Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 48

This is an archive of past discussions about Barack Obama. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 55

why is the Linux article pasted in here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.226.229 (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It was either a test edit or vandalism, now reverted in either case. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

where? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apa aff os (talk • contribs) 19:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It has been removed since.  Marlith (Talk)  02:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

We're agreed this doesn't belong in the article; closing the resultat forum. PhGustaf (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
gun debate is a very big topic in usa.After he won the elections gun sales soared and yet not a single mention of his gun policies in his political positions.Yes it exists in the main article but this should be included in the main article This article can't contain every position, so if you can't find a position here, you may be able to find it at Political positions of Barack Obama. --Bobblehead (rants) 11:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC) so the gun politics is not as imp to be added in the main article.Comeon just say you dont want to show his anti gun stance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs) 17:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC) The bottom line is that Obama's stance on guns is not very important went taken in the context of his entire life, which this article seeks to summarize. Also, I think you will find his stance on guns is more nuanced than "anti-gun". -- Scjessey (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC) yeah you tell that to yourself.guns sales soared when he won,O i get it it was not politically important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs) 04:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Gun sales go up whenever there is a new president in the US, i would assume it goes up even more whenever a democrat wins/is doing good, because they tend to be on the side of more gun control more often then the republicans. Durga Dido (talk) 07:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Many people feel his view on gun control is important, as it is directly tied to our Second Amendment Rights. If a President is willing to compromise or out right disolve a God Given right, such as the Second Amendment, what else is he willing to compromise or disolve? The fact that this article doesn't comment on his stance with Firearms is a little unbalanced. President Obama has always been at the front lines of the Anti-Gun Movement and it has been a very large part of his short Political Career. 12.177.80.3 (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Let's be clear about this. Obama's policy toward guns (and control thereof) is not really important when taken in the context of his entire life, and therefore it would be undue weight to make a special case of mentioning it in this biography. Furthermore, the Second Amendment isn't a "God-given right" (whatever that is supposed to mean) - it has nothing to do with deities. It is a rather ambiguous amendment in the Bill of Rights that attempts to address the problem of some people being denied the right to bear arms when others were not, crafted at a time when this was considered important. Also, it is important to understand the difference between "anti-gun" (a ludicrous position) and "gun-control" (a sensible approach). Like most decent folk, Obama seeks only to ensure guns are covered by "commonsense regulation" - such as keeping them away from young children and criminals, and keeping the completely unnecessary spread of assault weapons in check. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC) I agree that it has little place in this BLP, given its minor magnitude (yep, you read that right -- like jumbo shrimp). But, Scjessey, are you Obama's spokesperson, press secretary, or merely a campaign consultant? Alternate reading of the reliable sources on this matter suggest that he (and his administration) seeks more than "only" the common sense restrictive policies that you write about (oh, the horror of assult weapons for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves against bad guys with the same weapons!!). Newguy34 (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

In reviewing the article, I am wondering if a "Pre-inaugural controversies" section should be included? This could consolidate all of the current controversies surrounding the Obama appointees such as Leon Panetta, Timothy Geitner, Roland Burris, Bill Richardson, Eric Holder, etc. I think this would strengthen the flow of the article. Trent370 (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Not here. This, as you ought to know by now, is a biography of the whole man - his life and career - not appropriate for small details like these. Try looking at Presidential transition of Barack Obama, where you will find this material - and note that that subtitle wouldn't fly anyway, as such items are incorporated into the proper text areas, not set aside as a laundry list of so-called controversies. Tvoz/talk 20:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

and/or Presidency of Barack Obama or Barack Obama Cabinet depending on what you want to add --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That is interesting. On the Clinton page, all of the controversies are listed, many as standalone sections. I suppose this is part of ad hoc nature of Wikipedia. Trent370 (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it is - it's almost like software updates as the wiki evolves, new articles or articles that suddenly attract a lot of attention conform more to the current model of "what an article should be" than older articles that already have well formed structures. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent...as part of that evolution, I strongly suggest that a "Pre-inaugural controversies" section. Nothing in Wikirules appears to prevent it, and it would be an excellent step forward in the Wiki-evolution. Trent370 (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

em.. <thinks> <thinks> no. You are welcome to suggest it (but I suspect if you keep suggesting it in section after section, that will become increasingly less welcome), but you'll never get agreement here to put it in. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

And for the record, Bill Clinton is far from an ideal article. At the same time, Obama hasn't been impeached for any of his "controversies". None of the controversies in Obama's career so far will be remembered in history nearly as much as any of the Clinton controversies with their own sections (although those sections are not necessarily appropriate either). Bigbluefish (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The Clinton page is quite good. It is fairly neutral, and does a fair job of outlining his many controversies. The Obama page would do well to mirror this page. Trent370 (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, neither article's job is to outline one's many controversies but the life as a whole. The Clinton article is quite good but so is this one. Name a "pre-inauguration controversy" which is similar in weight to Troopergate and we can consider a section about it. Bigbluefish (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with having a section just for controversies is that it attracts more controversies, most likely ones that do not fit in the article, because in the greater scope of his life the controversy is not that notable.If it was to be added it should be added at the part where it talks about the selection of parts of his government, not as a separate section.Cameron Scott pointed you to the correct article where this should be posted, which would be Barack Obama Cabinet as in that article it is much more notable.It would be just the same as if we added that obama choose someone to be on his basketball team that has cheated in one of his basketball games before,is it notable in the greater scope if his life?No, but it might be notable on the article Obama's basketball team 01:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

