no matter who the subject is, per our ]. As with any other deletion, anyone who disagrees is welcome to take the article to ]. - Dan ] (]) 20:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

	Yet there's a page for Criticisms of George W. Bush. If Wikipedians would not like to see this resource attacked as biased, then I suggest you STOP SHOWING OBVIOUS BIAS. ] (]) 18:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
	:And if new users want their opinions accepted, ] ] ]
	]. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 18:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

	:They were read, thoroughly. Assume good faith and allow an article to be brought up to snuff, instead of eliminating with hostility. Especially when it's an article type with precedence. One more time, if Wikipedians want to be seen as an unbiased source, then they need to BE one. Try assuming good faith instead of enforcing an obvious bias. ] (]) 21:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

	::I think the point trying to made here, is that there are policies that dictate what goes into the creation of an article. You acknowledge you've read them, but you don't seem to acknowledge their content or if you've met them. Accusing Misplaced Pages of bias isn't assuming good faith. A lack of criticism is not tantamount to bias. And inclusion of all criticism, however minor, isn't tantamount to balance. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	::Geez ppl, he's been President for 3 months, he hasn't even had a chance to screw up that bad yet...] (]) 18:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

	::Your concerns have been noted, and rejected. Time to move on, and to cease being disruptive. ] (]) 21:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
	:::I don't think ] is being disruptive. He is raising legitimate observations. Let's all try to play nice. ] (]) 21:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

	::::Demanding a criticism page for Barack Obama is ''most certainly'' disruptive, especially when the reason given is that some other politician has one. -- ] (]) 22:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
	:::::No, come on, old friend ;). I think the fact that there is a ] article assumes that these types of articles are acceptable. Now, we all know they are not, but that doesn't mean he is being disruptive for bringing it up. I suspect some of the same folks arguing ''against'' a ] article will be arguing ''for'' keeping the existing ] article. ] (]) 22:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

	::::::When there are notable criticisms about one, and only fringe theory criticisms about another, why wouldn't we argue that? —— ] (]) 22:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

	::::::(after ec) - No. Criticism articles are '''stupid''', regardless of how much of a complete douchebag the subject of an article is. Criticism should be carefully woven into regular prose at the appropriate place. In the case of Obama, for example, ''major'' criticisms should be in this BLP (although there currently aren't any), and minor criticisms should be in the relevant child articles. Bush has a criticism article because the people who created it are lazy, but that is not a matter for this group of articles. -- ] (]) 22:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

	:::::::(after ec) There are already valid criticisms of the president's policies, and him. But, they belong woven into the articles. ] (]) 22:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::I am not aware of any ''significant'' criticisms of the man or his presidency. Obviously there are a few minor criticisms, but nothing in the scale of thus far. -- ] (]) 22:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::::They already are "woven into the articles", such as ]. ] (]) 00:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::::Well, how about his "say one thing, do another" policy on ethics vis-a-vis lobbyists, or maybe the "I wish I could get a cabinet level secretary who actually ''paid'' taxes" matter, or "I can spend a trillion <s>billion</s> dollars and have the market crash further until there's nothing left" view of economics, all of which are already woven into the article, as ] recognizes. ] (]) 01:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Funny, but is sounds more like you're rattling off topic headers of WorldNetDaily's front page, rather than criticisms of your own. Point being, ] criticisms from ] do not make it into Misplaced Pages articles. Just because you read it on your favorite blog or internet forum, just because you read it on a lot of your favorite blogs and internet forums, that doesn't make it ] in the slightest. ] (]) 01:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Well, the funny part is your bias seems to make it impossible for you to crack the door open even a bit to other possibilities. I don't know if my observations are on WorldNetDaily's front page, as I don't read it. I do know that they are shared by many of us plain ole, not as smart as you, not as cultured as you, normal little people out here. Oh, and they happen to already be in this article, complete with cites to reliable sources. Oh, crap! How did that get past the "Protectors of the True Faith from the Cultural Agency" that thinks, "we're smarter than you because we don't adhere to fringe (aren't they all if they don't meet with your approval?) theories ?! ] (]) 02:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::"Many" ? No, they aren't. That's the essential point that evades you. ] (]) 02:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::Oops, I was referring to the 43 percent of the voting public that don't think the president is doing a, umm, how do you say, very good job. And, those "fringy" little people cite the three criticisms I noted above (as well as others) as support for their opinion. Well, I mean, it's ''only'' 43 percent. What's a 100 million or so voters to the crowd that knows better than the "unwashed masses"? ] (]) 02:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

	:::::::::::::::I think, if you have a valid point, then it could easily be made without resorting to sarcasm. You could start by letting us know where this number is that states 43% of Americans don't think he's doing a good job. What source are you getting it from? And if the criticisms you site are already in the article, I'm at a loss to know what you're asking for. —— ] (]) 05:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

	::::::::::::::::That figure that Newguy34 mentions may have come from the 16 March 2009 Rasmussen Reports Daily Presidential Tracking Poll which indicated approval ratings of 56% somewhat approve or higher, '''43%''' somewhat disapprove or lower. These same poll results show a strongly approve rating of 36% (down a bit since he took office) and a strongly disapprove rating of 32% (nearly tripled since he took office). And the target demographic for the poll was 41%-D/33%-R/26%-I, so it's not just counting knuckledraggers. ] (]) 06:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

	:I imagine there will be a place for an article such as ]. I don't like the title myself, preferring the plural form of "criticisms", but it's equivalent to what editors settled on for a title in the case of ], using "criticism" essentially as an ], ], ]. The Bush article has been nominated for deletion for a second time. If it does not survive the AfD the question about whether there should be an article on ] ought become moot, IMO. But the probability appears reasonably high that ] will survive its second AfD just as it did the first. Obama certainly is not beyond criticism from either the political left or the political right. Such an article will of course need to be consistent with WP:NPOV and other content policies rather than just an attack page. If there's enough material at this point in his presidency to start one, then someone should start it and let the arguments begin about what's fair game to include in such an article, as happened with the Bush equivalent. I imagine it will go through ] just as the Bush article did. But if it's started off with an NPOV tone and with reliable sources in support it seems to me it'll have a good chance at surviving. That said, I have no complaint about Dank55's deletion of the attack page that was started as a POV fork from this article. ... ] (]) 03:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

	::This is ''madness''. It makes '''no sense''' whatsoever to have articles about anyone or anything that contain only criticism. It is ''impossible'' for such an article to be neutral. Any Misplaced Pages article that has "criticism" in the title should be deleted. Frankly, the same should really apply to section headings. -- ] (]) 13:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

	:::Maybe so. But see, e.g., ], and ]. The entire history of nominations for deletion of that article can be seen at ], near the top of the page. Plainly the consensus is to keep such an article. Presently there's a discussion at that page whether to merge it into ]. ... ] (]) 15:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

	::::That is utterly irrelevant. As has been said ''many times before'', stuff that goes on at other articles has no bearing on what happens here. -- ] (]) 15:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
	::::: Actually, what goes on in other articles very much has bearing on what goes on in others. That's how you keep NPOV, which really seems to be an alien concept on Misplaced Pages when it involves political figures. Do you get it? A criticism article on one public figure throws open the validity of other public figures having similar articles. To act otherwise is to utterly fail NPOV. Disruptive is a horrible way to attempt to dismiss a call for proper NPOV. They are either allowed article types or they are not. To fail to assume good faith and delete a criticism article out of hand fails two of the major things Misplaced Pages is supposed to adhere to. This is not mob rule; not if you want to be taken seriously. If you feel the need to defend one President from having such an article but are entirely for another President having the same type of article, then you have too much bias. It is time for you to move on and edit something else; you are not mature enough to maintain NPOV if you hold such a mindset. ] (]) 01:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

