Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:01, 5 November 2008

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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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: 5 days

Template:Community article probation

	Barack Obama is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article 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 January 23, 2007 Featured article review Kept July 26, 2007 Featured article review Kept April 15, 2008 Featured article review Kept September 19, 2008 Featured article review Kept Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government 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 Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. U.S. Congress High‑importance 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). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Illinois Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hawaii Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Spoken Misplaced Pages This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken 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.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chicago Top‑importance 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. Template:WikiProject Columbia UniversityPlease add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. African diaspora Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics High‑importance 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. United States: Presidential elections Low‑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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections. Template:WPCD-People

view · edit 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.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Template:Pbneutral

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Jose Antonio Vargas (2007-09-17). "On Misplaced Pages, Debating 2008 Hopefuls' Every Facet". The Washington Post. Alison Stewart, Rachel Martin (2008-04-03). "'Round the Clock: Obama, Clinton Wiki-Warfare". The Bryant Park Project, NPR. Brooke Gladstone, Bob Garfield (2008-04-04). "Editors in Chief". On The Media, NPR. Eve Fairbanks (2008-04-09). "Wiki Woman". The New Republic. Jesse Brown (2008-04-10). "Hillary's Wiki Defender". Search Engine, CBC Radio One. Tom Foreman (2008-04-12). "Misplaced Pages Wars". This Week..., CNN. John J. Miller (2008-04-21). "Liberal Web". National Review. Kelly Heyboer (2008-05-28). "Clinton's entry in Misplaced Pages has a watchdog". The Star-Ledger. Paul Murnane (2008-05-28). "one of two pieces aired". WCBS Newsradio 880.

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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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: 5 days

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, 84

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Full protection

This article needs full protection for at least a week unless someone wants to be on RVV duty 24/7.

Bloodbath 87 (talk) 5 November 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC).

zz

The description of Obama as president-elect is nonsense. Obama may well have won the popular vote. But he isn't president-elect yet. He won't be that until the Electoral College votes for him- assuming that it does. Anything could happen between now and then.

JohnC (talk) 04:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Next time, add your thing as a seperate discussion topic instead of slapping it on here. And for your information, Obama did in fact win. It's over. Which means someone needs to go through that mound of partisan crap that constitutes the majority of this article and trim it.  Esper  04:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, one does not become president-elect until one is voted in by the Electoral College. MarixD (talk) 05:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Seoul Guy, may I suggest you read your copy of the U.S. Constitution, it's all set down right there.Ratherthanlater (talk) 05:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources (nationally read U.S. newspapers) have used the term "President-elect" as soon as the results are counted in November as far back as the early 1800's, as is seen by a Google News search. Obama is the President elect. Edison (talk) 05:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

he won

i wanted to say he won but it was blocked so i couldnt oh well... Binglebongle2000 (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. (Then again, I can't see how anyone could feasibly disagree that Obama won.) Why fully protect it? Why not semi-protect it, or, if it's at that high of risk, protect it from accounts newer than, say, 6 months or a year? Particularly, it's no longer the featured article, and it's not cool to protect it when there will be people wanting to update it the instant that Obama wins. -- Javawizard (talk) 04:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Because past experience on Misplaced Pages is that when power changes hands in elections we get edit wars on every conceivable related article (outgoing, incoming, position, election, country, worldwide list of heads etc...) between people who want to immediately list the newly elected person before they've taken office and those who want the articles to be accurate. And no amount of explanatory messages on talkpages has had any effect. Timrollpickering (talk) 04:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It's over. He won. Let the conflicting edit wars begin!  Esper  04:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

He may have won but he hasn't taken office yet and won't for over two months. We went through all this chaos with the Australian election last year (and many others) and that only had about 8 days between election and changeover. Let's not have it again. Timrollpickering (talk) 04:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

TFA heads up

FYI - this article is going to be tomorrow's featured article (Nov 4). Per the compromise noted in the log, I've upped the FA protection level to full/cascading, for 25 hours. Raul654 (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That, uh, was not the compromise that was made, incidentally. I'm not going to wheel war, but this sort of breaks the promise I made to everyone that the article would not be fully protected until absolutely necessary, 12:00AM Nov 4th at the earliest. ~ L'Aquatique! 23:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You're complaining that I protected it 5 12 minutes early? Raul654 (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the complaint is that it was protected hours early. TFA's don't always get full-protection. Why now? Grsz 00:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Depends on where you are in the world. Check your signature. --GoodDamon 00:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

FA? Are you kidding? Wikidemon (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, wow. You aren't kidding.Wikidemon (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's kind of cool that the article's back up there. :) Brothejr (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

When L'Aquatique said "November 4" I would assume actual election activity November 4. Polls don't open for another 11 and a half hours. Grsz 00:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I assumed the same. Does that also mean that the articles are moved off the main page in 24 hours? That would be before the polls close in most places. ~ priyanath  00:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that now Obama and McCain are full, while Palin and Biden are still semi, which was quite against consensus. Grsz 00:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. For the record, when I made the compromise my intention was to have these articles protected around the same time polls started opening on the east coast. These articles being featured on the front page complicates it, because if we keep them up on the front page unprotected, it'll be bad. But watching them get protected earlier than I promised bothers me as well. I am going to try to keep the VP bios unprotected until the promised time, we'll see what happens. ~ L'Aquatique! 00:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I think it shows good judgment and leadership to protect things earlier rather than later. Both the level of vandalism on this article and the highly publicized spruce-up of Palin's Misplaced Pages article the day before she was announced as the VP pick shows that passionate partisans have Misplaced Pages accounts, and they're not afraid to use 'em. Good call, L'Aquatique. Thirdbeach (talk) 02:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks, but it actually wasn't my call. ~ L'Aquatique! 05:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops, got it -- it's clear as a bell when I read instead of skim. Still think it was prudent, but sorry to mistakenly implicate you in the timing. :-) Thirdbeach (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive pls?