There are several problems with this idea. Most obvious of all is the notion that any of these are "controversies" at all. They are not. Secondly, this is a summary style article. Documenting insignificant details like these would be undue weight. There are other issues, but these are the most important. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources call them controversies. This is not my interpretation. They are also lead news stories (not insignificant details). Trent370 (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's unfortunate to say, but adding a pre-election controversies section just gives way for every rumor and misconceptions that people could possibly perceive right now. I admit, there are things which make me raise my eyebrow, like the lack of records, memories or transcripts of him in Columbia. Or the fact that the Chicago Sun-Times reported him a distant relative of Bush. But the problem remains that even if one fact remains true, it branches a way to an infinite "speculations" section for every rumor, personal gripe and piece of propaganda that the election left behind. We have no choice but to make due and wait until such a point that criticisms of his decisions in office become very valid. --Lygris (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama met his wife, Michelle Robinson, in June 1989

Shouldn't that read "met his future wife?"--87.164.120.144 (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Nah, He was already married to her by then... just didnt get to meet her till later. 65.208.22.26 (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That sentence has been re-written to avoid confusion.--JayJasper (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't confusing in the first place, Jesus Christ. Richard75 (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It is. "Vice President Dick Cheney said on June 2, 2005" would be technically incorrect in an article written today, since he's no longer vice president. "President Obama said on June 2, 2005" is also incorrect because he wasn't president yet back then. That's what the words "then" and "future" are for. Sure, it's semantics, but there's no reason for being sloppy.--132.252.185.42 (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone think that the people he has in his cabinet is important? That should definitely go in the article. Linda Mancia (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

First, there is at least one box along the bottom of the article that lists the Cabinet nominees/confirmed members. But this is a biography of Barack Obama, not an article about his presidency - there are several other articles about the specifics of the presidency and the cabinet - see for example Presidential transition of Barack Obama, Presidency of Barack Obama, both of which are clearly referenced in this article. Tvoz/talk 00:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, couldn't see it, it was too small. Sheesh, pal, you don't have to be so mean about it. -Linda Mancia (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Tvoz wasn't being mean. He was being accurate. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've corrected the captions of those images. Obama was president-elect during his visits with Bush & the former Presidents. Obama's Inauguration 'should not' change those images captions retroactively. GoodDay (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the genealogist William Addams Reitwiesner, the ethnic/national ancestry of Obama, as far as is currently known, is as follows: [4]

        50.0             %      Luo
        37.402 343 75    %      English
         3.710 937 5     %      German
         3.125           %      Irish
         3.125           %      Scottish
         1.562 5         %      Welsh
         0.976 562 5     %      Swiss
         0.097 656 25    %      French
     -----------------
       100.0             %

So why then, does the Early life and career section of this article say "Barack Obama was born at the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Ann Dunham, a white American from Wichita, Kansas of English and Irish descent"? He is technically more German than Irish, although it would seem impractical to mention all seven ethnicities of his mother. Khoikhoi 05:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It probably has to do mostly with self-identification. If Ann Dunham thought of herself as of English & Irish descent, and not of her German descent, then it is more significant to her, regardless of however many "quarterings" german she was compared to Irish. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the thing, there is no evidence cited (not in either of the two sources) that she did in fact identify as English & Irish-American. It simply mentions that Obama has Irish ancestry, which appears to be equal to the % that he is Scottish as well (which begs the question, why is one mentioned instead of the other?) It appears to be based mainly on trivia, that he has distant connections to a village in Ireland. Khoikhoi 05:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Presumably the "English and Irish" has a source. What does it say? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not denying that he was Irish, I'm questioning why we are giving preference to one ethnicity over the other. The sources you mentioned are here and here. I don't see anything in either of them about his mother's self-identification though. Khoikhoi 05:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's this source but I wouldn't call it, um, "reliable". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess he's Jewish too. :-) I've added a footnote to the article, hopefully that can sort things out. I think the thing about the Irish ancestrial village would be much better off in Family of Barack Obama. Khoikhoi 05:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Why "we" are giving preference? Or why the sources are giving preference? Looks obvious to me - just as with a feature on TV today - the strong Irish heritage of Chicago, and the "O'Bama" play on words. And, yes, family of Obama would be better. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Khoi's compromise solution works well. It represents the source well, and it keeps the writing good while directing the reader to the full information in both the footnote and the reference. This is a good solution... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Tvoz/talk 06:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That still leaves open the question of what to do in this article. I think it should simply say African and European ancestry, and with a link to the family article where the chart cited above could be posted. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a double standard. We have articles on white people with every ancestry they just so happen to claim. It's also very un-wiki like to cop out so everyone can say "he's just biracial" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.169.149 (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Most white people don't have anything to say at all about their ancestry. This is talking about how to record the details of Obama's ancestry that have relevance to his overall life story and public image. Bugs' suggestion is a great summary. It doesn't imply that his ancestry isn't more complicated, just that the mainstream doesn't care nearly as much as the fact that one parent is African and the other European, and that not nearly as much as the African bit. Bigbluefish (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This sentence is in the last paragraph in the "Family and Personal Life" section. It is poor grammar. The word "has" should be changed to "had" or else deleted. Thank-you.

Doug —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.224.115.225 (talk) 06:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Your fix is even better. Thanks, Doug —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.224.115.225 (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought the original wording looked like it was written by a non-English speaker. Or by me if I hadn't slept for 2 days. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama is the first Bi Racial president not African American. Bi Racial is 2 Races, Multi Racial is more than 2 races & trans racial are adopted children. Bi racial & Multi racial people are a race of their own.

In the winter time you can see his white skin shine through. Anyway even though President Obama does not acknowledge himself publicly as Bi Racial people like me see right through him.