	:::::I suppose time will tell, though it's hardly irrelevant. The trend in WP, very much against my own preferences, has been to allow and retain articles devoted solely to criticisms in a wide variety of topic areas. The article on ] immediately comes to mind as another example among numerous similar approaches across the wiki including the present form of the Bush criticism article. I don't agree with this trend, but it has unquestionably occurred in the past several years and Wikipedians who disagree with this trend have been unable to prevent the increasing number of such articles that have a strong local consensus to continue to exist. Most importantly, wherever such a page exists, it is a widely agreed that it must not be an attack page. Rather, where such a page exists it must be a neutral presentation of criticisms based wholly upon reliable sources On the other hand, editors at this article can indeed arrive at a different local consensus than have editors in other topic areas, that is, to interpret WP:NPOV more narrowly in terms of choosing topic titles than has been the case elsewhere. In this case, even despite that criticisms of Obama exist from both the political left and right, I personally maintain that such an article would constitute a ]. ... ] (]) 15:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
	::::::While balance is obviously the operative, it should be expected that things like GWB and evolution get their own "criticism" articles. These come about when the criticism become a notable topic in their own right. Dozens of books have been published with the sole topic of criticising both GWB and evolution. They are a matter of interest to both those who sympathise with the criticism and those who don't because the criticism is exceptionally vocal (i.e. it goes beyond assorted disagreements that most things attract). The same can't be said for most (though not all) of the criticism directed at Obama. For the moment, it remains stuff which is dismissed to different degrees by his supporters, the mainstream media and the public as typical responses from those who oppose him on political or ideological grounds. ] (]) 00:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
	::::::: Or why not just look him up on Conservapedia? Gave me a good laugh. ] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== Teleprompter ==

	Where is the section that he can't talk without a teleprompter? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	I'm Ron Burgundy? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:It's nowhere, because we have yet to see a ] making any such assertion. <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 20:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
	::Correct. Right-wing radio is having a fun time with this subject, but it is mainly a joke and has no place in this article.] (]) 20:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
	And again you perpetuate this believe that Misplaced Pages is controlled by Liberals.(which will eventually be it's downfall) Search google news, you will find articles about this. ] (]) 21:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
	:See ], you will see why it doesn't matter either way. ] (]) 21:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
	I've certainly seen that contradicted in other articles. ] (]) 01:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
	::Though he may use a teleprompter quite a bit, it is really not relevant in regards to his overall life. Cheers! ] (]) 01:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

	::His overall life, no not really. But his "Great Orator" skills are looking more and more, "not so great". AP just released another story about him not doing well because of his reliance on a teleprompter. Did Martin Luther King use one? Nope. A great orator is someone who memorizes his speech and then can give it and vary it and jump around in it because they know it in their heart, and eat, sleep and breathe it. They are comfortable in front of anyone and can talk off of the top of their head on that subject.

	::He appears to be reading a script and if the script stops, he has no idea what to do. I'll come back with plenty of factual and approved sources. ] (]) 02:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
	Please provide some reliable sources for us to potentially use and state exactly what the fact is and how is it notable. ] (]) 02:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
	:OK, here are three sources. Did not need all three since this story is not an opinion piece, it is just a report of the factual event that happened on March 17.
	: ] (]) 03:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
	::These sources do not explain how this amounts to anything more than slightly amusing trivia, and they do not indicate why it would belong in an ] written in ]. ] (]) 03:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
	:::Agree with Latte. It's one incident, and not notable in the grand scheme of things for a President. If it becomes an ongoing problem with Obama (and a defining characteristic of his Presidency), it belongs in the article. Otherwise, no. ] (]) 03:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

	:::It shows that we have a president that may not be able to string together a coherent thought unless he is scripted. Here are more sources.
	::: I am just reporting the factual info of his past problems with speeches. When you watch the actual speeches where the telepromter goes out or he tries to speak without one, many have reported that his speeches were lackluster. This is in direct contrast to being a great orator. I am being neutral and just referencing what reporters have said. I thought that was what Wiki was supposed to do, just compile the facts. ] (]) 04:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
	::::An encyclopedia is much more than just a compilation of facts. Maybe, if this becomes something, add it to one of the sub articles, but not the main bio. ] 04:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
	:::::I agree. This is a funny issue for pundits right now, but there is no consensus that it is a substantive issue. Perhaps the issue will develop. Have a great day!] (]) 05:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

	:::::Even if this is notable, and I believe it is based upon the mainstream news coverage on this, it may not warrant inclusion in <i>this</i> article because of ]. Ordinarily, for your smaller articles, you might include such information. However, this article serves almost as a summary, with several sub-articles branching off. Thus, I don't think this material belongs here, lest this becomes a bigger story going forward, but I would say it might be worthy to put in a relevant subarticle (say speaking skills of Obama or something like that). ] (]) 05:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

	::::::This is also a much more efficient way to work on a big topic than this. Rather than argue here and spend pages stumbling over rhetoric and policy principles, address it in the articles with narrower scope, make sure they are balanced and give appropriate weight, and then read through them and compare how a summary style section should look with what we've got. ] (]) 13:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

	"Mr Obama is an accomplished orator but is becoming known in America as the "teleprompt president" over his reliance on the machine when he gives a speech." Source: "," ''SkyNews'', 18 March 2009.

	I added an item, with two citations, about emerging criticisms that his reliance on a teleprompter is perhaps excessive, compared to previous presidents or other public figures. It makes sense that a section including praise he receives for his oratorical skills would also mention criticism, or at least a caveat concerning a possible source of that skill. --] (]) 22:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
	:Why was this deleted? In a section that describes his "cultural image" and includes the opinion that he is one of the greatest orators of our time, citing one opinion article, it makes sense to include the opposing viewpoint. I don't think you can say this is a topic without "weight" when you include one opinion but not another. Unless a good reason is given for deleting this, it ought to be put back in and I will re-insert it, after discussion (unless there is none). --] (]) 22:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
	::I see your point. I have not read what you added that was removed, so I can't say anything about that, but I do agree generally with the need to be encyclopedic and not a mere echo. On another topic, here is a joke, but it may link to reliable sources: http://baracksteleprompter.blogspot.com/ --] (]) 04:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
	:::Is this an example of what happens without a teleprompter?: "". --] (]) 05:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

	Guys, Misplaced Pages talk pages are not a forum for dissing the article subjects, or for posting links to snarky partisan blogs and infotainment sites. Many of those pages have their own comments sections where puerile Kool-aid drinkers on both sides can get their jollies pounding each other. We try to responsibly craft appropriately balanced encyclopedia articles here. "It may link to reliable sources"?! That's neither legitimate nor compelling, it's promoting this talk page as a gathering of gossipy fault-mongers. ] (]) 06:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

	: Well said! But I did not have a bad motivation. Instead I thought it might be a useful gateway for finding a useful article, particularly given the newness of the issue. Hey, I guess I could have been wrong, but if it pays off with a valuable source, then it was worth it. Not every effort I make to improve Misplaced Pages articles will be perfect, but at least I'm making efforts. --] (]) 00:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

	I still haven't read a good reason why a sentence extolling Obama's skill as an orator should not be followed by a sentence critiquing his oratory. It's not a question of ], since I only added one sentence to balance another sentence. Again, the issue is not use of a teleprompter per se as much as it is a changing perception of his cultural image, and the re-evaluation of the opinion that he is an astounding orator. --] (]) 18:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
	:You may not like the reasons, but they are stated. The whole issue of "balance" is inherently POV. The article is written in ''summary'' style, not ''point counterpoint'' style. It is not necessary to follow every issue that may be perceived as positive, with the counter-position by those who disagree. The weight issue goes to the prevalence of sources where, for now at least, there is a lot of material about Obama's speaking in general, and only a small flurry of recent articles about use of teleprompters. Further, you hit the nail on the head when you mention cultural image. There is an article entirely devoted to that, where the material can receive much more full treatment. Incidentally, as I have said elsewhere I think that the material praising Obama's oratorial skills and comparing him to various other speakers also received undue weight and should be trimmed back.] (]) 18:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
	::I agree with Wikidemon and have cut the offending paragraph. Sincerely, ] (]) 05:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