Can y'all please archive some of this talk page before mainpage hits? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm closing a number of discussions as resolved... I hope that's the right way to go about it and that the closures are not controversial - feel free to undo my closures and give me a trout-slap if not. I might combine a few repeated discussions. Perhaps someone would want to archive them. Wikidemon (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess this did the trick. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Remove big template box

Could someone remove the big ugly template box at the top of the article? The twin main page article for today, John McCain, is also protected but just has the nice gold-colored lock icon off to the side, and doesn't have the big ugly template box that this article has. Tempshill (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Gimmetrow 00:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Tempshill (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Punctuation of "African American"

At present the article has "African American", "African-American" and "African–American". Could we have consistency? Nurg (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

In my quick hunt through the MOS I see no preferred version. There is a rejected style guide, Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (immigrant ethnic groups), that does not address hyphenation other than to say usages "vary". The Hyphenated American article claims that most style guides recommend dropping the hyphen except when the term is used as an adjective, but it cites only one such guide that does not say this so clearly. At a Q&A page the Chicago Manual of Style recommends against the hyphen entirely. At Talk:African American#hyphen there is no agreement. At Misplaced Pages talk:African American there is a comment that the matter is ad-hoc here, but consistent within an article. All in all I would vote for changing them all to "African American" without the hyphen. Wikidemon (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the instance of an en dash to a hyphen. This is not ruling out a further change to a space, but I wanted to at least get rid of the dash. Nurg (talk) 10:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama as a Law Professor at UCI

Here is an article quoting the UC administration that he was never a professor of law at the school, but was essentially an adjunct professor(or Lecturer). This is important since it is the introduction and does not accurately describe his position within the university. This is also important, because UC came out and actually said that he was not a Constitutional Law professor. I think this is important and should be updated/changed.

Here is the article : http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/sweet_obama_did_hold_the_title.html Dgreco (talk) 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say he was. It says he "taught constitutional law". Grsz 00:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

'African American'

Watch how a wiki works in real time

Here is an opportunity for people new to Misplaced Pages to see how editors constantly strive to improve our content. Discussions about how to improve the brief paragraphs that appear on Misplaced Pages's main page can be found at Misplaced Pages talk:Today's featured article/November 4, 2008 (just click the link). As well, you can see a history of the changes that have already been made here on the article history. Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Please feel free to edit this talk page, and offer your suggestions on how this article can be improved. Risker (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Birthplace is not official

Upon her deathbed, Obama's own grandmother stated that she witnessed Obama's birth in KENYA, AFRICA. This IS a conspiracy, to keep the truth hidden from view by rabid pro-Obama supporters here at Misplaced Pages and within the confines of a powerful silence by the conspirators in the US and UN government. There is absolutely NO evidence that Obama was born in the United States, there is only a copy of a birth certificate that claims he was born in Hawaii. A powerful lawyer's group has sued to force his original birth certificate to be displayed publicly but a pro-Obama judge ordered it sealed and a gag order imposed. Prove me wrong on ANY of this if you can. WALTER RING-Richmond, VA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.0.9.207 (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh, who would do anything to see Obama defeated, has not challenged Obama's eligibility. Therefore, you're wrong. Baseball Bugs 22:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed and debunked at length, please see the FAQ on this page. Dayewalker (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Why archive active discussions?

Active discussions have been archived. Why? I've never seen that before. WP:ARCHIVE: "It is customary to periodically archive old discussions on a talk page when that page becomes too large." Is an article last updated several dozen minutes ago too "old"?

I urge people to look at the latest archive to see conversations that were active only hours before. If you want to talk about them again, you'll have to bring them here now, to a new section you may create. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I plan on bringing it up on the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page after the election. There seems to be a problem with doing that, and on this page in particular.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Please concentrate on proposed improvements to the article, not complaints about other editors - this is not the place for that. The request to archive the page is made several threads above, probably due to vastly increased editing volume in connection with the upcoming election and preparing for this article's being a featured article soon along with John McCain's. Wikidemon (talk) 01:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No one said anything about any editors, not even generally. The request to archive was for "some" of the page, not the entire page including active discussions. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I see a section above asks, "Can y'all please archive some of this talk page before mainpage hits?" Some, not all, but it appears it was all archived. Can active talk be restored? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have an issue from the archive you'd like to bring up, you can copy-paste to relist, yes, but everything was archived (at McCain as well) to clean up. Grsz 01:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Below I've placed 4 de-archived threads that were not yet 48 hours old. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That's reasonable. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey that seems wrong. No matter how old a thread is, I was under the impression that as long as it's active, it wouldn't be archived. Am I mistaken?VictorC (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

FAQ help

I've tried adding the following to the FAQ question about Obama's birth, but for some reason it doesn't show up when I look at it. Can anyone help?

On Nov. 1, the Associated Press wrote that Hawaii State officials declared that they have "personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate" and "there's no doubt Barack Obama was born in Hawaii."

Thanks, ~ priyanath  06:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops, looks like it shows up now. Must have been a cache clearing problem or something. ~ priyanath  06:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it takes a few minutes for FAQ changes to transclude into the main article. --GoodDamon 14:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Interest group ratings?

ACORN - Added Short Section - (As This is a Republican Campaign Topic)

I know this might have been covered in this talk page more than a few times. I didn't find a reference to it in the article, so I added a few sentences with references and links. Please revert if it's irrelevent, but I keep hearing and reading about this topic in reference to Obama's connection to it. Seemed to me to be kind of obtuse to not have at least three or four sentences on it. VictorC (talk) 12:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Just as Victorcoutin states in the section head, this is a "Republican Campaign Topic", and should be in the campaign article—just not here. ~ priyanath  15:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, Brothejr (talk) just swooped in last night, reverted me, then immediately logged out. Nice. In any case, I'm waiting for him to either undo or move it where ever it seems most appropriate. Would have been nice if he had actually been right about his justification. Takes only a few seconds to check for goodness sake. I just note that ACORN's blatantly absent from any topic on Misplaced Pages having to do with either McCain or Obama! Odd. - Good to know I'm not the only person here besides reversionists. VictorC (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Try to assume some good faith, here... This article, the ACORN article, and other articles tenuously related to Obama have been under constant attack by single-purpose accounts intent on turning them into attacks on their subjects instead of encyclopedic articles about their subjects. In these final 48 hours of the election season, it has been nonstop, to the point where some long-term regular editors have begun taking a revert-on-sight stance on perceived attempts to bring inappropriate campaign material into what is, after all, a person's biography. And make no mistake, the same has occurred at the John McCain article. So my recommendation is to do the edits yourself, in the appropriate article, and give long-term editors here the benefit of the doubt. It's been rather exhausting, to be honest. --GoodDamon 17:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I second what GoodDamon says, emphasizing that there have been a number of people trying to add Republican Campaign Topics to this article, not realizing that such campaign talking points should go to other articles. Most have done this antagonistically, so editors here are on a short fuse at times. VictorC—if you do add this to the campaign article, I suggest it be done in the context of it being used as a campaign tactic. That's the only reason it might be notable. ~ priyanath  17:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll wait for the other editor to come back at least till tonight, but you can check the diff. I just added I think three sentences with references. I'm not sure how this is a talking point, the way it's phrased it's just a reference. VictorC (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC) No, it should be!