~I do believe that he is the first African-American and bi Racial president. He can be both. His father was of pure African decent. All that matters is that he is of African decent and has American citizenship. That's what makes you African-American.JacobtheMagnificent (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)JacobtheMagnificent

Thanks for your thoughts Jacob, though these issues have been addressed before with respect to this article and are not going to re-litigated right now. Please see WP:WELCOME for some tips on being a new Wikipedia contributor. Happy editing!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Is African-American really appropriate. I would say one has to be a descendent of slaves for the term to have its usual significance - Jacob's reading of the term is too literal. His racial background is important because his is non-white - however to suggest that this is the reversal of the slave trade and the distruction of its last vestige is completely wrong. Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.137.45.109 (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe some would say that, but the valid sources say African American, so that's what he is. But as long as Wal*Mart remains in business, forget about this "last vestige of the slave trade" theory. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

As many as 80% of "African Americans" have some European ancestry so I would venture that the best way to determine if someone is African American is if they identify themselves as African American. Mr. Obama does. --131.212.204.53 (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Barrack Hussein Obama is indeed the first Bi-racial President. Willingness to identify with one side of your ancestry does not disqualify the other half. Being raised by his Caucasian Relatives should indeed count for something. Barack could just as easily be described as White. Would it not be even more historic for the first Bi-Racial Candidate, one who represents the best of both Races. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanley167 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you guys are missing the point. He is indeed half white and half african american. To take an example, if I've never had milk before and I drink some half and half (half milk/half creme) I can say "This is the first time I've had milk". He is "the first african american president" because he is the first president to have a significant part of his hertigage be african american. If all presidents before obama were fully African American than obama would be the first white president or more specifically "the first president to have European discent". If Barack was both Chinese and African he could claim to be both the first Chinese American president as well as the first African American President. Anythingapplied (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Because that is a really creepy one. We have to have more under fair use. KP317 02:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

There will be an official portrait real soon now, which we will be able to use because federal stuff isn't copyrighted. Pleae, someone, pick him a decent tie. PhGustaf (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Er, the current one is the (latest) official portrait. Mfield (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought the pic was fine...--Justin Herbert (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally I don't like that picture either,i remember the old one that in my opinion was better.The current picture in my opinion just doesn't represent a President, thats the only reason I don't like it.In most cases changing a picture because person x doesn't like it or person z thinks another is better,is just a matter of opinion, so i didn't bring this up.Let's just hope the next official picture will just be more presidential. Durga Dido (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The ape picture? Not funny and deeply offensive, not least because of the racial connotations. Can we lock this down please? Thanks. Ravenwolf68 (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)ravenwolf68

They are not talking about that vandalism, and when the picture is reverted is is auto changed back to the gorilla. needs full protection Jebus989 (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Didn't he leave the United Church of Christa after some controversial issues with Jeremiah Wright? 194.82.118.105 (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

He left Wright's church, yes. ThuranX (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

yes he left Wrights church(Trinity United Church of Christ, but that does not mean he does not have a religion. Durga Dido (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

According to this wire source, http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1284403,obama-church-choice-111708.article, Obama left the denomination. This citation was previous discussed here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_46#A_Former_Church_Member and the box was updated to reflect the resulting consensus, but two days ago someone removed the edit without an edit summary or any discussion here, so it should be restored. Modocc (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Leaving an individual church isn't the same as leaving a denomination though. Has he explicitly switched denomination? Timrollpickering (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, leaving the church can result in leaving a denomination (see previous discussion for the original research assertion). Regardless, the relevant text in the source is

The United Church of Christ, the denomination from which Obama resigned when he left Wright's church, issued a written invitation to join a UCC denomination in Washington and resume his connections to the church.

Accordingly, he resigned from the denomination. Its considered a reliable source too. Modocc (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

His Grandmother's funeral was at a Unitarian Universalist Church, and I thought I saw a reference to him attending Religious Education there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.247.206.104 (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2009

I think this grandmother funeral is included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.36.115.219 (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I mean, really, could the article feature more prominently that Obama is the first African American to do this; the first African American to do that? Given that the President went out of his way to avoid playing "the race card" during his campaign, should the article really reflect his success only as the first African American, or more as the best politician for the job? I think not. 207.237.232.51 (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Give me a break. Obama pulled the race card all the time. -Linda Mancia (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I highly disagee, Linda. 207.237.232.51 (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Being both the first black president and the first black head of the Harvard Law Review are significant things which Obama has done, and thus which deserve inclusion in the article. Are you implying that they are somehow not noteworthy?--Rosicrucian^Talk 01:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I am implying nothing: I am stating outright that while the matter is noteworthy, I do not believe the matter is given proper weight in this article. FYI, while I think it should be mentioned for the time being, being President of the USA and head of HLR are significant on their own: they need no quantifiers. 207.237.232.51 (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And I am saying that being the first black president is more significant than just being president of the United States, just as being the first black head of the Harvard Law Review is more significant than just heading the law review. They are more exclusive groupings, and worth noting.--Rosicrucian^Talk 04:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I count two - First AA US President, and First AA EIC of Harvard Law Review. Each is included in the article body with citations, and then mentioned in the lead. First AA President is a huge accomplishment. Harvard Law Review is a big accomplishment too, but perhaps overshadowed by being the President, so I would not mind either way if we dropped that entirely from the lead. Also, whereas law schools and law firms once had a race barrier, I don't know that's the case so much anymore, so I'm not sure that being the "first black" is as groundbreaking a deal there as being the first black president. Wikidemon (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No overuse. Also, your statement is your POV. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