	=== New article on teleprompter usage ===

	I stumbled across ] a few moments ago, and I thought perhaps regular editors might like to take a look at it. -- ] (]) 15:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
	:All I can do is ]. ] (]) 16:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
	::I hope this does not become a trend... we're going to have to deal with one of these every week, when humorists, slow news day reporters, and anti-Obama folks come up with some new piece of trivia to cover that week? I'm just waiting for the article on Obama's smoking habit, and Obama's annual physical. ] (]) 16:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
	:::Now taking wagers on ]. ] (]) 16:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
	::::Well, the president could help fend off these types of things that follow celebrity if he'd slow up on the night show apperances, televised March Madness bracket picks, etc. ] (]) 16:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
	:::::Did you actually ''watch'' Leno? He gave an interesting, articulate and ''unscripted'' explanation of the financial crisis with respect to AIG and beyond. -- ] (]) 16:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
	::::::Sure, I did, but what's your point? Interesting? That's a matter of opinion. Articulate? Sure, I guess. Unscripted? We will never know. Certainly it ''appears'' he didn't use a teleprompter for his appearance, but the president of the United States doesn't sneeze without a script. I'm watching his remarks right now, and there's the "ping-pong" reading from the teleprompter, yet again. ] (]) 17:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
	::::Well, it's arguably as notable as ]. Soooo... ;-) --] 17:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
	:::::You mean "arguably as pointless for an encyclopedia subject", right? I suppose we're going to get a new encyclopedia article now every time someone has a rough talk show interview. ] (]) 17:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
	(Unindent) To be fair to the Jon Stewart story, it did receive a lot of attention over a continuous span of time. That's about the only good thing I can say about it, because after the event the entire thing fell off the radar and no serious consequences seemed to follow. Also, Cramer v. Stewart can be written into the relevant articles, "TOTUS!" cannot. ] (]) 17:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
	*So accolades for Obama's speaking is very notable and must be included, but the substantial coverage of misstatements, controversial statements, and teleprompter use should be excluded? Interesting. I hadn't realized the New York Times was a right-wing propaganda enterprise. ] (]) 18:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
	:*As to the first part, yes. Obama's oratorial style is a significant biographical matter, and fairly important to who he is and how he functions in his career. To the extent the article digresses and it becomes a collection of accolades or disparagement, that drifts off point and should be trimmed and posed in a more encyclopedic style. An article about a person says who he is and what he does - it is not a point / counterpoint collection of praises and criticisms. As to the second part, again yes, the teleprompter usage matter is not covered to a sufficient degree, nor is it relevant enough in my opinion and the majority of others so far commenting, to be worth including in this article. ] (]) 18:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
	::I haven't commented on this latest thing, so let me add my voice that his oratorical style is notable and and an important facet of who he is, and therefore must be included in any biography. The teleprompter use is ridiculously unimportant, however, as are his poor bowling skills and every word he utters. <mantra> This is a biography of a person's whole life and career. </mantra> <strong>]</strong>/<small>]</small> 18:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
	:An alternative to ] would be ] ("even if you win, you're still retarded"). ] (]) 10:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
	* The matter was just referred to by the ] in a national news radio bulletin. The story seems to have legs and yet there is no mention of it here or at ]. This is not NPOV. ] (]) 07:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
	::This is also ] (which would hold true even if it weren't a slow enough news day at the BBC to have a news bulletin about trivia). ] (]) 08:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

	== Bold change to lead ==

	Current introduction:
	1. Who he is (President) and what he used to be.
	2. Education and Illinois Senate
	3. Keynote address and Senate committees
	4. Close primary campaign with Hillary Clinton, African-American, McCain.

	3b (Senate committees) is the most out of place for an introduction. It is not a key point. Other senator articles don't deem committee assignments as a key point for the introduction. A more important point was that Obama ran as an anti-war candidate and was one of the early politicians to do so. ] (]) 20:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

	Corrected, nothing controversial added. Very plain language used. ] (]) 21:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

	An editor has shortened and refined the lead. I like the change, with the exception of using the word "virtual" to mean "almost". I know there was a deliberate effort to describe Obama's senate career in the lead, but I find the actual list of committees and legislation to be very dry and not terribly informative to someone who is reading the lead for summary purposes. So, preemptively, I like it! ] (]) 21:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

	See, I'm no dummy, my ideas are good. I also am changing it to almost like you suggested. ] (]) 21:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

	::I just want to point out that calling this a "consensus" edit in edit summary is a stretch - one editor agreed with it, and others might not. I'm not saying necessarily that the edits were bad, but I am saying that major changes to the lead section of an FA on article probation, which has seen much contention, should be done with great care. Waiting for actual consensus to form when the changes are substantive, as these are, would be prudent. <strong>]</strong>/<small>]</small> 08:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

	:I went over the revised lede and made some changes to it:
	:*Reinstated "close" for the primaries as "prolonged" has a POV tinge to it (def: "tediously protracted"), whereas "close" is just descriptive.
	:*Rearranged the paragraph about his Senate run because as it had been amended, the chronology was off - the keynote came before the election and saying he was elected and following that with he was relatively unknown is misleading: he was relatively unknown nationally until giving the keynote in July, and then he was elected in November. Also it had said twice that he was elected, so this modification corrects that.
	:*I removed the addition of his campaign themes for now - the lede is supposed to summarize the article, and this sentence didn;t seem to summarize what is covered in the article, however accurate the description might be. Also I think this one is too major a change to just slip in.
	:*I agree with the removal of the second swearing-in - it is a trivial point, not suitable for the lede.
	:*I agree with the removal of the Senate committees.
	:My changes were an attempt to reconcile what we had with what was being changed, and think that further major changes to the lede should be discussed, as I said above. <strong>]</strong>/<small>]</small> 08:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

	Tvoz said "I just want to point out that calling this a "consensus" edit in edit summary is a stretch - one editor agreed with it, and others might not. Yet Tvoz changed things without even one editor agreeing to it so there was no consensus. This is not really a technicality because the Barack Obama article has strict rules, article probation, etc. But I think this issue is settled since there is no debate in over a week. ] (]) 21:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

	== Unexpected ==

	Thanks to the editor for providing a reference, but it confirms that the word "unexpected" is misleading. The Republican challenger imploded with a scandal. The only thing the article says is that he wasn't expected to win going into the race and that the size of his margins weren't expected, but it's not really accurate to say his victory was unexpected without clarifying what is meant by this. No one was shocked when he won. It wasn't a big surprise. It was expected. It maybe wasn't anticipated at the start of the race and he may have been an underdog, but to stick in unexpected in the "lead" (introduction) of this article as if that's very notable is misleading. ] (]) 06:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
	:CoM, please read it again - the "unexpected" is referring to the Democratic primary landslide win in March which was unexpected, not the November election against the imploded Republicans which was not. <strong>]</strong>/<small>]</small> 07:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
	::A Senate primary win does not a star make, however unexpected it may have struck the small fraction of people in his state that follow Senate primaries. For that matter, actually getting elected to the U.S. Senate does not make someone a "star". It makes them a Senator. Obama became a star due to his address to the Democratic convention which electrified not only the party in the hall but in the nationwide TV audience and got people talking about him across the country. I don't understand the reverts here. Can't we just get a reference? ] (]) 09:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
	:::Agreed. One bit taken out of context from an enthusiastic New York Times story doesn't belong in the introduction of this article. The significane of the "unexpectedness" of Obama's primary win in the Senate primary is at or approaching nil. ] (]) 17:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
	::::There are now a couple of reliable sources referencing the surprise surrounding the landslide victory in the Dem primary and pointing to Obama as a rising star among Democrats at that time. Thus I don't think there's a problem per say with the lede or with the text on this later in the article, but there's also probably room for compromise. Certainly Obama's convention speech raised his stature and "star power" far more than his primary victory and it should be easy to find references that demonstrate this (as currently written, the intro places more emphasis on the primary win - "made him a rising star" - then on his convention speech - "further raising his visibility" - and to my mind at least the emphasis there is reversed from what it should be).

	::::If ChildofMidnight and others have problems with the current wording they should propose some alternatives here, though the sources cited seem to demonstrate that the notion that the significance of his primary win is "at or approaching nil" is not really accurate, so it's not necessarily inappropriate to mention this in some form in the lede (though I would say it's not incredibly crucial either).