Set aside any political basis for adding ACORN to this article. ACORN, speaking positively now, is a significant part of Obama's past. ACORN should be added for that reason and based on Wiki policies. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(editconflict)I did see it - and think that it might be appropriate for United States presidential election, 2008, but certainly not here. But even there, it has no notability except in the context of the Republicans using it as a smear tactic. So their use of it as a campaign tactic would need to be stated. That's just my opinion. I haven't been editing the campaign article, so I don't know what the editors there have been seeing as notable. I suggest you ask over there, since people here seem to have their hands full with this article. ~ priyanath  17:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you really think it has no notability? I keep hearing about it pretty much in reference to Obama on a regular basis, and when I looked into it I was surprised to see that the most major interaction that Obama's seemed to have with "ACORN" is in dealing with overblown and baseless exaggerations from the campaign trail. I think that's pretty notable, especially since (as far as I can tell) the only other times he dealt with them was kind of limited. In any case, the other editor reverted citing a reason that had no basis in fact (unlike what you've been saying). So, as far as I'm concerned, the balls in his court. Why not let him clean up his own mess? I'm not his babysitter after all, and perhaps he knows something we don't. I see that he's on this page pretty often. I think we are perhaps better off deferring to his judgment. VictorC (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, the notability "is in dealing with overblown and baseless exaggerations from the campaign trail", and therefore it is only notable in regard to the campaign, not to the overall picture of his life - which is what this article is about. Methinks the editor you're referring to will agree when he gets back. ~ priyanath  18:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe the next time he gets an itch he has to scratch he can take some time and patience with his zeal. I was kind of surprised when last night he just would swoop in then disappear. I think we might all work at having more respect for other people's edits than that. Especially if we both agree with each other (and even if we don't). Sorry for the off-topic blurb, but I guess mentioning etiquette is pertinent in strange places. VictorC (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thankfully, just 1-day to go. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, after the election then, positive/encyclopedic things about ACORN should be added on this page. Saying it lives elsewhere is no excuse for completely wiping this page clean of any ACORN mention, even positive one. It smacks of pure POV to leave out wiki-worthy material. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Obama's work for Project Vote is already duly covered in the article. Obama's interaction with ACORN as its own organization is very peripheral to his own life. He apparently was on a legal team to represent ACORN, but the staffing of lawyers to cases within a law firm, and even being lead attorney on a case, rarely gets covered here unless it's a defining moment in the attorney's career, e.g. Johnny Cochran and Christopher Darden on the O. Jr. Simpson murder case. I don't have a count, but Obama likely worked on dozens of cases, many at higher dollar amounts or for people and organizations more notable than ACORN. This is not a list article of his legal cases. Similarly, we don't list every vendor of a presidential campaign in the bio article on the candidate. Without impugning the intentions of any editors, the only reason why Obama's relationship with ACORN is being discussed off wiki is in the context of the campaign, meaning that at best this belongs in the campaign article. And moreover, to the extent that this is a campaign talking point, and major reliable third party sources cover it as a campaign tactic rather than a matter of substance, Obama's role in ACORN needs to be described where it is covered as a campaign accusation, not a notable matter in its own right. I'll add that this issue has been discussed at some length here with no consensus for inclusion.Wikidemon (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

What Wikidemon said. (Beat me to the punch again). I would also add that there are lots of things that are in sub-articles, rather than the main article, which is in summary style. If we tried to cram everything, positive and negative, from the campaigns into this article, it would far exceed Misplaced Pages's policy on article length. So new additions have to be weighed very carefully. --GoodDamon 18:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I assumed that. I checked the talk page first before I started working on the section and checking the references. I didn't find anything. I know, I just didn't check thoroughly enough. Well, there should at least be a link or reference on the page (and/or on McCain's page) - the Republicans have made this kind of a linchpin of their campaign. Like I said when I first started this new section, you all can disagree with me (and revert everything - I'd consider it obtuse though) that's what Misplaced Pages is all about I suppose. VictorC (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, I think I see where the problem lies. This talk page is very busy, and older threads are frequently archived. There are links to the talk page archives near the top, and those should contain the discussions you're looking for. --GoodDamon 18:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I just found five threads with ACORN in the heading, the largest one with over 70 entries. Wow. Do I feel silly. Thanks for the guidance. I'm still pretty green at Misplaced Pages - obviously! VictorC (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries. You saw what you thought was a problem, and moved to rectify it. That's called being bold, and it's encouraged! Then, you took things to the talk page, and you paid attention to the arguments of other editors, which is also encouraged. And you didn't revert-war. I'd say, thus far you've been pretty close to a model Wikipedian. :) --GoodDamon 19:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, a lot of things happened while I was asleep after a 13+ hour night shift! Sorry for not responding right away after your last post to talk page! My reasoning for removing the post from the article is exactly the same as stated by Wikidemon, Gooddemon, Priyanath. ACORN, while splashed heavily around the news right now is mainly a campaign issue and when looked into, did not really play a major or even a minor part in Barack Oabma's life other then a Republican campaign talking point by his opponent. By placing the topic in it's own section gave it undue weight making it look like it was a major life defining event in his life. The reason I stated the 2008 presidential comment was because (I had thought I had saw it in one of those articles which as it turns out was not, my bad!) it is mainly a result of the elections. If the elections would not be going on right now, no one would even be talking about this or even giving ACORN a second look. This article is written in summary style so the majority of the smaller nitty gritty details/events should be first and foremost be placed in the daughter articles before it is even considered to be put in the main article. However, I do want to also echo what GD had just said above and even though I reverted it, you still did right by being bold and then when reverted, coming here to discuss it instead of revert-warring the section back in. That goes a long way for creditability and being a really cool wikipedian in my book! ;D Brothejr (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back Brothejr. If you reexamine the entry, it's very short. It's not in its own section. It might stand some rewording, but I contend it is needed and fills out the article. One editor (above) suggested that it could be reworded as a refutation to the Republican assertation, I personally am not sure that's even a needed factor. I feel it's better to leave it as a few simple, yet informative statements so conclusions can be drawn in either direction. I have everything referenced and I did take some time preparing it. I don't think it has any attached stigma to it the way I set it up. In any case, the veritable ball is in your veritable court. VictorC (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I did and I still stand by my decision. It does not carry enough weight to be included in any form in this article and would be best to be included in an 2008 presidential election article. You are more then welcome to add ACORN to the 2008 presidential election article if it is not already there. However it still does not carry enough weight to be included in the main article. Brothejr (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Update: I have been reading the old "talk" entries on this and they refer to the entries on Project Vote as if it is ACORN. So far, as much as I can tell they aren't affiliated. They only have overlapping activities in certain areas, it seems, and combined forces in certain situations. I think that may be how Obama first became associated with ACORN (of which, again he doesn't seem to have worked for outside of the lawsuit (and a one day orientation session which they asked him to participate in - looks like they had him give a one or two hour pep talk to a classroom). So the entries on 'Project Vote' don't actually have anything to do with ACORN. VictorC (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, so how about moving it there with a link to the entry here? VictorC (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