POV how so? Because I describe him as "the best politician for the job"? I state it that way simply because he won the election...but to note as the very second line of the lead that he is the only AA to hold this position (and shortly therafter mention another accomplishment as 'the first AA to...') is somewhat derogatory and demeaning to all his accomplishments as a leader. 207.237.232.51 (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I.P. person, that wasnt directed to you, it was directed toward Linda's claim of race card pushing.--DemocraplypseNow (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be appropriate to include in the article that good historical evidence exists, suggesting that Warren Harding, not Barack Obama, was the nation's first African-American president?Cospelero (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That would depend on whether you know of a reliable source stating that good historical evidence exists to this effect. As far as I'm aware, every source of any authority attributes the title to Obama. Bigbluefish (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Come on - is there any other authority to rival Stephen Colbert? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No, Article Two of the United States Constitution Section 1 Clause 8 "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:". So no, he wasn't President. I'm arguing that.--Tyler (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Then find a reliable source that says he wasn't President and go to town. Grsz¹¹ 02:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

YOu may do well to review the 20th Amendment: "Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin. " 207.237.232.51 (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Katie Couric commented just after the noon hour struck that technically Biden was President at that moment - and that is technically true, and presumably it's why the VP takes the oath first, just before noon - to keep the office intact in case some disaster happens. They also intended to get Obama's oath done by noon but they didn't quite make it. I think they were about 7 minutes over. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

In any case, the term begins at noon on the 20th, not on the 21st. In fact, Bush left right after the ceremony, and even as the ceremony went on, the new administration was doing stuff at the White House. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

And on reflection, Katie Couric (or whoever fed her that bit of trivia) got it wrong. It's the similarly-false David Rice Atchison argument. If something had happened to Obama, Biden still would have remained VP until he was sworn in as President. But it's reasonable to assume that's why they swear in the VP first. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(oudent) Indeed folks. Joe Biden was never Acting President, Obama became President at Noon EST, January 20, 2009. Period, end of discussion, no but's about it. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think after "He was sworn in as President on January 20, 2009, in an inaugural ceremony at the U.S. Capitol." It should mention that he was re-sworn, as he messed up the one at the ceremony.

You can read about it here. 80.42.37.12 (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

And here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually it was Roberts who messed up, and it wasn't a re-inauguration, or of any real significance - it was a case of belt and suspenders, I think, to fend off critics like Chris Wallace who was already raising questions about this non-issue. He became president at noon even if the oath was delayed, according to everything reliable I've read. And SheffieldSteel is right - it doesn't belong in this biography of his life. Tvoz/talk 23:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I added the exact dates (Jan. 20) to when his presidency began in the succession box. This brings uniformity (other presidential pages give the exact date), and I think people would want to know the exact date. --EATC —Preceding unsigned comment added by EATC (talk • contribs) 22:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Section #2008 Presidential campaign currently says

"On August 23, 2008, Obama selected Delaware Senator Joe Biden as his vice presidential running mate."

Probably just nitpicking, but it should be slightly reworded for greater accuracy: Obama selected him before that date. On August 23, he announced Joe Biden as his running mate, so that's what the article should say. 78.34.146.122 (talk) 08:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"Announced" is technically correct. We know he was "selected" (tentatively, at least) prior to that date because of the media tease he had going on. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes... erm, so you agree with me that the article should say "announced" rather than (as is currently the case) "selected". In that case, would you mind doing the edit? 78.34.146.122 (talk) 09:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC) (Also, we can safely --not just tentatively-- assume that Biden was selected prior, as opposed to on August 23, simply because the veep pick is most obviously not decided in one day, and certainly not on the same day it is announced. See also wikinews:US candidate Barack Obama announces Joe Biden as his running mate via text message)

I changed "selected" to "announced". I don't know that it matters precisely which day he was "selected". That could be added if it was known, but it seems like minutia, at least for this article. For the detailed article on the campaign, it might fit - if known. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You still don't seem to quite understand what the problem was, so I'll spell it out once more: The article used to say that [Obama selected Biden on August 23]. That old version was clearly wrong. This was never about [when Biden was selected], but about not wrongly stating that [he was selected on August 23], when what happened in reality was that [his pick was announced on August 23]. The date is correct and should be in there, but it cannot be used in conjunction with the verb "selected", as that is simply not factually correct. 78.34.141.87 (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Changing it to this would solve the problem completely:

"On August 23, 2008, Obama announced that he had selected Delaware Senator Joe Biden as his vice presidential running mate."

-- Scjessey (talk) 14:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That'd be fine by me, but it's not even necessary. Changing [selected on August 23] (which was clearly wrong) to [announced on August 23] solved the problem already. Good thing such a little and noncontroversial change required so little time to explain... 78.34.141.87 (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to be a pain, but. The 2008 Democratic National Convention delegates chose Biden as Obama's running-mate (at Obama's request, of course). GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Announced as his choice, and approved by the convention. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that satisfies my curiousity. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, good point, agree with the wording [announced as his choice, and approved by the convention]. 78.34.141.87 (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

As a preemptive measure, I approve this edit.[8] Wikidemon (talk) 01:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems like an improvement. Ultimately, his being President is a lot more important than being the first black President. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. 207.237.232.51 (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Fourthed. It's still appropriately in the lead as an item of major public attention, yet it is now at a slightly better place. I like the edit very much. 78.34.141.87 (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the pages that redirect here, I wanted to bring some up for discussion here. Grsz¹¹ 02:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

O'Bama, O'bama

Ob ama

Barry O'Bama

Obamessiah

Barry Soetoro

Obama 44

Obama obama

I have no problem with those redirects. The goal should be to get people to the article. SMP0328. (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