	::::I would think it should be easy to come up with a solution agreeable to all on the talk page, and that's what should happen now rather than continued edit warring. In the grand scheme this is a very small issue so let's try to be flexible in coming up with a wording that most can agree on. --] <small>\| ] \| ]</small> 18:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

	::::I read this section first and expected to agree with ChildofMidnight and Abrazame, but then I went to go check the sources, which support the text fully. I'm not at all clear on how it is "taken out of context" from the NYT article, considering that ''is'' the context of the article. It also explains how a not-yet-elected Senate candidate was selected to give the keynote speech at the nominating convention, which is a fact that seems rather odd without the proper context. —] ] ] 20:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
	::::: Thank you Bbatsell - that is exactly right. I'm not inclined to compromise on this one, as it is so clearly the point of the source, and true to boot. <strong>]</strong>/<small>]</small> 03:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
	::::::If in fact the "unexpectedness" of his victory in a Senate primary race was the reason he was selected as the keynote speaker (according to good sources), that would be interesting to note and explain in the body of the article. In the lead (introduction), the reader has no idea what this unexpectedness is all about. It makes it seem like people woke up after the election WOWING at the outcome... of the Senate primary in Illinois? This is minor. And I agree with the comments in the section below that Obama's major policy positions and decisions are for more notable. I preferred the old version of the introduction, for what it's worth, and thought it would have been better to update it with major presidential decisions (a couple mentions like the spending bill, appointments, war in Iraq, and Afghanistan decisions) instead of taking out all the details on his Senate career (which probably could have been summarized) and adding this bit about how important the unexpectedness of his Senate primary victory was. Just to be clear, a big part of the problem is saying something is unexpected isn't enough to clarify what that means. Why was it unexpected? What part of it was unexpected? There's none of that context. My suggested edit is simple, take out the word unexpected. If someone wants to move it and explain it elsewhere, that's up to them.] (]) 03:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::I think the point is obviously that the "unexpected" aspect was the "landslide" nature of the victory. As currently worded I suppose it's a bit ambiguous but not a huge problem. I think I tend to agree with C of M on this one point though, i.e. is the word "unexpected" all that necessary, at least in the lede? I think what's really important here is the "landslide victory" itself. Even had a landslide been completely anticipated - and Obama was hardly a total underdog by the final weeks of the campaign, see ("Obama, meanwhile, has shot up as high as 20 percentage points ahead of Hynes and Hull, according to the latest polls," March 11th) and ("Though Obama...lagged in polls as late as mid-February, he surged to the front of the pack in recent weeks") - it presumably would still have catapulted him to the front ranks of up-and-coming Democrats. If removing "unexpected" from the sentence ends the argument I think I'm okay with that, though I'm open to being persuaded that the word (or something similar) is particularly important. --] <small>\| ] \| ]</small> 04:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::I agree, we should remove "unexpected". It's one of those words that newspapers sometimes use but we should not, a word to avoid like "ironic(ally)", "coincidentally", "sadly", "surprisingly", etc. It inserts a narrative voice that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, some kind of all knowing person who makes a judgment on what is and what is not to be expected. ] (]) 04:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
	←I'm afraid I disagree. The sources directly support that his win and its landmark size were unexpected - we're not making the judgment, the sources are. Why are we bending over backward to not say something that is the characterization of the sources? Examples:
	::''But Mr. Obama, a state senator from Chicago, awoke Wednesday to a deluge of national attention, a result of his overwhelming victory the night before by margins unforeseen by any polls or guesses.'' (NYT ref)
	::''Obama, 42, whose initial campaign strategy was to build a coalition of blacks and liberal whites, instead surprised even his strategists by amassing broad support from throughout the party.'' (Trib ref)
	::''Three weeks ago, state Sen. Barack Obama appeared to be an also-ran among the eight Democrats running in Illinois for the nomination to an open U.S. Senate seat.'' (USA Today ref)

	I think it is a fair word to use, and since the unexpected Senate primary win was arguably an extremely significant step in his rise, as it certainly led to the national exposure and the speculation about his future etc - it belongs in the lead. I don't necessarily object to expanding the lead if we get consensus about that, but we don't need to cut an accurate descriptive word to do that. I don't think it's the most important word in the article, but I think, as I said, it is accurate, well-supported, summarizes the article properly, and I see no reason to take it out. <strong>]</strong>/<small>]</small> 07:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
	:The two sources I linked to in my comment above somewhat contradict the NYT story. One (a Chicago paper, no doubt more in touch with the campaign) specifically references polls putting Obama ahead by as much as 20 points prior to the election. The other mentioned that Obama had surged to the front toward the end of the campaign. Three weeks prior to the election he may have seemed like an also-ran, but three days before he probably was the favorite. Thus the "unexpected" label may be applicable if we take the long view ("one month ago no one thought he would win, much less in a landslide") but not so much if viewed in light of the final days of the campaign ("Obama had surged to a huge lead in the final stages"). We could say that the victory was unexpected because he was not the early favorite, or that it was expected because he was leading the polls in the end, and I don't think one view is more correct than the other. So overall I think the situation is a bit more ambiguous than you're suggesting, and I'm wondering what you think of the two sources that are clearly characterizing Obama as the frontrunner in the home stretch.

	:But again, is the "unexpected" nature of the victory really what matters in terms of Obama's star status, or is it rather the fact that he won and won big time? I think the latter, which means removing "unexpected" doesn't really do any harm to the key idea. And Tvoz I guess I would somewhat reverse your question: why is it so critical to refer to the primary win as "unexpected" when the sourcing for that seems to be ambiguous at best, and when the "unexpectedness" of the victory was almost certainly far less important than the victory itself/the fact that it was a landslide? I just don't think we lose anything by removing the word and indeed I think the sentence has greater clarity without it.

	:Finally I still think we should be placing greater emphasis on the convention speech rather than the primary win in terms of raising his star power, somewhat reversing the emphasis in the current sentence. --] <small>\| ] \| ]</small> 09:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
	::OK - first I didn't say the word "unexpected" is critical, but I believe it is accurate and correctly reflects sources and the article itself. Yes, I am taking the long view of the primary victory - and its size - which multiple sources have identified with words that mean "unexpected", because it was in fact unexpected. Even if he had surged in the end, overall he had not been predicted to win and he certainly had not been predicted to win big, and across ethnic lines in the way he did - which one of your sources (LA Times) mentions: ''expected strong support for Hynes from Chicago's Democratic machine failed to materialize'' and ''instead surprised even his strategists by amassing broad support from throughout the party''. (I can't access the entire Sun-Times article via the truncated Highbeam link, so I can't verify whether it says anything one way or the other about the victory.) Of course I think the speech should be emphasized, but it seems pretty clear that without that surprising landslide primary win he likely would not have been on the Kerry campaign's radar, and wouldn't have been selected to give the speech that (I believe) launched his national career. So yes, emphasize the speech, but the chronology is important, and the surprise nature of coming from essentially out of nowhere - no offense intended to the Illinois State Legislature - to win big across the board and thus be propelled to the national stage should be captured in the lead, in my opinion. If someone wants to peopose alternate wording, I'm of course interested in seeing it, as I said in the previous section. <strong>]</strong>/<small>]</small> 23:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
	:::I guess we'll have to agree to disagree with respect to our thinking about this which is fine of course, and anyway I certainly don't want to make a big to do about this. Also ChildofMidnight has taken a stab at some new language that I think works better, namely that Obama "entered the 2004 Democratic primary for U.S. Senate as an underdog. He won the primary with broad support that surprised campaign watchers and raised his profile in the Democratic party." I think that's a good alternate version, though perhaps the sentence that follows could be concluded a bit more strongly than "further raised his profile" (with respect to his convention speech). --] <small>\| ] \| ]</small> 02:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
	::::Well, I had not seen the edit until you mentioned it - I was under the impression that we were still discussing this, so am surprised to see that new wording was posted before we finished talking about it, but in any case - it now says "raised his profile" twice in succession which is not good writing even with the "further", and I agree with you that the sentence about the speech is weak. So I'm not happy with the new wording, and think it should have been hammered out here first, seeing as it is in contention. Also - the writing of the intro is now significantly poorer - we can do better than starting so many sentences with "He". <strong>]</strong>/<small>]</small> 05:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
	:::::Yes, absolutely the discussion should have continued here before the changes were made (@ ChildofMidnight, if that user is reading this, as they should be). And I did not look as closely at the precise wording as I should have, you're right about repetitiveness being a problem. We do need less "he" in that paragraph and one or two "Obama"s instead which is easy enough. And perhaps we can replace "that further raised his profile" with something like "that marked him as a rising star in the party" (I'm not even close to being married to that wording). I think it makes since to use the "star" appellation here in the clause on the convention speech, particularly since several sources in footnote 65 use that exact terminology. So changing that phrase (to my proposal or something more felicitously worded) and fixing the hes might take care of the repetitiveness problem. --] <small>\| ] \| ]</small> 06:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
	:::::: Your suggestions are definitely better than what's there now (particularly the "rising star") - honestly, I'm too tired to fine tune right now, but I for one would be happier with what you're suggesting than what's there now, so I'm ok with your editing it along those lines and I'll take another look tomorrow with both eyes open. But what's there now is really not ok for an FA. Thanks for sticking with the discussion. <strong>]</strong>/<small>]</small> 06:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
	::::::: Is there a proposed version right now? The discussion is a little hard to follow. I'll repeat my concern that trying to state as fact people's subjective expectations (it was a surprise, surprisingly, unexpectedly, nobody thought...) is unencyclopedic here even if some reliable news sources feel free to opine in that way. COM's version, "surprised campaign watchers" is more specific. Who did it suprise? Who was expecting or not expecting it? Presumably Obama himself and many of those who voted for him thought he might win... most people in America and the world were not surprised at all, and in fact they have never heard of it until this day. So it is important to qualify or explain the context of descriptions of the degree of unexpectedness. ] (]) 07:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