One editor said, "Exactly, the notability 'is in dealing with overblown and baseless exaggerations from the campaign trail', and therefore it is only notable in regard to the campaign, not to the overall picture of his life - which is what this article is about." That is irrelevant. Obama claimed his executive experience running his campaign as the executive experience he needs to be President. That's a fact that he said that. I'll assume anything he says is part of "the overall picture of his life" is, in fact, part of "the overall picture of his life" and should not be removed by an editor saying it has no notability. His campaign is necessarily part of "the overall picture of his life," based on what he himself said. Not based on my view, not on anyone else's view, but based on what he said. How could his campaign be the executive experience he needs to be President and yet not notable here on this wiki page? That does not make sense. I see people making this page the way they want it to be rather than the way it is in real life. So after the election (just to avoid the appearance that I'm doing this for political reasons), something, even a little something, needs to be added about ACORN somewhere on this page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Additionally it might be argued that the ACORN case and lawsuit (in collaboration with the US Justice Dept) that resulted in the statewide enforcement of the Motor Voter Law and achieved national recognition thus propelled Obama further along on his road to the US presidential race. So therefore I say this is something we might not so easily dismiss. VictorC (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is written in WP:Summary style. That means that there are a whole bunch of sub-articles, each of which deals with one subject in detail. Only the most important aspects of Obama's life should be documented here. Most of the campaign-related material goes into the campaign article, most of the material about his early life goes into Early life and career of Barack Obama and so on. In each case, the most important portion (or lead section) of any sub-article is included here. That is not irrelevant. It determines how we approach adding new material. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. Well, I think that perhaps we can enter a topic on how he was instrumental (or involved with) the early implementation of the Motor Voter Law in Illinois - which is a major contribution (biographically speaking) and also explains the ACORN interaction. This could be in a subsection of the page there with a short sentence and a link to it here. Or a short item with a few sentences. VictorC (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Some editors here think ACORN is not notable but this is: "In March 2007, Global Language Monitor added "Obama" to its English lexicon based on the use of Obama- as a root for neologisms such as: obamamentum, obamaBot, obamacize, obamarama, obamaNation, obamanomics, obamican, obamafy, obamamania, and obamacam." That's it, I'll not comment here further. This page is apparently patrolled by "obamicans." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Subsequently, obamicans has been removed. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(To VC) The same thing comes up that we have been saying before, first it must be added to the appropriate sub-article and then weighed to how significant of an impact on his personal life the issue is to Barack before we add it to the article. Also, to add something like this, you will need consensus of the other editors. (To LegitimateAndEvenCompelling) Please only discuss the article content and not other editors, thank you. Brothejr (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

-editconflict- I've been looking into this, and I'm beginning to think that the whole shebang can go into the Motor voter page, with a sentence or two here and a sentence or two in the campaign page linking to it. The Motor voter page is really a skeleton that needs more additions (the Illinois lawsuit is mentioned in the same sentence with five or six other similar lawsuits) and this chapter in the history of it is significant. Additionally, L&EC I am in no way an ObamaBot. If you continue to refer to me in that manner I might have to commit Obamacide on your keester.VictorC (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"Keester." Is that an Alan Keyes supporter in the race against Obama? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Howabout continuing this after tomorrow, folks? It's gonna be less relevant then, eitherway. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

After tomorrow? But then people wouldn't be able to influence the election addition of encyclopedic material :-). I agree, give all this a rest for now - there will be no consensus found for adding 'new' material that has already been discussed over and over again, until after the election. ~ priyanath  22:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

ACORN

Set aside any political basis for adding ACORN to this article. ACORN, speaking positively now, is a significant part of Obama's past. ACORN should be added, even if only a sentence, for that reason and based on Wiki policies. Such a large article with not even a single mention of ACORN smacks of POV/soapbox. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I see the active thread on this was restored. Others active threads were restored as well. Good. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama had very little to do with ACORN, so any mention of the organization in his biography would be undue weight. This probably should have stayed in the archive, since this has been covered not less than a million times. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we re-close this discussion? There is little chance of achieving consensus to add this material to the article in the near future. Wikidemon (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

OK: Here's my two cents. The problem here isn't ACORN. It's that Obama was part of a national drive in conjunction with the DOJ in the state of Illinois to legally compel non-compliant states to observe the Motor voter law that had been passed by Congress in '93. This IS a milestone in Obama's life, career. ACORN just happens to be a part of the story. So, perhaps the entire approach is not to title it "ACORN," it should be under either Motor Voter Law or Voting Rights Act of 1993? VictorC (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well before you can announce anything is a mile stone in his life, first you need to get a couple Reliable Sources that say that it is a mile stone in his life. Then because this article is written in summery style, you need to go to the related child article (And trust me there is a child article for every section within this article) and add it there. Then finally before adding something major to the main article, it is highly recommended, and even in line with the philosphy of being bold to bring it up here for other editors to discuss it and reach a majority consensus on whether to add it to the article. If you want a hassle freeway of adding it without anyone runnign in to revert, scream, or whatever, then that is the recommended way to go about adding it. Brothejr (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance, but who is ACORN? And why is it always spelled in CAPITAL letters here? If it's the name of a person, shouldn't it just be Acorn? QuackOfaThousandSuns (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this legit?

For some reason, I don't think a consensus has been reached in redirecting ethnic links concerning Obama's race. This kinda smells pooy . I've already revered once, so I won't again lest some editor runs off to AN/I accusing me of edit warring. Any thoughts? Digital 19:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

His father is a Luo, so linking to that ethnicity is more specific and improves the article. Four words later, a link to Kenya (which is where Kenyan redirects to) is provided. The original text (that you reverted to) is more specific and informative to the reader. --guyzero | talk 19:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries. If anyone, it's the other editor that will be awarded the "Order of the Boot". Regards SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

My interpretation is this: if the person has readily identifiable and well known African roots, such as originating in Kenya (or Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Liberia, etc.) and the person is Black, nationality (not race) should be the preferred and more accurate method of scrutiny. Simply being Black is so much less specific. I feel that it's preferable to go with the most specific terminology. So if the person originated (ancestrally) from a tribe geographically from the land of Kenya called "Luo," it's by far a more informative way to label the entry in the article. I will update it to that effect if there are no objections. VictorC (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Absolutely correct, and that's the way it was before these edits. There's no need for it to be consistent with "white American" on his mother's side. --GoodDamon 20:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not as comfortable with the term "Black" as it's referring to Obama Sr. who is already from Africa as it is. I suggest we replace it simply with "Luo," if there aren't any objections. Additionally I get the feeling it clouds the issue, and hints that Obama Sr. is "Black American." For those who consider it pertinent, the context is abundantly sufficient to make matters (of race) obviously clear, (just by reading on through the rest of the article). VictorC (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Already done. That's the way it was before that spate of edits, and that's the way it should be. --GoodDamon 20:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. This is why I'm a deletionist. Digital 20:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Though the edit-warring user has been blocked, I will add to the consensus that the wiki-link to Luo is more precise & more informative than the link to Black. - DigitalC (talk) 07:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Tony Blair

{{editprotect}} "Obama also established close relationships with prominent foreign politicians and elected officials even before his presidential candidacy, notably with former British Prime minister Tony Blair, whom he met in London in 2005"

This is the wikipedia quote. It states that Obama has close relationships with elected officals and then mentions Tony Blair as the former British PM. It should state "then current British Prime Minister" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.117.97 (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Your right, but the article is locked, so it can onlt be done by an admin.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it should be changed to "then current" from "former". ~ priyanath  01:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Done Risker (talk) 02:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please post corrections/changes on WP:ERRORS, where they are more likely to be seen by an admin.