They should also make sense. Grsz¹¹ 02:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This may be the wrong place to discuss the redirects. If you think a redirect does any harm, go ahead and nominate it for deletion. Personally, I don't see a major problem with most of them although some seem pretty useless in terms of finding the article. I think I'd nominate Obamessiah for deletion though, it really does seem inappropriate (but lo and behold, it has been RfD'd before and was ultimately kept). 78.34.141.87 (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The Barry ones are fine; it's reasonable for someone to search under his nickname under Barry Obama or Soetoro. Not sure about the Barry O'Bama, though. rootology (C)(T) 05:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

They are conceivable erroneous homonyms that people might think is how it's spelt. It's not a very common name. Plus, the song There's No One as Irish as Barack O'Bama put the spelling into circulation. Bigbluefish (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Trivia regarding U.S. Presidents is a legitimate concern because it's a common concern of commentators, biographers and chroniclers of all persuasions: which ones were left-handed, which were Freemasons, which churches they belonged to, their ethnic backgrounds, and especially their nicknames and sobriquets ("Father of His Country", "His Accidency", "Honest Abe", "FDR", "Ike", "Macbird", etc.) So if Obama's name attracts any cute misspellings, they're relevant and possibly should be mentioned. If certain remarks I've heard, however cheap they may be, become common currency (e.g. "There's a town in Japan named Obama" and "Obama spelled backward is 'Amabo', which in Latin can mean either "I'm gonna love" or "please!"), they will be relevant also. So will "First president born outside the thirteen original states", "First president born west of the Mississippi", and (as elsewhere on this page) "First president born outside the continental United States". Rapunzel129.93.65.41 (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added a search box for the very extensive talk archives here, at the bottom of the tables up top top of the talk page, for maximum ease and visibility. Enjoy. :) rootology (C)(T) 05:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That is fabulous - and I'm stealing it (with thanks) for my own talk page. Hope that's ok! Tvoz/talk 05:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Go for it, I stole it from WP:AN myself. :P rootology (C)(T) 05:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

How's it work? What versions of MediaWiki do you need? 76.66.198.171 (talk) 05:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

For getting it work here, I'm not totally sure. My MediaWiki skill aren't that high up yet. Check Special:Version for the plugins we use. rootology (C)(T) 05:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

But I can;t get it to work. BOO. Did I make a mistake? Tvoz/talk 05:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll look at your talk page. rootology (C)(T) 05:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering the relatively large number of articles in Category:Barack Obama, and that for at least the coming four years Obama is going to be a top-profile topic, I wonder why Wikipedia:WikiProject Barack Obama hasn't been started yet. Now, please don't tell me to do it myself since I have no intention of being very active in this particular area, but I see that some are, and I think they might be able to better coordinate and streamline efforts to achieve and maintain the highest quality coverage possible. 78.34.145.131 (talk) 10:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

An interesting proposal, as there seems to have been a de facto Obama project developed over the last year, with many articles, templates, etc. I've got another idea for the project name, which I'm fairly sure won't fly: "Obamamania". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well... :) obviously, the project would attract sympathisers, but what is wrong with that, as long as their efforts are directed towards expanding and improving our coverage? I've always felt fan enthusiasm is a perfectly legitimate motivation to be active in a particular area, as long as it translates into encyclopedic enthusiasm. 78.34.145.131 (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad idea... rootology (C)(T) 14:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to put a lot of work into creating and referencing an article if it's sure to end up deleted. Should there be an article on Obama's election promise to get his children a White House puppy? Other White House pets have articles eg Socks (cat), and his promise to do so and subsequent discussion of breed etc has generated enormous "and finally" media coverage. Obviously there will be an article once the puppy enters the White House; in the unlikely event they never do get a puppy we'll never hear the end of it. What do you think? ciphergoth (talk) 12:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a somewhat ongoing debate as to the notability of all the past presidential pets. I think what's currently on List of United States Presidential pets and under Sasha and Malia in Family of Barack Obama is enough until that's sorted out. Bigbluefish (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on a suggestion on Talk:Barack Obama, a new baby Wikiproject has been formed:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Barack Obama

Please check it out, watchlist it, join and sign up. Let's get some GAs and FAs going out of this! :) rootology (C)(T) 20:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Among the first few citations is a direct citation of Obama's birth certificate, and FactCheck.org's "Born in the U.S.A.", which debunks conspiracy theories about his birth. While such citations may be suitable for Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, shouldn't this article instead cite mainstream media news articles that don't even mention the conspiracy theories to avoid undue weight? Andjam (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"If we could, we would. However, "patriotic" Americans insist on arguing every time we don't cite out the wazoo for his Birth, and they scream 'ebil conzpirasy theeries' about how a 'sikrit muzlin terarman' is our president. So, to minimize the idiocy, we have to pre-preemptively cite to stop the arguments. ThuranX (talk) 12:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What Thuran says. It's needed to keep disruption, trolling, and pointless conspiracy theories at bay that are by definition wild fringe theories held by only a tiny little minority of people. rootology (C)(T) 14:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(Sarcasm)But teh nirth certificate is a fake!1! FactCheck is owned by Soros!1!(/Sarcasm). Are we also using them to cite things that aren't disputed by the conspiracy theorists, such as his date of birth and the name and ethnicity of his mother? Andjam (talk) 08:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(sarcasm)ZOMG Soros haits 'Murika, he bot all the lekshins and heza prins of darkess!(/sarcasm) I wish you guys well. I couldn't possibly deal with all the WP:BEANSiness and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT you put up with. arimareiji (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