	== Introduction ==

	I have taken a stab at reworking the introduction along the lines that several editors have been discussing above to reinstate wording that we had previously, tweaked to accommodate some later edits and to remove repetitive, poor writing and wording identified above as subjective and unencyclopedic. '''Please discuss further changes here before making them - the introduction to this featured article on article probation is not a good candidate for bold, unilateral editing. ''' <strong>]</strong>/<small>]</small> 07:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
	:Perhaps we should revert to the introduction before you made major changes. That version was written fairly well and included some good information. ] (]) 15:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
	::Your suggestion would've carried more weight if you hadn't just already reverted it. Shame that edit-warring is your preferred method of discourse. -- ] (]) 16:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

	===Version before recent changes===
	For convenience, here is the recent ''stable'' (virtually unchanged for many weeks) version of the introduction before CoM and others started edit-warring over it:
	:''<!-- PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE OBAMA'S NAME -->'''Barack Hussein Obama II''' ({{pron-en\|bəˈrɑːk hʊˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə}}; born August 4, 1961) is the ] and current ]. He is the first ] to hold the office. Obama was the ] ] from ] from January 2005 until November 2008, when he resigned following his ] to the ].''

	:''Obama is a graduate of ] and ], where he was the ] president of the '']''. He worked as a ] in ] prior to earning his law degree, and practiced as a ] attorney in Chicago before serving three terms in the ] from 1997 to 2004. He also taught ] at the ] from 1992 to 2004. Following an unsuccessful bid for a seat in the ] in 2000, Obama was elected to the United States Senate in November 2004. Obama delivered the ] at the ] in July 2004.''

	:''As a member of the Democratic minority in the ], Obama helped create legislation to control ]s and to promote greater public accountability in the use of federal funds. He also made official trips to ], the ], and ]. During the ], he helped create legislation regarding ] and ], ], ], and care for U.S. military personnel returning from combat assignments in ] and ].''
	I recommend that future changes be worked out ''here'', with this version used as a base, before being applied to the article. '''''Stop edit warring'''''. -- ] (]) 16:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

	:::I've noticed that compared to other Presidential articles, there's not much about his personal life. Should we include a blurb about him marrying Michelle or hailing from Hawaii? -- {{unsigned\|Soxwon}}
	::::First of all, this section is about the introduction of the article ''only''. Secondly, this is a ] article about Obama, so you will find much of the "meat" you are looking for in daughter articles linked to throughout the main article. -- ] (]) 16:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
	:::::I know, but all of the other introductions is what I was talking about. GWB has his marriage and business life mentioned, Reagan his life as an actor and state of birth, and Clinton his marriage. I just thought it would appropriate for a little blurb. ] (]) 17:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
	::::::Possibly, although the content of this article should not necessarily be determined by the content of other articles. Let's get the edit-warring stuff resolved before tackling new stuff, and don't forget to read ]. -- ] (]) 17:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
	::::::: I know, but right now it reads as if all he's ever done in life is politics. Shouldn't at least mention that he's human too? ] (]) 17:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
	*Per this reversion I see nothing objectionable in either version, and slightly favor the version ChildofMidnight reverted to for a number of stylistic reasons, so whatever people settle on is okay with me. As a process matter I strongly encourage people to make only incremental or uncontroversial changes, and to respect the need to discuss if those changes get reverted in good faith. Let's face it, most changes to most articles are not for the better, and that's especially true on a featured article. When edits fly by too fast to keep track of, we can't tell which is the good stable version, and the whole thing slowly degrades as a matter of entropy - even simple matters like punctuation, format, and link placement get messed up. ] (]) 17:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

	== More than 60 days in office and not one word about his Presidency ==

	The man has been POTUS since late January and there is not one word about his Presidency. Not one word about his order to deploy additional troops to Afghanistan, not one word about an $800 billion stimulus plan, not one word about the multiple WH plans regarding the financial industry. Don't you think the first 60+ days of this administration are newsworthy? ] (]) 02:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

	:Uh, which article are you reading? Did you miss the section headed, cleverly, "Presidency"? This is a summary-style article, so the details and longer discussions will be found in the sub articles that are listed under the headings - as in ] - but there is indeed a short summary of the beginning of his presidency right here in our article, talking about the things you mention and more. And, by the way, "newsworthy" is not our standard here - we're not writing a news article, we're writing an encyclopedia biography of his whole life and career. Take another look at the article. <strong>]</strong>/<small>]</small> 03:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

	::True, in principle, Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper, but in practice it reports on what's very new. (As hinted by what we see at the top right of the top page.) And the notability guidelines aren't so far from "Has this at some time been newsworthy?" -- ] (]) 03:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
	:::::That's a good point, although I do think "notable" and "newsworthy" are a little different. But ok, on that. <strong>]</strong>/<small>]</small> 04:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
	:::I'm assuming the anon is a ]. I suggest a ] be added to the article. That should prevent the misconception that Obama's presidency isn't being covered in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 03:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
	::::I think we've exhausted the "See also" discussion already - they are throughout the article and I don't think that is what the problem was here. And yes, he/she is probably a newbie, but newbies can read, and there's not much evidence that this person read the article. Is our "Presidency" section not exactly what he says we say "not one word" about? Does it not have a clearly marked pointer that says ''Main article: ]''? Sorry, but AGF only goes so far. <strong>]</strong>/<small>]</small> 04:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
	:I'm sure this will be quickly removed, but out of loyalty to the cause, why is the statement that Obama won't smoke in the white house more important than the disputed birth certificate? (That has sparked many news articles and lawsuits regardless if you feel they are worthy) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	::The point about not smoking in the White House is not particularly important in my view, but I also don't see a real problem with it being there. The birth certificate issue is a widely debunked conspiracy theory. We don't include widely debunked conspiracy theories about living people in their bios, though the controversy is obviously covered ]. Readers who come to Misplaced Pages wanting information about the birth certificate issue will find it, they just won't (and should not) find it here.--] <small>\| ] \| ]</small> 19:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
	:: Because Obama really made the statement that he will not smoke in the White House, i.e., the statement has something to do with reality. And because the statement comes from Obama, who is notable, whereas the birthergate buffoonery comes from--oh, why am I even bothering? ] (]) 19:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
	::(e/c) Essentially, this article is Obama's biography, so it covers matters which are agreed to be important parts of his life. The lawsuits are documented extensively at ]. <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 19:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

	== "Confirmed: Barack Obama Practiced Islam" by Daniel Pipes ==

	{{hat\|Partisan blogs are not reliable sources, and we really don't need to cover this same ground for the 100th time.}}
	From http://www.danielpipes.org/5354/confirmed-barack-obama-practiced-islam

	In the article, Daniel Pipes concluded:

	"Obama was an irregularly practicing Muslim who rarely or occasionally prayed with his step-father in a mosque. This precisely substantiates my statement that he "for some years had a reasonably Muslim upbringing under the auspices of his Indonesian step-father."

	Misplaced Pages recognizes Pipes as an expert on the subject and so the above research should be included in the Family and personal life section.

	See also:

	http://www.danielpipes.org/5845/barack-obama-through-muslim-eyes
	http://www.danielpipes.org/5544/barack-obamas-muslim-childhood <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	: Just drop it, dude. The article's point-of-view is already set in stone and is not going to be npov, ever. If Obama himself were to declare that he did practice Islam or was born somewhere other than Hawaii, or was close friends with Ayers or did attend Wright's church, it's still not going in the article. Let it be. Just... let it go. ] (]) 12:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
	::Why do you say that? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:::Just ignore him. ] has already been warned (and blocked) for this kind of <s>shit-stirring sarcasm</s> ]. -- ] (]) 13:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

	: umm is DanielPipes really a reliable source for such an important bit of information? U need a range of sources and atleast some major ones for such things to be added. ] (]) 11:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
	::Agreed. Not a ], I'm afraid, on account of Pipes being a right-wing xenophobe from Rudy's pathetic primary campaign. This stuff has been discredited by legitimate news organs. -- ] (]) 11:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
	:::Well, Pipes is quoting legitimate News organizations, the LA Times and Chicago Tribune, in basing his claims. I don't want to paste the entire article so you will need to read it, but just to quote him a bit:
	<blockquote>
	"on the larger issue of Obama's religious practices during his Jakarta years, it confirms the Times account. Note in particular three excerpts from Barker's article:

	"Interviews with dozens of former classmates, teachers, neighbors and friends show that Obama was not a regular practicing Muslim when he was in Indonesia" – implying he was an irregularly practicing Muslim.