Why is Obama's picture on the bottom of McCain on the main page?

Why is he below McCain? What is this implying? 71.113.139.130 (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the position can be reversed half-way through the 24 hours, to be fair? ~ priyanath  02:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Alphabetical.
2. Obama has already been on the mainpage (in 2004); McCain hasn't.
3. Does anyone really think it matters? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's implying that M comes before O. Grsz 02:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• A javascript has now been applied to rotate the position of the two articles. Risker (talk) 02:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Cyde for doing it - that's a good solution. Tvoz/talk 03:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

is it me or does it really matter? who cares where they are as long as its not claiming a side...this is honestly petty and useless--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 03:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Dead external links

Can those who have time run the external link checker and fix the broken links? There's a few that need updating. http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Barack_Obama Thanks. Mahanga 02:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutral sources

The text relies eleven different times on http://www.obama.senate.gov. Maybe at some point it might be good to look for more neutral sources.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Considering there are 158 footnotes, that's less than 6%. Of course, the necessity of a more reliable source also depends, to some extent, on what type of fact the source is supporting. On the other hand, if there is a better source to be had for any of those facts, we should use it. --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If this source is used to support notability, then it's probably not the best source.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, hope this doesn't sound silly, but that's a dot-gov site. The government site on Obama are you sure that's not neutral? VictorC (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not independent of the subject. The notability guideline says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The issue is more notability than neutrality.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there really a question of Senator Obama's notability? Maybe one or two of the other 150ish reliable sources are sufficient to establish it. --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP requires reliable third-party sources for content. The web site obama.senate.gov is not a third-party source. See WP:SELFPUB.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the point isn't whether Obama is notable, that's self evident. I think that the point is that we are trying to make this article follow the Misplaced Pages protocols just as if it were any Misplaced Pages article (which actually, it is).VictorC (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a specific factual claim in mind? Is it something that can be reasonably questioned? By all means, tag it as {{dubious}}. --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Do we want to do this now, or do we want to wait until the storm is over? The best thing would probably be to make a list of the uses of that website in the article. I haven't looked at it thoroughly yet, but I think there may be some self-serving uses.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The nub is, Obama, while not actually the owner of the site, and it is a government site, and independently maintained it's still in a way "his" site. This creates a slight perception of conceivable bias. I think this is kind of an issue, not crucial, but still something to prompt further sourcing if possible. VictorC (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Some of the sourcing is for bills that were introduced by Obama. One is for the date he was sworn in as Senator. Some of them have additional references to support the same point. No big deal. Yes, it might be good to find better sources where needed, but there's no devious self-serving issue here. ~ priyanath  03:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Sure. Everything else being equal, a sterling third party source is better than a first-party claim, even perhaps for uncontroversial material. The uses I see are:

1. link to his official site - that's a WP:EL, not a citation 2. swearing in date - uncontroversial but might as well find neutral cite 3-6. Bills sponsored / votes - uncontroversial but verifiable. Replace or supplement with with neutral cite if available (though #5 has other cites that may verify it adequately). 7-8. Committee assignments - uncontroversial but verifiable. 9. Contents of November 2006 speech. Best to replace with neutral cite, but has not been challenged. 10. Obama and Brownback took AIDS test.... Best to find neutral cite. 11. Contents of Audacity of Hope with respect to views on religion. Best to cite 3rd party source to summarize book contents, with courtesy link to primary material. 12. Friendship with Tony Blair. Better to cite 3rd party source, particularly because this is a characterization and not a simple fact. 13. bottom link to official link - not a citation.

I don't see any of this as high priority or controversial but this is a FA so it would improve the article to find stronger sourcing on #2-12 (i.e. the eleven uses, with the possible exception of #5 if the other sources are sufficient). Wikidemon (talk) 03:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If Obama gets elected President, maybe then he'll be considered notable. Baseball Bugs 04:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll stipulate the notability if he'll change his mind about running for president.  :-) Ferrylodge (talk) 04:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

We can wait to nail down his notability, for about 24 hours. --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The text at George W. Bush relies 28 times on whitehouse.gov references. Maybe let's wait a bit and this thing will take care of itself :-) ~ priyanath  04:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

MLB.com is cited for facts in baseball articles, yet its neutrality is not challenged. Baseball Bugs 04:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That coming from an editor with Baseball in the name :) Actually, I would have the same concern about baseball. . . supposedly the all American sport but baseball has yet to account for its close friendship with that unrepentant dictator, Fidel Castro. Wikidemon (talk) 06:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

A Locked Article

When the race is over will this article be unlocked? Melia Nymph (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The consensus reached was to lock the articles on the four principals in the election for Election Day and to return to semi-protection when the results were in, which will be some time after the polls start closing at 6PM EST Tuesday. Some think it will be very early that evening, some very late. We'll see. Tvoz/talk 02:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Correction: the full protection wasn't supposed to happen unless activity warranted it, so apparently it was lifted, for now anyway. Tvoz/talk 06:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite prepared to lock it again shortly if necessary. My understanding of the consensus elsewhere was that these two pages (this and John McCain) would be fully protected today; that seems to have been the understanding of others, too. We don't want them to be hit by vandalism, even for a short time and with alert users reverting. I'm on Pacific time, and will see how it goes in the next hour or so. But to reply to the original question: if this article is fully protected, it will be so only during the election itself. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That was my understanding too, actually, but on re-reading the "compromise" section of that AN/I thread more carefully, it seems to indicate that full prot wouldn't happen unless warranted. I'd prefer only sprot, but realistically I won't be surprised if full prot is deemed necessary in a few hours. Tvoz/talk 08:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have now fully protected the McCain article because of edit warring on top of the vandalism. Risker (talk) 07:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps then it was not a wise idea to have him on the main page today. Why have we two featured pages today? Are we going to do this every time every country in the world has an election? Giano (talk) 09:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

See the discussion at WT:TFAR, and Raul's comments further down that page. Basically, since both candidates' articles are FAs, we thought it would be a good advertisement for Misplaced Pages's work to show that we can have neutral, high-quality articles on contentious subjects. Its a rare case of WP:IAR being applied thoughtfully. And Raul was keen to say that this shouldn't be treated as any sort of a precedent; that said, if all the major candidates in another country's election have featured articles at the time of the election, I don't see why we couldn't do it again. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as Admins are running to protect it every 5 minutes, which is against Misplaced Pages's ethos, and there is already the inevtable charge of bias I think it's a very unecessary and risky advertising ploy. So far the only thing being advertised is that Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia everyone cannot edit. However, as you say, it has been discussed elsewhere and agreed, so that is rather that. Giano (talk) 10:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Military Experience?

Image

I propose changing the image to Image:BarackObama2005portrait.jpg. --Chinneeb_{my talk} 06:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Nicer image, but the turning of the body will make it look very strange on the main page. Risker (talk) 06:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)That's a wonderful portrait, IMO - more dignified yet more personal, and certainly higher quality in lighting and composition. However, in the interest of fairness and symmetry I think we should wait until after the election. McCain's portrait is similar to Obama's current one, a direct frontal shot against a textured blue-grey background. The two are not bad, but also not incredibly flattering either. Although there is no policy or guideline requirement to make candidates' articles look alike, I think it's most proper for the moment, and a better fit to appear side-by-side on the main page. So my 2 cents is ask again tomorrow at this time...Wikidemon (talk)

Who said anything about the main page? –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The turning of the body will also make it strange in this article, per WP:MOS#Images, since he'll be looking off the text. (And I'm always leery of images that haven't been vetted at FAC or FAR, even if Commons claims they're free: prefer to have an image reviewer check them out.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it not simply possible to flip the image horizontally in order to have him face the text? Elpasi (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There are some rules that prohibits flipping images (unless they are then clearly marked as such). It was an issue at Palin's page shortly after her nomination as VP if you want to check this out. I dunno have time know; Gotta go voting.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hint: check the (Palin)image hystory at commons.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Election Day

Well done to everyone who kept this article, as well as the other three candidates articles from melt down over these long months. After full protection is lifted, we'll have our hands full adding details about who won, who lost, why, etc etc etc :)

If I knew you all in real life, I'd buy you all a round; regardless of the fact that half you guys probably support prohibition ;-D

Good work; everyone. Digital 06:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. Congratulations to all those who worked on these articles, getting them to FA, and keeping them that way. It's a real achievement! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Two featured articles on the front page on the same day? That's a first for me, that's for sure. - Two hundred percent (talk) 07:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Except that this one is not full protected (yet) - see here. Tvoz/talk 07:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks, Digital. I never understood the point of prohibition. Tvoz/talk 07:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		This barnstar is for every editor who assisted in accuracy, form, vandalism and POV fighting for Barack Obama for Election Day 2008, and who did it with civility, and just a dash of frustration and coriander. Moni3 (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Another one I avoid like the plague, because deep down inside, I'm a sniveling little coward. Or maybe (I hope) y'all are brave here so I can be brave somewhere else. --Moni3 (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Remove semi-protection from this talk page?

I'd like to propose removing the semi-protection for this page, at least for a while until vandalism becomes problematic again, so that unregistered and new users can comment and provide editing suggestions. Are there sufficient eyes on this page now so that we could do so? Risker (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to lean towards no, to be honest. I think we'd unprotect it, be flooded with vandalism, and just end up having to re-protect again. GlassCobra 14:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand entirely where you are coming from; I rather doubt it would last for very long. Perhaps a subpage could be created, with a link at the top of this page, where unregistered and new users could comment, though. Thoughts? (I'm not in a position to do this myself, so it would ultimately be left to others to decide and act.) Risker (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

NOOO!!!! Do not even think about unprotecting it! I'm on Huggle now, and I'm getting IPs adding "OBAMA 08" and "OBAMA SUCKSSSS!!!!!" on articles about computer programming languages. I don't know about creating a subpage, but whatever you do, seriously, do not unprotect this page! J.delanoy_adds 14:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC) I thought you were talking about the actual article. Now I feel stupid... J.delanoy_adds 16:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) It can never hurt to try unprotection for a while. I'll be watching this page most of the day (as will many other editors, I'm sure), and the worst-case-scenario is we have to re-protect. –Juliancolton 14:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's probably best for me to withdraw this suggestion, as the article itself is receiving over 500 hits/minute as of 1500 hours UTC (10 a.m. ET), and is only going to get more as the day goes on. Risker (talk) 15:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think my edit was one of the last ones to the page before it got protected. Yippee! Seriously, maybe this page should be protected while the election is going on. I undid some Obama-targeted vandalism earlier on an unrelated page, and I fear this will only continue. LovesMacs (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep it fully protected, pretty please. It's a featured article, anyone may propose edits on this talk page and the risk of people seeing gross stuff simply outweighs any potential benefits of even keeping it only semiprotected, looking at the vandalism from sleeper accounts so far today. On an unrelated note, risker, where's that 500/min figure from? Everyme 15:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Same as J.delanoy above. Everyme 16:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion about refers to this talk page, not the article itself. There really hasn't been very much vandalism on the article while it was semi-protected. Only one persistent vandal who kept going until he was blocked. About the talk page, I don't know. We will get plenty of slurs from IPs, but it's not a big problem when it's on the talk page.--Apoc2400 (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll unprotect the Talk page for a while as an experiment... Kaldari (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I give it about five minutes. ;) --GoodDamon 17:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah! Apologies, Risker, I thought you were talking about the article as well. Though admittedly it doesn't really change my opinion. :P I just think this whole atmosphere right now is too volatile; best to just keep things calm as best we can. GlassCobra 20:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Haha, alright, well I suppose if the best people can manage is incorrect junk like this, we can keep unprotection for a while. :P GlassCobra 20:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

lower the shields

Ok, considering this talk page hasn't been vandalised a single time since having all protection removed and that Mccain was bumped down to semi-prot hours ago with only a couple of bad edits since then, i think that this article should be put back down to semi-protection. Thoughts?--Jac16888 (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, my first thought is I'm glad to see I was wrong above. My second thought is, go for it. --GoodDamon 18:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

All four candidate articles are currently protected, which we agreed at AN/ANI on October 31 and again recently. There's also consensus that the articles on candidates, at least the two presidential candidates, should have the same protection level. So we won't have a consensus at a specific talk page, you need to go to AN/ANI. Cenarium 18:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflicts)As an IP I can edit, but the semi-lock template is still was in place, perhaps that has misled vandals... Never-the-less they will appear, especially if the "shields are lowered"... just attracts them you know, and then they come to this page when the front page lock down occurs. 172.129.64.249 (talk) 18:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup, this page and the three others are currently full protected and, barring unforseen delays they will be unprotected shortly after results are released. (I plan to spend a few minutes either drinking heavily or... well, drinking heavily. If another admin gets here first, they are of course free to do it themselves). ~ L'Aquatique! 20:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

African-American, American, or Mullato

Reduce to semi-protection?

It seems sort of odd (and against our principles) that our featured article is sysop-only protected. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

See this ANI discussion for the decision. GlassCobra 21:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Change wikilink about senate seniority

The wikilink of the word "junior" should be changed to point to junior senator, because the word "senior" in the John McCain article is wikilinked to senior senator, plus one day we may have a full article about specifically junior senators. NSK Nikolaos S. Karastathis (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• plus, the same change has already been done in the Main Page. NSK Nikolaos S. Karastathis (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Seems to have been fixed. GlassCobra 21:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Junior Senator

Junior Senator redirects to Seniority in the United States Senate, please fix --Numyht (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be the correct target. Can you suggest something else that it should be pointing to? GlassCobra 21:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't get my point clear, instead of the current article that is links to Junior Senator, I was planning to link it like this Junior Senator --Numyht (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Once the official results come in, I'd like the infobox and template I have set up at User:Therequiembellishere/President-Infoboxes to be put up. If anyone has any last-minute changes to make to it, please feel free and do so. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If he wins, yes. If he doesn't, that would be kind of weird. ~ L'Aquatique! 00:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be horrendously biased here but Obama will declared be the new President-elect by at most the early hours of next morning. As soon as it is I'd like these put up. I'll put them here for further reference. Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Well done. You beat me too it.FuriousJorge (talk) 03:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe change "take office" to "Inauguration" or "Inaugural date," something along those lines since it has an official name. Monkeysocks2 (talk) 03:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks you, I'll be saying that I helped his page update quickly for a long time now. I'm pretty sure the "taking office" is automated and can't be changed. And for an administrator editing the page, please fix the extra "" I missed after Sasha's name. I'm actually not sure what to do to fix it but IT shot to my attention when I saw this page again. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama
President of the United States Elect
Assuming office January 20, 2009
Vice President	Joe Biden
Succeeding	George W. Bush
United States Senator from Illinois
Incumbent
Assumed office January 4, 2005Serving with Richard Durbin
Preceded by	Peter Fitzgerald
Succeeded by	TBA
Member of the Illinois Senate from the 13th district
In office January 8, 1997 – November 4, 2004
Preceded by	Alice Palmer
Succeeded by	Kwame Raoul
Personal details
Born	Barack Hussein Obama II (1961-08-04) August 4, 1961 (age 63) Honolulu, United States
Political party	Democratic Party
Spouse	Michelle Obama (m. 1992)
Children	Malia Ann (b. 1998) Sasha (b. 2001)</smal>
Residence(s)	Kenwood, United States
Alma mater	Occidental College Columbia College Harvard Law School
Profession	Attorney Politician
Signature
Website	Barack Obama - U.S. Senator for Illinois
More detailed articles about Barack Obama ———————————— Early life and career · (Family · Memoir) Illinois Senate career U.S. Senate career Presidential primaries · Obama–Biden 2008 Policy positions · Public image

Maybe change "take office" to "Inauguration" or "Inaugural date," something along those lines since it has an official name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeysocks2 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Protecting also the talk page? It's a shame!

I've never seen before that you've protected a talkpage on wiki. Do you think that this is a democratic step? Perhaps this is acceptable in China, in the Balkans or in North Korea, but not in a democratic part of the world.

You'd be surprised jsut how much vandalism this page itself gets. Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Senior Senator Description

I think that it should be added in the page introduction that Joe Biden is the senior senator from Delaware, not just the senator from Delaware. N734LQ (talk) 02:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

President elect?

Obviously he seems to have crossed the mark, but shouldn't we wait for McCain to concede? YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 04:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"President-elect" should be capitalized in the first sentence. Coemgenus 04:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe concession is a mere formality but I could be wrong.— Ѕandahl ♥ 04:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama is the projected President elect for now but the news media projections have no official bearing. When he becomes the actual president elect, and the effect of the opponent's likely concession, are technical questions. It may not be until after the electoral college.... We ought to get this one right. Wikidemon (talk) 04:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I would concur with the idea he is not president elect until after Dec. 15(?) when teh electoral college votes -- then it is official. Until then anything can happen.Plhofmei (talk) 04:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I know, but I'm saying this because an admin has edited through protection to say that Obama is President Elect. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 04:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Could we please get a quick ruling of this, and perhaps apply it to some of the other articles? We should have thought of this before the election, but exactly how do we refer to Obama: (1) between now and the states' official election announcements; and (2) between the official election results and December 15? That should be applied to all the election-related articles, because people are editing them all to call Obama the winner, President-elect, etc., when it is not technically true. No great harm done but it does make Misplaced Pages look a little amateurish, and might be teaching millions of children and some adults the world over the wrong details about the political process.Wikidemon (talk) 04:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

McCain just conceded to Obama, it seems fine to call him President Elect now. Parsecboy (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

There are no rulings on Misplaced Pages, only consensus. I think it's unfortunate that we had to fully protect this article (it wasn't my decision), but with McCain's concession it's not ambiguous any longer. Steven Walling (talk) 04:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

McCain does not have the power to confer this. Timrollpickering (talk) 04:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Multiple reputable news organizations are identifying him as the President-elect, that should be enough Nableezy (talk) 04:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That's good evidence, but it may be a technical question, not something to be sourced. Then again there may be no official point at which someone becomes a president-elect, in which case the sourcing is what counts. Does anyone remember their American Government class? Wikidemon (talk) 04:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many news organisations say so, we can't say something that we know ain't so. He won't be President-elect until 15-Dec, just as he wasn't the D nominee until the convention. Before the convention I think we called him the presumptive nominee; now he should be presumptive President-elect. -- Zsero (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Good. Well, for those of us who don't remember our history class, is there an authoritative citation on that? If so we can put it in the FAQ, because this is sure to come up regularly between now and then across a wide range of articles. Maybe put it in a MOS or an essay, if it is not already there. Wikidemon (talk) 04:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the difference now is that American presidents have traditionally been referred to as the president-elect as soon as the election is conceded. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Is "President-elect" actually a position formally defined anywhere? There's all manner of dates it could be - when the results are declared & certified (and I mean declared by the actual counting officials not "projected" by the media or concessions), when the electoral college casts its votes or when those votes are officially counted & accepted in January - but if "bloke who will be the next President" isn't a position formally defined we could be descending into original research if we're making a bold statement on when someone is or isn't it. Most of the ~elect usage on Misplaced Pages is frankly a fudge to dampen post election edit wars rather than reflecting actual usage. Timrollpickering (talk) 04:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

i feel like a bit of a dork but... what does President-elect actually mean? pre-elect or post-elect? (obviously post) I'm not from USA so don't know if this is a common-usage term or not... but i got baffled on the first sentence. Boomshanka (talk) 05:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

And "presumptive" is a total misuse of the word. It means one is presumed to the post but can be displaced by another coming forward. "Apparent" is the more accurate term - an apparent only loses their place by their own death or actions. Timrollpickering (talk) 05:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

All of you get over it, the man has won. Your rhetorical bickering doesn't undo that, and "President-elect" is a accepted political term in the United States. Steven Walling (talk) 05:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with opinions on the election itself, and the assumptions of bad faith that it is are one of the most annoying aspects of Post Election Edit War Syndrome. It is about presenting the information correctly and accurately, especially when there is a difference between the constitutional position and how the media present it. Timrollpickering (talk) 05:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with "rhetorical bickering" but factual accuracy. Obama is not the president-elect until he is chosen by the Electoral College (United States) on Dec. 15. - auburnpilot talk 05:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"President Elect" from: Newsweek U.S. News & World Report There are lots more that meet WP:RS. ~ priyanath  05:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I've gotta agree. It is the most widely used term between now and 20 January not just 15 December – 20 January. Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Technically, there is no such thing as the "constitutional" position of president-elect. It is largely terminology used by the public as a way of differentiating the next president from the incumbent and/or the other losing candidate (if they are different). Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It isn't over until I give my concession speech on this issue :) Nevermind.... I withdraw my objection. Wikidemon (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's what Reliable Sources call it. Whatever the technicalities, whatever the opinions, Misplaced Pages depends on "Reliable Sources". All the networks are calling him "President Elect". ~ priyanath  05:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Well this is not what our President-elect article is saying about the US:

One is officially the president-elect only after being chosen by the Electoral College, but unofficially the person chosen in the November general election is called the President-elect even before the Electoral College meets.

Clearly some clarity on this is needed as the articles are currently out of sync. Can people also take a look at the proposed policy Misplaced Pages:Post-election edit war syndrome which largely emerged because of similar situations in several other elections. Timrollpickering (talk) 05:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources (major U.S. newspapers) have called the winner "President Elect" in November of election year since at least the 1840's and that should be our guide, not the original research of some editors as to "proper" usage of the term. Edison (talk) 05:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

←Reliable sources ALL refer to him as President-elect - it is common parlance, and it is what the source articles used for citation say. It is unnecessarily confusing to say "presumptive' and since it is not in contention it is just a formality. We should go with our sources and common sense. He won the election, he is the president-elect until Jan 20. Tvoz/talk 05:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Semi

Can we get it back yet? Grsz 04:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There will be plenty of eyes to revert vandalism. Unprotect it so it can be fully updated. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 04:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's best it remains fully protected. Which is a shame because I'd like to make some edits but I know we have to make some sacrifices for the greater good. In this case, the greater good is not getting murdered by vandals. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 04:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

first african-american

the article says he's the first african-american to be nominated for president, should be changed to first african-american to be elected president of the united states whenever an admin gets around to it.

CNN projects that Sen. Barack Obama has won election as the next president of the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rch2005 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes we know. We might want to wait until it is verified that the ballot was valid (as it obviously was) before posting. However, if you want an admin to add it in now, go ahead.WikiReverter How am I doing? 04:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

He is not the first african american president, he is the first one to win a presidential election, as he hasnt served as president yet. And the source cited doesnt say that he is the first president, rather the first nominee, can somebody change this language? Nableezy (talk) 04:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hence making him the first African-American Presidential-elect of the United States of America. Upon his swearing in on the 20th of January, 2009, he will be the first African-American President of the United States of America and the 44th President of the United States of America. He is also the first African American to win the nomination of a major party. This is simply the fact of the situation. Wording, however, must be done carely as to not incur any mistakes. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 04:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I have updated his BLP. Technically speaking, as of today he is the presumptive president-elect, not yet the president, nor even the president-elect. Anyone remember the U.S. Constitution and it's requirements that the Electoral College vote in Washinton, D.C. in the first week of December to officially make him the president-elect? Newguy34 (talk) 04:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

To satisfy that objection, I would say that while he is only the presumptive president-elect with reference to the electoral college (because in theory the electoral college could vote otherwise), he is the president-elect with reference to the election of the electors, who are usually party operatives and have traditionally voted the same way as the state voted. --Philosopher  05:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. For all intents and purposes, though, I think it is safe to refer to him as the "president-elect". Newguy34 (talk) 05:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't he only half black? RealKG1990 (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, however, taxonomy standards have us refer to him as African-American rather than being African-American / Anglo-Saxon. I personally find taxonomy to be annoying and another form of division but that's besides the point. Barack Obama's heritage is described as being of African-American descent, therefore he is the first African-American presidential-elect of the USA. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 05:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

i heard he didn't actually win

is this just a rumor or is it true? let's make sure to really look into it before we update the article to say he won. maybe he didn't actually win!

McCain's conceded the election. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

yes..but that mean, he won . --O.waqfi (talk) 04:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he won. He's giving his victory speech right now. --Philosopher  05:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

go to cnn.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by DYlanReed (talk • contribs) 05:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason McConnell-Leech (talk • contribs) 05:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be some Vandalism on this page right at the top where it states his full name. I can't seem to edit it myself so am requesting someone else to please delete that part. The editors enthusiasm is obvious but not suited for this forum. --Arjun (talk) 05:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama as an English man

--Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 06:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Presidents Box

I tried to put in the box but it didn't work :( I'm not very good with wikipedia but someone please do it thanks Interlaker (talk) 05:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Everyone please take a deep breath

The article looks pretty good right now, so if we can just keep the vandals (and partisans) out of the editing business for a bit, we might just make it through the evening :) Please remember our civility pledge. Thanks. Newguy34 (talk) 05:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Senate seat

Will he be required to resign his seat in senate? I saw in Kennedy's article that he was in senate until december before he ascended to become president. I also heard Biden will resign his seat. Is this voluntary or compulsory for president/vice president elect? Maybe adding this to the article would help. w_tanoto (talk) 05:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class biography articles
• FA-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Mid-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• FA-Class U.S. Congress articles
• High-importance U.S. Congress articles
• WikiProject U.S. Congress persons
• FA-Class WikiProject Illinois articles
• Top-importance WikiProject Illinois articles
• FA-Class Hawaii articles
• Mid-importance Hawaii articles
• WikiProject Hawaii articles
• FA-Class Chicago articles
• Top-importance Chicago articles
• WikiProject Chicago articles
• FA-Class African diaspora articles
• Low-importance African diaspora articles
• WikiProject African diaspora articles
• FA-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Low-importance
• Unassessed United States presidential elections articles
• Unknown-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press