How does this trivia end up in the lede, never mind the second sentence? This belongs well down in the bio area. What is the significance of it at all? Looking at about 50 biographies (not hagiography official ones, but various news ones) this is well down if mentioned at all -- and for good reason -- it is trivia.71.252.89.208 (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, can someone please move it out of the lead? --BlackMath77 (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Borderline trivia. More important, it cannot be true. None of the first presidents, i.e. those born before US independence, were born in the United States, continental or otherwise.--Yumegusa (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Damn your Vulcan logic, Spock! ;-) arimareiji (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, that it's just trivia and doesn't belong in the lead. rootology (C)(T) 01:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

BBC World Service radio has just stated that Obama has been sworn-in a second time because of a missing word in the main ceremony. However, I haven' seen in the online textual press yet. —Sladen (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Already put in the article an hour ago. Ward3001 (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it really worth mentioning in this article? Grsz¹¹ 02:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. 207.237.232.51 (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Why? It's mixed up all the time, it isn't even really required to be recited. It's mentioned in the inauguration article and perhaps the Presidency article, but it seems petty here. And, you should probably come up with better arguments. Grsz¹¹ 02:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I still think it's notable enough to be given weight of one line. However, I'm not crazy about the wording "Because there were technical problems with the way the oath was taken". I would rather see, "...with the way the oath was administered and taken...". Especially since, per http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/21/oath-is-administered-once-again/?hp , "During a luncheon after the ceremony, Mr. Roberts could be seen on camera telling the president that the mistake was “my fault.”" 207.237.232.51 (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No. However, it is cited and written well enough, so it is not the end of the world that the material remains here for a while until it fades into obscurity. Wikidemon (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"No"? Not citing any wikipolicy or reason? No intent to come to consensus? Wow. 207.237.232.82 (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Leaving it in until recentism fades makes the most sense. It's idiotic trivial, seized upon by the far right to delegitimize his presidency, and it's not worth leaving in long-term, but for now, inclusion will slow down the attac kedits and ridiculous conspiracy additions. ThuranX (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I'm wrong, but no need to go on the attack here. I guess all facts must be idiotic trivial to you.... So why are you even helping an encyclopedia? It's my bad that the far-right wing conspiracy that I must be apart of is committed to keeping all facts accurate. Shall I make it my goal to watch and make tlc that it remains.--65.78.167.201 (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's all remain CIVIL. If we can all live with the one-line of weight as appropriate for the time being, I think this matter should be closed. 207.237.232.51 (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's worth noting SOMEWHERE, because it answers a question that keeps turning up. Maybe it would make more sense to put it in the related Constitution sub-article on the subject, such as the Article 2 page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe the article on the inauguration? Andjam (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be a good place for the specifics, as per this item: [9] It could also be mentioned in the appropriate Constitution article, along with the various other flubs. The flub is a non-issue, as I see it, because if it were an issue it would get to the Supreme Court, and Roberts would say, "Yes, I did it good enough. Go home." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely worth noting as a permanent sentence that he was sworn in twice. It JUST happened, and is clearly historic, as out of 44 Presidents only 2 before had this happen. If it takes up 3-4 sentences today, so what? We can trim it back down to a one-sentence passing note in a couple months. rootology (C)(T) 14:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. rootology (C)(T) 18:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - it's got more punch. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Precisely  Marlith (Talk)  19:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually dont like the cropped picture. For one thing it takes away the the true value of the original. The one before was The Official Presidential Portrait and I think people should be able to go to this article and see the official portrait, not some cropped photo. I also think that the flag is not a distraction from the portrait because every single presidential portrait has had a flag in the background and it just so happens that this one is distracting, ok. Look at the George H.W. Bush portrait, if you dont mind I think I will crop his flag out because his portrait is a lot more distracting then this one. This is a historical photo and I dont think a cropped version is necessary for this article. Chasesboys (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

My understanding has always been that we use the official portrait, not a cropped version - might ask over on the wikiproject for presidential bios. I'd go back to that one. We put up with all kinds of bad pix just because they're the official portrait - like HIllary's which I hope will be redone for her new post. So I think that's the norm here. Tvoz/talk 23:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, There is a reason why they chose this as the official portrait. So I dont think it should be cropped just because some people dont like it. I personally think the picture is very good the way it is. 68.255.109.167 (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, thirded. In the interest of accurate coverage, we should stick to the full version of the official portrait. 78.34.143.199 (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Need to add that the person of the year award is "a title awarded to someone who the editors believe 'for better or for worse,... has done the most to influence the events of the year.'" Only fair, since this is added to the article on George W. Bush.

Hitler was Time's man of the year one time. Stalin was very jealous. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

obama has made history because he is the first african-american to be president —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.247.116 (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"Only fair"? This is not a tit-for-tat game, this is an encyclopedic project. Nothing should be added into this article unless and for any other reason than that it improves this article. 78.34.145.131 (talk) 07:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

What would be most "fair" is to ensure that if the Time honor is to be listed on some of its honorees' pages, then it should be listed on all of them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a great idea. Someone should get on that. In the meantime, we can begin with the inclusion of this honor in this article, hmm? 207.237.232.82 (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to be picky, but I currently am a graduate student and have learned good deal about the academic system in America and around the world. Under the profession section of this article it includes the title "Professor." Barack Obama was not a professor, technically. His formal title at the University of Chicago was "Senior Lecturer." Here is an article that investigates this claim: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html. The article itself is ambiguous, but does explain that he was not a professor, assistant professor, associate professor, etc. - Jan 22, 2009 11:29 Eastern Standard Time, Username: mparenti1984 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mparenti1984 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly when, but this has been discussed numerous times in the past, and I believe that U of C even released a statement that Obama was considered a professor. Grsz¹¹ 04:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In the USA, the term "Professor" can be used generically in a more informal way than the formal ranks of professorship (full, associate, assistant) to refer to anyone with a university academic position. Ward3001 (talk) 04:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The source you cite includes the quote from UC saying they considered him a professor. Doesn't sound ambiguous to me. PhGustaf (talk)

And for those curious to search for more, see here. rootology (C)(T) 05:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ward3001's opinion can be defended. Teachers in universities are commonly, if informally, called "professor", just as the commanding officer of a naval vessel is informally called its "captain" regardless of rank. Tom129.93.65.41 (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. You wouldn't say, "Excuse me, Senior Lecturer Obama, I had a question." Grsz¹¹ 00:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

People with PhD's are often called "doctor", as are optometrists and dentists, but that doesn't make it a good reason to say doctor is their profession. Professor in other departments always means tenured if used as a formal title, otherwise there is another name. If law schools dilute the term to lecturers even then they probably should be called "Law professor" instead to separate them from real professors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.128.204.207 (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You have some misconceptions in this edit. "Doctor" is not a profession; it is a degree. "Physician" is a profession. Many non-physicians have doctoral degrees. And although your comment "formal title" is correct, it does not apply to informal use of the term "professor", which is much more common than the formal use. It would be rare to address someone as "Associate Professor Jones" or "Lecturer Smith". "Professor" is commonly used informally for all the ranks. Ward3001 (talk) 02:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course doctor is used to describe the profession. It is used interchangeably with physician. And strictly-speaking the degree is doctoral, or a doctorate. It makes one a doctor--of whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.128.204.207 (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Your comments have no internal logic. First you argue that calling someone "doctor" does not always mean the person is a physician. Then you say "Professor in other departments always means tenured". No, it does not always mean tenured. Just as someone calling a person "doctor" does not mean he is always referring to a physician, calling someone "professor" does not always mean he is referring to a tenured full, associate, or assistant professor. He could be referring to anyone with an academic position. Ward3001 (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It can be irritating arguing with a person who always starts by accusing you of being confused in some way or other. If you don't see the logic perhaps the next step for you should be to think more carefully what the logic might be, rather than arguing against a point you admittedly missed. Anyway you seem to have actually got the point I was making but somehow reached the opposite conclusion. In both cases it would be misleading to imply the informal title was formally correct which is what you would do if you went by what people are "commonly called" as the argument I responded to says. Hence "doctor" is an example of why you shouldn't use what someone is informally referred to as their profession or you will be misleading. Is the point here to be as accurate as possible or paint the subject in as positive a light as possible? Why not put "messiah" as his profession; he's been called that too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.128.204.207 (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If anyone else can sift through the convuluted jumble of words immediately above, please be my guest. In the mean time, I'll be talking to "Tenured Associate Professor Helms", or as we called him (undoubtedly out of profound ignorance), "Professor Helms", my former linguistics professor (oops! my former tenured associate professor of linguistics) to see if he can make sense out of it. Ward3001 (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

So I've gone from having misconceptions, to lacking internal logic, to finally speaking in a convuluted [sic] jumble of words. Or maybe you're just an asshole. Anonymity does that to people I notice. Part of why the wikipedia is often such garbage.

I added this fact to the last line of the first paragraph without discussion. It is mentioned on left-handed activist sites and elsewhere on Wikipedia, such as on the article on left handedness. I hope no one minds the lack of discussion before my edit. Mystyc1 (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding trivia like this to the first paragraph doesn't seem appropriate, so I have removed it. Also, the comparison with other recent presidents wasn't referenced, and seemed unlikely as stated. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, atleast 3 of the last 4 US Presidents are left-handed. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That is correct, according to this article. However, it is trivia, as stated by Silly rabbit, and does not belong in the intro paragraph.--JayJasper (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that left-handed doesn't belong in lead, but I wouldn't mind seeing it as a short clause somewhere low in the article. LotLE×talk 21:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it used to be in there somewhere - clearly not in the lead. He made a reference to it when signing the first Executive orders, so there's probably even a source. No big deal in or out, but not in the lead. Tvoz/talk 00:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a source: [10] "Mr. Obama signed them at the swearing-in ceremony with a left-handed flourish." I don't really care either way, although I have to say, "left-handed basketball player" yields a whopping 387,000 hits on Google. Tvoz/talk 00:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested . . .

The name Barack (more commonly spelled Barak) is Arabic, and means "blessed". The Hebrew name Barak or Baraq, which I'm told is not related to the Arabic, means either "glittering" as an adjective or "lightning" as a noun, and occurs in the Bible. Gratiano129.93.65.41 (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It's come up a few times before see here, and it didn't look like there was consensus to include it. It's a little too-trivia. rootology (C)(T) 01:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be fair to include it in the family page, and keep in mind it was his father's name that was "Blessed" originally. The President is merely "Son of Blessed". That's kind of an exotic name, but not as exotic as having a mother named Stanley. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

All things relative on the name thing, though. It might be exotic to Westerners, but could be totally run of the mill. Stanley... well, yeah. rootology (C)(T) 14:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, was there any good sourcing to this effect in the archives? I'd like to add this to the early life article, perhaps, but couldn't find something solid with the search. rootology (C)(T) 16:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This was in the article for a long time - I don't remember when or why it was removed. It was right before the Bernie Mac/Margaret Thacher comment:

Speaking to an elderly Jewish audience during his 2004 campaign for U.S. Senate, Obama linked the linguistic roots of his East African first name Barack to the Hebrew word baruch, meaning "blessed."<ref>{{cite news | first=Ron | last=Kampeas | title=Obama, Democrats’ Rising Star, Known for Harmony with Jews | date=[[August 6]] [[2004]] | url =http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/23183/edition_id/462/format/html/displaystory.html | work =Jewish News Weekly of Northern California | accessdate = 2007-09-30 }}</ref> Tvoz/talk 00:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Since Obama is off to a running start with the reversal of two much talked-about policy decisions: the (planned) closure of Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and the rescinding of the Mexico City Policy. Is it too soon to start a list? It should help to bleed off contentious bloat from this main article. If desired, we could include "laws signed" and other categories that involve a string of items that help to define elements BHO's presidency.--Spellage (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say give it another week, to see if more come through to make a list justification easier, but much of that will be on his Presidency article anyway in the end. rootology (C)(T) 02:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, now I see: Presidency of Barack Obama. Well, I would hope that we would try to keep the structure between GWB and BHO (and Clinton, etc.) as similar as possible as soon as possible. I would hope that the project remembers what it learned from past consensus efforts and not have to re-invent the overall structure.--Spellage (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The article says Obama will be sworn in at noon. That is wrong, he will be sworn in at 11:56 AM [11] and become president 4 minutes later. 207.241.239.70 (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think about.com is a reliable source, All the reliable sources i can think of say its at noon, also your link says "Approximate" time 11.56. Durga Dido (talk) 07:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, every source I've heard says he'll take the oath at 11:56 (or just before noon). But he won't become President until noon either way. Parler Vous (edits) 07:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right, the sites/news simply "fool" you and compresses the oath together with the actuall transfer of power that it becomes unclear,only when they talk about the schedule is when you see that there is actually a difference, still about.com isn't a reliable source imo. Durga Dido (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Please also see the official media guide, page 14.[12] (pdf link from here). It gives the same timings. 207.241.239.70 (talk) 08:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hah! The thing actually ran around 10 minutes behind schedule, amazing since it looked to be choreographed like a ballet. By my reading of the US Constitution, Bush's term ended at noon, but Obama didn't become president until he completed the oath at around 12:06, which means the office of President was actually vacant for about 6 minutes. If this is correct and reported someplace cite-able, I hope it is mentioned in the article. 207.241.239.70 (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

From what I'm looking up,(It's very hard to find anything that actually says yes or no clearly) it seems that the person becomes president at noon regardless of whatever happens, however in order to actually do any of things that the president can do, he has to take the oath, so in other words, he becomes the president but he does not gain any powers until he takes the oath. Durga Dido (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I also noticed that Malia birth year was listed as 1998. Malia's birth year is 1999. It is located in the brief summary under the pictuer with bio and stats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.27.190 (talk) 07:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Bush's term expired at noon, by which time Biden had already been sworn in, and Katie Couric stated that technically Biden was President for about 5 minutes until Obama was sworn in. However, on reflection, technically that's not true - it's the similarly-false David Rice Atchison argument. If something had happened to Obama, Biden still would have remained VP until he was sworn in as President. But it's reasonable to assume that's why they swear in the VP first. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Another edit that should be made is an external link to the inaugural speech: http://www.educatedearth.net/video.php?id=3762 . That one is in playlist format with 2 parts.Nova420 (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

From the article I can only gather that he speaks some Bahasa (Indonesian). Surely it should be mentioned that he also speaks a little Hawaiian because of his birth, and in several presidential campaign tv ads he demonstrated a fair knowledge of Spanish. What more? His mother took a Russian language class (where she met her future husband), his father was a native Kenyan speaking Dholuo. Did any of these languages to any minimal degree stick to Barack Obama?

Do we have an RS for any of this? It would be an easy and useful one sentence addition. rootology (C)(T) 05:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I never heard anybody else allege that he speaks any Hawaiian "because of his birth." I doubt that very many people in Hawaii, with the exception of some ethnic Hawaiians, speak any Hawaiian--any more than most people born in Nebraska or Arizona of non-NativeAmerican parents would be expected to speak (respectively) any Dakotah or Navaho. It would be reasonable to suppose the President speaks a little of whatever language he was exposed to in the Indonesian schools he attended as a young child, but even that shouldn't be stated as a fact without some evidence.

Or should it be mentioned at all? Is it relevant? How many articles on Ralph Nader bother to point out that he speaks fluent Arabic which he learned at home from his immigrant parents? None. And why should they? It's had no effect on his life. Ditto Obama's knowledge or possible knowledge of some Indonesian language or another. Tom129.93.65.41 (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's quite appropriate to mention languages spoken by public figures, especially world leaders. It's more than just an interesting fact. It provides some insight into this person's ability to understand what is going on in the world. The USA is woefully inadequate in its citizens' knowledge of other languages (I'm an American by the way). I think when one of our major leaders has that kind of knowledge, it's worth mentioning. My only concern is with reliable sourcing. I even have some concerns about the source used to document Obama's knowledge of Indonesian; it looks like a blog to me. Ward3001 (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ability to speak other languages is certainly relevant in a biographical article about a world leader. Reliable sources only, please, not original research from a Youtube clip where he says 5 words in Indonesian. I can say that many words in Russian, Polish, Japanese, Mandarin, Hebrew, Italian and Latin, and definitely speak none of those languages. Edison (talk) 05:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This is obviously along the lines of original research -- but: Obama's sister told my friend (an aspiring documentary film maker who himself studied and speaks Indonesian) at a campaign event in San Francisco something to the effect that her brother, unlike her, is not fluent in Indonesian but understands it quite well. Which would seem reasonable to believe -- since Barack moved away from Indonesia when he was still quite young.... So, since it's been said he'd studied Spanish some, maybe Obama's minimally sorta-kinda conversant in two second languages? ↜Just me, here, now … 17:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)