	"Obama occasionally followed his stepfather to the mosque for Friday prayers, a few neighbors said" – confirming that he did pray in the mosque.

	"Obama's 3rd-grade teacher at the Catholic school, who lived near the family ‘Rarely, Barry went to the mosque with Lolo'" – confirming that Obama attended mosque services."
	</blockquote>
	:::Why is Pipes not a reliable source? He has been involved in the Middle East for three decades and has observed a lot of changes in that time. He has many supporters within the anti-terrorism factions of Islam. No mainstream source would dare to reveal that Obama has a Muslim background if he does.--] (]) 11:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
	::::To add one more important quote from Pipes:<blockquote>
	:::::"All this matters, for if Obama once was a Muslim, he is now what Islamic law calls a murtadd (apostate), an ex-Muslim converted to another religion who must be executed. Were he elected president of the United States, this status, clearly, would have large potential implications for his relationship with the Muslim world."
	</blockquote>
	::::How relevant is this to our times, when Obama is attempting to reach out to Iran? I'm sure the above isn't lost on Ahmadinejan who comes from a very literal, hard-line strain of Islam. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:::::Seeind as Ahmadinejad personally congratulated Obama for his success, that being the first such since Reagan, I assume that even ''he'' doesn't buy into this conspiracy theorist tripe. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 12:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
	::::::And Iran also rejected him in other contexts:
	<blockquote>
	::::::Iran's top leader largely rejected an unusual overture made Friday by U.S. President Barack Obama, the Washington Post reported, but Ayatollah Ali Khamenei did offer some chance of reconciliation if Washington dramatically alters its policy toward his nation (see GSN, March 20). - http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090323_5211.php
	</blockquote>
	::::::But this issue doesn't have to be included. Just the fact that Obama did go to the mosque with his father. As future events unfold we will all be wiser as to what else needs to be included. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	←Let's be clear about this. Pipes is not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. He may be knowledgeable about Middle Eastern matters, but his personal website cannot be used as sourcing for a BLP. In addition, reasonable people should have grave concerns about someone who would say this:
	:''"Obama occasionally followed his stepfather to the mosque for Friday prayers, a few neighbors said" – confirming that he did pray in the mosque.''
	I have followed family and friends into churches on many occasions, but I am (and always will be) an atheist. Being in a church does not automatically mean he prayed. Maybe he just want to be with his stepfather. And how credible is the testimony of the neighbors when we know nothing about them or their motivations? That is a ''supposition'' on the part of Pipes, and if he is willing to make guesses like that and call it "confirmation" then his evidence must be treated as highly suspect. -- ] (]) 12:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
	::We don't have to say that he prayed, just state the facts. And for Misplaced Pages to say:
	<blockquote>
	:::He describes his father as "raised a Muslim," but a "confirmed atheist" by the time his parents met, and his stepfather as "a man who saw religion as not particularly useful."
	</blockquote>
	::Pipes showing us, from first-people accounts, as reported by the LA Times, that Obama's father attended mosque AFTER Obama's mother met his father and that Obama joined him irregularly. That proves that the above is incorrect. Whether Obama actually prayed too or not, I think its common sense that a boy his age will follow his father (I really can't imagine him just sitting in the corner doing nothing) but we don't have to state that he prayed or not. Just what we know: both Obama and his father attended mosque. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:::Pipes' "facts" have been discredited. His "confirmation" comes from his own distortions of evidence. This is an Islam-hating political opponent of Obama, a former Bush appointee. '''Not reliable'''. -- ] (]) 13:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
	::::Daniel Pipes is simply not a reliable source on this particular question - end of story. Against his (highly agenda driven) account we have scads of mainstream media accounts (and Obama's own first book) which say that Obama did not practice Islam - one thing from Pipes does not cancel all of that out. One might also bear in mind that Obama's mother was essentially an atheist/agnostic and that she was the one who raised him. But the real issue here is Pipes' reliability. I'm afraid that anyone who seriously suggests that he is a reliable source for an incredibly controversial claim like this simply does not understand Misplaced Pages sourcing policies. Those policies include some of the stuff at ], ], and ] which notes that "exceptional claims in Misplaced Pages require high-quality sources." Saying that Barack Obama practiced Islam is an exceptional claim: Daniel Pipes is an exceedingly low-quality source. His claims (about Obama and many other things) have been widely criticized, and at the time he was saying this stuff he was advising Rudy Giuliani in his presidential run, and is thus the exact opposite of an objective, uninvolved observer. If this discussion continues to go nowhere fast it should be marked resolved. --] <small>\| ] \| ]</small> 14:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
	{{hab}}

	== whoops! ==

	Text on this subject reads "Early life and career. Main article: Early life and career of Barack Obama. Barack The Bomber was born at...etc"

	Barack The Bomber?! Surely not! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Seems to be fixed. I remember a ] joke that said "'Obama' must be the worst name to have in American politics: it's halfway between 'Osama' and 'A bomber'! He might as well have been called 'Muslim Ogunbomb'!" ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 16:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
	::People who revert vandalism should remember to click the purge link at the top of this talk page. -- ] (]) 16:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
	:::Out of curiosity, what does purging the cache do?] (]) 16:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
	::::See ] for a full explanation, but basically it forces Misplaced Pages to delete the cached version on the server and rebuild the page. Being a hefty, popular page, the cached version gets called upon often. -- ] (]) 17:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
	:::::Didn't we conclude, as detailed on ], that the cache is purged whenever the article is edited? The purpose of the manual purge is to propagate updates to ''templates and images'' on the page. ] (]) 23:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

	== Obama's approval rating falling ==

	Why you write only the positive items about Obama?! From the current article:
	"In 2008, Congress.org ranked him as the eleventh most powerful Senator, and the politician was the most popular in the Senate, enjoying 72% approval in Illinois."

	That's good, but you write 0 words about his big rating's falling, source:

	*

	It would be good to write about it also in the article. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:I think the main difficulty with this article will be making adjustments to the section on his presidency since we must write that in summary style. Ultimately I think we'll need a sentence or two on his overall approval rating and how it shifted over time. I don't think we're at that point yet though. If we were going to say something about his approval ratings right now, it would be that they are still fairly high, hovering around 60%. In the poll you cite, the decline in approval (5 points) was probably close to the margin of error (though the increase in disapproval was more significant). That's just not significant enough to include in his biographical article.

	:What the presidency section lacks now, but which we'll definitely have to have eventually, is a brief discussion of Obama's economic policies, and that might be a good point to discuss approval ratings. But I think we're a couple of months away from being able to cover that properly. A good landmark, so to speak, might be at the end of the ]. Media are guaranteed to widely cover that and evaluate the presidency up to that point, and I imagine that would also mark a good point to discuss Obama's approval rating and to generally revise the section on his presidency. --] <small>\| ] \| ]</small> 02:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

	::Approval ratings are only biographically relevant with the benefit of hindsight and statistical significance. Neither of these apply to Obama right now. I agree with Bigtimepeace's observations about other more likely foci for improvement. ] (]) 14:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

	:::A link to the existing first 100 days article might be useful. ] (]) 16:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

			== "]" listed at ] ==
	Approval ratings go up and down. If it is mentioned, it is only appropriate to mention overall trends, if even that. Of course, detailed remarks would be ok if there is an article about the "Approval Ratings of President Barack Obama", if such article exists. ] (]) 21:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
			]
			The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink\|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 11#Baraxk}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 15:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Black, not African-American ==
	== "Controversies and criticism" section ==
	{{hat\|Conversation about a different article}}
	At ], a section entitled "Controversies and criticism" exists. An editor has raised a proposal to remove the section, as per precedent established here, and per ]. Although the section deals with someone other than Barack Obama, I thought to alert editors here to the discussion because the issue of this type of section has been dealt with multiple times regarding Barack Obama, so I imagined such experience would be useful in determining a decision regarding the proposal.

			Changed "African-American" to "Black" because not all African people are considered "Black". Is ] Black? Nope. ] exist. I, myself, am an ], and I sure as hell am not Black. ] (]) 12:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
	The discussion can be found here: ].

			:The category of ] is clear if we are not pretending it means something other than what it means. For its use in this article, we defer to the language used by our sources, and Obama is most frequently described as an African American man. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 12:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
	Thanks for reading, and thanks in advance if you get involved. ] (]) 16:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
			:] isn't Black, and he isn't ] either. He's ]. In the USA, the terms Black and African American are both commonly used with a variety of meanings, ranging from people descended from ], to members of a subculture defined by that legacy, to any American with dark skin, to Americans with ancestral or cultural ties to Africa. Most of those categories apply to Obama, and he is widely described as African American by published sources. White Americans of African descent are not normally called African Americans by themselves or others, but even if they were, that wouldn't mean the term ''doesn't'' apply to Obama. -- ] ] 17:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

			== "]" listed at ] ==
	:What happens at another article has no relevance to what happens at ''this'' article. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 23:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
			]
	::What happens in real life has no relevance in this article either, but I digress. Grsz is right. Each article has its own talk page and nothing about one article is binding on another.--] (]) 01:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
			The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink\|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 1#FirstName LastInitial redirects for presidents}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{hab}}

Latest revision as of 20:38, 8 January 2025

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barack Obama article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84Auto-archiving period: 30 days

faq page Frequently asked questions

To view the response to a question, click the link to the right of the question.

Family and religious background Q1: Why isn't Barack Obama's Muslim heritage or education included in this article? A1: Barack Obama was never a practitioner of Islam. His biological father having been "raised as a Muslim" but being a "confirmed atheist" by the time Obama was born is mentioned in the article. Please see this article on Snopes.com for a fairly in-depth debunking of the myth that Obama is Muslim. Barack Obama did not attend an Islamic or Muslim school while living in Indonesia age 6–10, but Roman Catholic and secular public schools. See , , The sub-articles Public image of Barack Obama and Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories address this issue. Q2: The article refers to him as African American, but his mother is white and his black father was not an American. Should he be called African American, or something else ("biracial", "mixed", "Kenyan-American", "mulatto", "quadroon", etc.)? A2: Obama himself and the media identify him, the vast majority of the time, as African American or black. African American is primarily defined as "citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa", a statement that accurately describes Obama and does not preclude or negate origins in the white populations of America as well. Thus we use the term African American in the introduction, and address the specifics of his parentage in the first headed section of the article. Many individuals who identify as black have varieties of ancestors from many countries who may identify with other racial or ethnic groups. See our article on race for more information on this concept. We could call him the first "biracial" candidate or the first "half black half white" candidate or the first candidate with a parent born in Africa, but Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source which reports what other reliable sources say, and most of those other sources say "first African American". Readers will learn more detail about his ethnic background in the article body. Q3: Why can't we use his full name outside of the lead? It's his name, isn't it? A3: The relevant part of the Manual of Style says that outside the lead of an article on a person, that person's conventional name is the only one that's appropriate. (Thus one use of "Richard Milhous Nixon" in the lead of Richard Nixon, "Richard Nixon" thereafter.) Talk page consensus has also established this. Q4: Why is Obama referred to as "Barack Hussein Obama II" in the lead sentence rather than "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr."? Isn't "Jr." more common? A4: Although "Jr." is typically used when a child shares the name of his or her parent, "II" is considered acceptable, as well. And in Obama's case, the usage on his birth certificate is indeed "II", and is thus the form used at the beginning of this article, per manual of style guidelines on names. Q5: Why don't we cover the claims that Obama is not a United States citizen, his birth certificate was forged, he was not born in Hawaii, he is ineligible to be President, etc? A5: The Barack Obama article consists of an overview of major issues in the life and times of the subject. The controversy over his eligibility, citizenship, birth certificate etc is currently a fairly minor issue in overall terms, and has had no significant legal or mainstream political impact. It is therefore not currently appropriate for inclusion in an overview article. These claims are covered separately in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Controversies, praise, and criticism Q6: Why isn't there a criticisms/controversies section? A6: Because a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praise and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per the Criticism essay. Q7: Why isn't a certain controversy/criticism/praise included in this article? A7: Misplaced Pages's Biography of living persons policy says that "riticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." Criticism or praise that cannot be reliably sourced cannot be placed in a biography. Also, including everything about Obama in a single article would exceed Misplaced Pages's article size restrictions. A number of sub-articles have been created and some controversies/criticisms/praises have been summarized here or been left out of this article altogether, but are covered in some detail in the sub-articles. Q8: But this controversy/criticism/praise is all over the news right now! It should be covered in detail in the main article, not buried in a sub-article! A8: Misplaced Pages articles should avoid giving undue weight to something just because it is in the news right now. If you feel that the criticism/controversy/praise is not being given enough weight in this article, you can try to start a discussion on the talk page about giving it more. See WP:BRD. Q9: This article needs much more (or much less) criticism/controversy. A9: Please try to assume good faith. Like all articles on Misplaced Pages, this article is a work in progress so it is possible for biases to exist at any point in time. If you see a bias that you wish to address, you are more than welcome to start a new discussion, or join in an existing discussion, but please be ready to provide sources to support your viewpoint and try to keep your comments civil. Starting off your discussion by accusing the editors of this article of having a bias is the quickest way to get your comment ignored. Talk and article mechanics Q10: This article is over 275kb long, and the article size guideline says that it should be broken up into sub-articles. Why hasn't this happened? A10: The restriction mentioned in WP:SIZE is 60kB of readable prose, not the byte count you see when you open the page for editing. As of May 11, 2016, this article had about 10,570 words of readable prose (65 kB according to prosesize tool), only slightly above the guideline. The rest is mainly citations and invisible comments, which do not count towards the limit. Q11: I notice this FAQ mentions starting discussions or joining in on existing discussions a lot. If Misplaced Pages is supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, shouldn't I just be bold and fix any biases that I see in the article? A11: It is true that Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and no one needs the permission of other editors of this article to make changes to it. But Misplaced Pages policy is that, "While the consensus process does not require posting to the discussion page, it can be useful and is encouraged." This article attracts editors that have very strong opinions about Obama (positive and negative) and these editors have different opinions about what should and should not be in the article, including differences as to appropriate level of detail. As a result of this it may be helpful, as a way to avoid content disputes, to seek consensus before adding contentious material to or removing it from the article. Q12: The article/talk page has been vandalized! Why hasn't anyone fixed this? A12: Many editors watch this article, and it is unlikely that vandalism would remain unnoticed for long. It is possible that you are viewing a cached result of the article; If so, try bypassing your cache. Disruption Q13: Why are so many discussions closed so quickly? A13: Swift closure is common for topics that have already been discussed repeatedly, topics pushing fringe theories, and topics that would lead to violations of Misplaced Pages's policy concerning biographies of living persons, because of their disruptive nature and the unlikelihood that consensus to include the material will arise from the new discussion. In those cases, editors are encouraged to read this FAQ for examples of such common topics. Q14: I added new content to the article, but it was removed! A14: Double-check that your content addition is not sourced to an opinion blog, editorial, or non-mainstream news source. Misplaced Pages's policy on biographies of living persons states, in part, "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims." Sources of information must be of a very high quality for biographies. While this does not result in an outright ban of all blogs and opinion pieces, most of them are regarded as questionable. Inflammatory or potentially libelous content cited to a questionable source will be removed immediately without discussion. Q15: I disagree with the policies and content guidelines that prevent my proposed content from being added to the article. A15: That's understandable. Misplaced Pages is a work in progress. If you do not approve of a policy cited in the removal of content, it's possible to change it. Making cogent, logical arguments on the policy's talk page is likely to result in a positive alteration. This is highly encouraged. However, this talk page is not the appropriate place to dispute the wording used in policies and guidelines. If you disagree with the interpretation of a policy or guideline, there is also recourse: Dispute resolution. Using the dispute resolution process prevents edit wars, and is encouraged. Q16: I saw someone start a discussion on a topic raised by a blog/opinion piece, and it was reverted! A16: Unfortunately, due to its high profile, this talk page sees a lot of attempts to argue for policy- and guideline-violating content – sometimes the same violations many times a day. These are regarded as disruptive, as outlined above. Consensus can change; material previously determined to be unacceptable may become acceptable. But it becomes disruptive and exhausting when single-purpose accounts raise the same subject(s) repeatedly in the apparent hopes of overcoming significant objections by other editors. Editors have reached a consensus for dealing with this behavior:

Efforts by established single-purpose accounts to introduce such poorly-sourced content will be summarily deleted.
On the second such attempt, the source in question will be immediately reported to the reliable sources noticeboard for administrative assistance.

New editors who wish to engage in discussions on previously rejected content are encouraged to ensure that their sources do not violate any of Misplaced Pages's policies and sourcing guidelines. Other Q17: Why aren't the 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns covered in more detail? A17: They are, in sub-articles called Barack Obama 2008 presidential campaign and Barack Obama 2012 presidential campaign. Things that are notable in the context of the presidential campaigns, but are of minimal notability to Barack Obama's overall biography, belong in the sub-articles. Campaign stops, the presidential debates, and the back-and-forth accusations and claims of the campaigns can all be found there.

Barack Obama is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 18, 2004, and on November 4, 2008.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 12, 2004	Featured article candidate	Promoted
August 18, 2004	Today's featured article	Main Page
December 21, 2007	Featured article review	Kept
January 23, 2007	Featured article review	Kept
July 26, 2007	Featured article review	Kept
April 15, 2008	Featured article review	Kept
September 16, 2008	Featured article review	Kept
November 4, 2008	Today's featured article	Main Page
December 2, 2008	Featured article review	Kept
March 10, 2009	Featured article review	Kept
March 16, 2010	Featured article review	Kept
March 17, 2010	Featured article review	Kept
June 17, 2012	Featured article review	Kept
October 22, 2012	Featured article review	Kept
December 4, 2021	Featured article review	Demoted
A news item involving this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on November 5, 2008.
Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 5, 2013, November 4, 2016, and November 4, 2022.
Current status: Former featured article

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This

level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Barack Obama (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama

Biography: Politics and Government / Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Top-importance).

United States: District of Columbia / Presidential elections / Presidents / State Legislatures / Government Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as High-importance).

This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance).

This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Top-importance).

This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. State Legislatures (assessed as Low-importance).

This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Top-importance).

More information:
/
	This article has been selected for use on the United States portal.
	This article has been selected for use on the Illinois portal.
	This article has been selected for use on the Chicago portal.
	This article has been selected for use on the Hawaii portal.

U.S. Congress High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) person(s).

Politics: American High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Hawaii High‑importance

	Hawaii portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HawaiiWikipedia:WikiProject HawaiiTemplate:WikiProject HawaiiHawaii
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Illinois High‑importance

	Illinois portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chicago Top‑importance

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York (state): Columbia University Low‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state)
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Columbia University (assessed as High-importance).

African diaspora Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Africa: Kenya Mid‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Kenya portal This article is supported by WikiProject Kenya (assessed as High-importance).

2010s Top‑importance

	2010s portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Law Top‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Jose Antonio Vargas (September 17, 2007). "On Misplaced Pages, Debating 2008 Hopefuls' Every Facet". The Washington Post.
Alison Stewart, Rachel Martin (April 3, 2008). "'Round the Clock: Obama, Clinton Wiki-Warfare". The Bryant Park Project, NPR.
Brooke Gladstone, Bob Garfield (April 4, 2008). "Editors in Chief". On The Media, NPR.
Eve Fairbanks (April 9, 2008). "Wiki Woman". The New Republic.
Jesse Brown (April 10, 2008). "Hillary's Wiki Defender". Search Engine, CBC Radio One.
Tom Foreman (April 11, 2008). "Misplaced Pages Wars". This Week..., CNN.
John J. Miller (April 21, 2008). "Liberal Web". National Review.
Kelly Heyboer (May 28, 2008). "Clinton's entry in Misplaced Pages has a watchdog". The Star-Ledger.
Paul Murnane (May 28, 2008). "NJ Man Appoints Himself Misplaced Pages Watchdog". WCBS Newsradio 880.
Noam Cohen (November 9, 2008). "Updating a Reference Site on the Fly". The New York Times.
Adrian Bridgwater (January 22, 2009). "Obama Misplaced Pages page under possible security attack". ZDNet.
Aaron Klein (March 8, 2009). "Misplaced Pages scrubs Obama eligibility". WorldNetDaily.
Joshua Rhett Miller (March 9, 2009). "Obama's Misplaced Pages Page Distances President from Wright and Ayers". Fox News Channel.
Mark Coleman (March 10, 2009). "Barack Obama 'receives preferential treatment on Misplaced Pages', report claims". The Daily Telegraph.
Noam Cohen (July 19, 2009). "Misplaced Pages May Be a Font of Facts, but It's a Desert for Photos". The New York Times.
Staff (August 17, 2009). "The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph.
"Misplaced Pages co-founder Larry Sanger says online encyclopedia scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics". Fox News. 2020-05-21. Retrieved 2020-05-22. The first example pointed out by the site's co-founder is that President Barack Obama's page "completely fails to mention many well-known scandals" such as Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP phone records scandal and the so-called "Fast and Furious" operation.

Bookmarks:

Other talk page banners

This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 155 million views since December 2007.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 6 times. The weeks in which this happened:

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2020.

Section sizes

Section size for Barack Obama (56 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	8,825	8,825
Early life and career	14,093	73,909
Education	29,943	29,943
Family and personal life	21,864	21,864
Religious views	8,009	8,009
Legal career	1,665	1,665
Legislative career	23	28,357
Illinois Senate (1997–2004)	10,948	10,948
2004 U.S. Senate campaign in Illinois	5,331	5,331
U.S. Senate (2005–2008)	12,055	12,055
Presidential campaigns	27	22,503
2008	13,238	13,238
2012	9,238	9,238
Presidency (2009–2017)	123	136,327
First 100 days	5,305	5,305
Domestic policy	13,196	75,048
Racial issues	8,067	8,067
LGBT rights	3,177	8,968
Same-sex marriage	5,791	5,791
Economic policy	21,828	21,828
Environmental policy	8,995	8,995
Health care reform	13,994	13,994
Foreign policy	9,784	55,851
War in Iraq	5,658	5,658
Afghanistan and Pakistan	4,468	9,734
Death of Osama bin Laden	5,266	5,266
Relations with Cuba	4,237	4,237
Israel	7,588	7,588
Libya	6,464	6,464
Syrian civil war	4,207	4,207
Iran nuclear talks	3,681	3,681
Russia	4,498	4,498
Cultural and political image	3,921	18,341
Job approval	8,511	8,511
Foreign perceptions	5,409	5,409
Thanks, Obama	500	500
Post-presidency (2017–present)	21,359	21,359
Legacy and recognition	14,189	15,983
Presidential library	619	619
Awards and honors	1,111	1,111
Eponymy	64	64
Bibliography	69	5,471
Books	1,134	1,134
Audiobooks	216	216
Articles	4,052	4,052
See also	98	1,214
Politics	474	474
Other	64	64
Lists	578	578
Notes	24	24
References	49,333	50,987
Bibliography	1,654	1,654
Further reading	2,508	2,508
External links	308	8,466
Official	463	463
Other	7,695	7,695
Total	395,939	395,939

There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages.

The rationale behind the request is: "Important".

"Baraxk" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Baraxk has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 11 § Baraxk until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Black, not African-American

Changed "African-American" to "Black" because not all African people are considered "Black". Is Brad Binder Black? Nope. White South Africans exist. I, myself, am an Afrikaner, and I sure as hell am not Black. Anonymous and proud (talk) 12:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The category of African Americans is clear if we are not pretending it means something other than what it means. For its use in this article, we defer to the language used by our sources, and Obama is most frequently described as an African American man. Remsense ‥ 论 12:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Brad Binder isn't Black, and he isn't African American either. He's South African. In the USA, the terms Black and African American are both commonly used with a variety of meanings, ranging from people descended from victims of American chattel slavery, to members of a subculture defined by that legacy, to any American with dark skin, to Americans with ancestral or cultural ties to Africa. Most of those categories apply to Obama, and he is widely described as African American by published sources. White Americans of African descent are not normally called African Americans by themselves or others, but even if they were, that wouldn't mean the term doesn't apply to Obama. -- LWG 17:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

"Barack O" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Barack O has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 1 § FirstName LastInitial redirects for presidents until a consensus is reached. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 03:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: