Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 40

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! [talk/stats ] 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  11   →Review!  00:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Depends on where you are in the world. Check your signature. -- Good Damon 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  11   →Review!  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 talk 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  11   →Review!  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! [talk/stats ] 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 Wikipedia article the day before she was announced as the VP pick shows that passionate partisans have Wikipedia 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! [talk/stats ] 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? Sandy Georgia (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)

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 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  11   →Review!  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)

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)

Watch how a wiki works in real time
Here is an opportunity for people new to Wikipedia to see how editors constantly strive to improve our content. Discussions about how to improve the brief paragraphs that appear on Wikipedia's main page can be found at Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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)

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 talk 06:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, looks like it shows up now. Must have been a cache clearing problem or something. ~ priyanath talk 06:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it takes a few minutes for FAQ changes to transclude into the main article. -- Good Damon 14:56, 2 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. Tool's results. Thanks. MahangaTalk 02:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. For the record the McCain dead links where fixed shortly after I tagged them.  — Dispenser 15:58, 5 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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)

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. Glass  Cobra  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 gabs adds  14:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC) I thought you were talking about the actual article. Now I feel stupid...  J.delanoy gabs 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 Tropical Cyclone  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. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">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. ;) -- Good Damon 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. Glass  Cobra  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 Glass  Cobra  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. -- Good Damon 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 <font color="#000090"> Talk  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). ~ <font face="Georgia"> L'Aquatique! <font color="#a96dfc">[<font face="Monotype Corsiva">talk/stats ] 20:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

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. Glass  Cobra  21:16, 4 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)

Semi
Can we get it back yet?  Grsz  11   →Review!  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  talk 04:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

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).


 * For god's sake full-protect this article. This has been the most vandalized page as of today. It has a big lol factor but this is still wikipedia. Akira Tomosuke (talk) 06:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh jeez, sorry. I was the last edit in before the full-protect, and it was a rather embarrassing mistake (249802770). I thought I was reverting a vandal, but ended up undoing the actual revert by Khoikhoi. Again... Man, embarrassed. Terribly sorry! --Fo0bar (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

LOCK THIS ARTICLE
With people's emotions high and vandals on the prowl (proof of this is in the "history" of the article), please LOCK this article for the time being, until things calm down. --  G OD OF  J USTICE 07:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * this article being locked at this point is a disgrace. Enough people should be watching it. Block the vandals, not everyone else. --dab (𒁳) 07:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring
I have locked the article for 6 hours. Please stop reverting and discuss it here. Thank you. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds 07:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen more people are vandalising than warring. Therequiembellishere (talk) 07:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A vandal got in before the lock. This needs removed. --Targetter <tt style="color:#900;">(Lock On)</tt> 07:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I mentioned above that I was that "vandal", and thought I was reverting that category add, but ended up adding it back instead. I sincerely apologize.  --Fo0bar (talk) 07:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So your reversion was made in error? Because if it was, everything changes. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  07:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It was. I saw Khoikhoi what I thought was repeatedly adding  back in, but I had the diff sides incorrect.  I did what I thought was a 3rd revert to his "vandalism" and intended to move it to Talk, but then noticed I was in error (but by then you had locked the article).  Again, I'm very sorry for the disruption this caused.  --Fo0bar (talk) 07:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not a problem. Everyone makes mistakes. (For example, some rather unobservant admin just full-protected an article that did not need to be protected....) J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  07:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ... and a rather unobservant non-admin who didn't trace back the entire history of the vandalism (me). Sorry for the screw up. --Targetter <tt style="color:#900;">(Lock On)</tt> 07:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We're all horrible people! Hooray!  --Fo0bar (talk) 07:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This article should be only semi-protected there are numerous editors and admins watching this page for vandalism, which can be taken care of in normal fashion, I don't see an overloaded content dispute for the need of full protection.▪◦▪ ≡S i R E X≡  Talk 07:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is back to semi. I did not realize that the last reversion was a mistake. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  07:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Might consider locking the article while Americans are asleep
... because the watchful eyes aren't here then. Until East-Coasters wake up, there's some vandalism going on. I'm in Hawaii but even here it's midnight now. So I suggest you East-Coasters rouse yourselves immediately, or consider a lock. Just my tuppence. Softlavender (talk) 09:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think there will be a lot of vandalism to this article while "Americans are asleep", since we can safely assume that most people disappointed by the election result are in the USA. The possibility of enthusiastic vandalism to the George W. Bush article is probably more significant :oP --dab (𒁳) 10:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyhow, it is semi protected and only established users can edit. Also, in light of recent happenings, it is in the watch-list of many, so no worries. -- Googlean  <font style="color:#000000;background:white;"> Results  10:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd even say that most vandalism is likely to occur when Americans are awake :) -- lucasbfr  talk 11:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You know... Europeans edit wikipedia too, we were watching... SGGH speak! 12:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why lock it? Some of us non-americans are also anti-vandals. I don't like vandals, and watch them either from UK or Indonesia (depending where I am). w_tanoto (talk) 12:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Because vandals tend to lurk in the wee hours and the dark of late night, and because this article has been unbelievably active since the election was called. Softlavender (talk) 15:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"While he claims to be black he is in fact Arabian"
This claim is in the article and it needs to be removed ASAP. Obama is not in any way Arabian, and the way in which that claim is phrased seems almost anti-arabic/anti-semitic to me. Wikipedia is no place for this kind of Gayle Quinnell talk. There are so many layers of protection on this article (and I'm in a bit of a hurry right now) so I'm not going to do it myself, but somebody please help! Also perhaps we should have a bot that would revert any edits to this article containing the A-word since so many of the loony rightwingers seem to be questioning his ethnicity.

Stonemason89 (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone has added that he is the first Arabian to become President. Unless this is verified, it should be removed, he is not Arabian.


 * Don't worry, those vandalisms get removed immediately on this article. They were gone within less than two minutes. Softlavender (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't be surprised if you traced those postings to someone at Fox News, they've got a record of actions like that. He's American, whose heritage is Kenyan! Melia Nymph (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To be factual, Obama is bi-racial (African-American & Caucasian American). However, we are not gonna go there 'again' (See FAQ above). GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

There are ALREADY 5 separate sections/discussions on "President-elect" on this page
Please read them before adding your comments to any of them or before starting yet another section on the subject. Thanks. It avoids redundancy and repetitive discussions/explanations. Softlavender (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Why don't you just combine them? Melia Nymph (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Because we can't tamper with posts made by others. If you feel like summarizing the discussions here, fine and great. Softlavender (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope, Softlavender - no problem with moving the discussions all together, as I see someone has done. Tvoz / talk 18:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

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 talk 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?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's implying that M comes before O.  Grsz  11   →Review!  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)

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  11   →Review!  00:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Birthplace is not official
This is not libelous. Barack Obama was sued because of theories that he wasn't an american born citizen, and, because he did not show up, technically he admitted he was not a natraul born citizen, and he was still a citizen of Kenya. Donatrip (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Gimme a break. Do you really think the GOP and Rush Limbaugh would have let this go, if there were even a hint of truth to the allegation? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You want some truth? Go to this page- http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78671 Donatrip (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Limbaugh has spread every lie, every smear, that he can come up with, against Obama. If Obama were not a U.S. citizen, it would be the trump card. So if Limbaugh hasn't brought this up, then there's absolutely nothing to it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama has ordered his birth certificate sealed. Since this public figure is keeping his certificate hidden, as far as I'm concerned, his birth information is unconfirmed, merely his say so. He's also, for some odd reason, ordered Kenya not to reveal any birth information about himself. Why would that be, unless he was born there? Why would he have to tell Kenya to seal "his" records? What records? Why would an American-born presidential candidate have to tell Kenya to officially seal "his" birth records? Very, very odd. GBC (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's part of a perennial conspiracy theory that Obama is not really American. This has been repeatedly addressed here.  Please see question #5 among the frequently asked questions at the top of the page (expand by clicking on the FAQ hyperlink).  Wikidemon (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This would be funny if it were not so pathetic. Edison (talk) 05:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC) I think the sheer fact that his birthplace is still under dispute should make his birthplace listed as "disputed" or something similar. Facts listed must be verifiable. That there is a dispute is verifiable; that he was born in either Hawaii or Kenya is not, so long as there are several places disputing this claim and official records that could be used to support this claim are unavailable. My own opinion on the matter aside, I think the birth place is officially contested still, and so cannot be listed as a sourceless fact, according to Wikipedia policies. Oneilius (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not under dispute. The Hawai'i department of Health confirmed that he was born in Hawai'i. ~ <font face="Georgia"> L'Aquatique! <font color="#a96dfc">[<font face="Monotype Corsiva">talk/stats ] 01:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"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." Sorry, public figure asking the public to vote, must make the document public. Government officials are not 100% reliable in their integrity. If Obama has nothing to hide then he has no business "sealing" his birth records. Give up the document or give up the candidacy. If anyone challenged my legitimacy, I would happily let them examine my documents, and yes, I have been a candidate for office... six times. Compared to Obama, I'm small potatoes. GBC (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's be clear about this. There is no dispute about Obama's birthplace. This is a fringe theory that has been repeatedly discredited and laughed at by people with more than 13 brain cells. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)Per mainstream reliable sources, his birthplace is Hawaii. See WP:RS and WP:VERIFY to learn more about the sourcing used for Wikipedia articles. Blogs, talk show radio hosts, and other WP:FRINGE sources do not qualify. Also see question #5 among the frequently asked questions at the top of the page (expand by clicking on the FAQ hyperlink). ~ priyanath talk 01:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Someone posted earlier asking why Obama's still in the running in spite of short political experience. Notwithstanding my belief in a lesser-known agency's reports questioning Obama's birthplace, it is my belief that legally qualified candidates are subject to the judgements of the political process. America has the system of primaries, delegate selection, and I believe American citizens generally get to vote in their presidential primaries - it is not just something party members do. That being the case, Obama, Clinton and whoever else was running was winnowed down by this democratic process.


 * So, even if Obama may be perceived as being short on experience, it evidently is the judgement of that voting process that the experience is sufficient for him to serve these voters as president. I personally have those misgivings as well as my belief he is not a legal candidate, but if he allows his birth certificate to be examined carefully and it turns out to be legit, then I am only left with my belief that he lacks experience and his policies are not the right ones for a free and prosperous America. But if his birthplace is right, he is definitely a legal candidate and he is a worthy candidate because enough voters said that he is. GBC (talk) 08:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I do not question John McCain's eligibility. He was born in the Panama Canal Zone; it was not sovereign US territory, and although a law was not adopted by Congress regarding citizenship of persons born there, until 17 years after McCain was born. However, Panama had no authority over who came into the zone, and essentially it functioned as though it was US territory. If Panama had retained all sovereign rights from 1903 to 1979, then it would have had control over who came into Panama, whether or not it was the canal area, and anyone born in Panama would automatically have Panamanian citizenship. But this was not the case. What rules applied from 1979 to 2000 may be different, however, since there was no zone anymore, and people being born to Americans would have Panamanian citizenship (unless the Carter-Torrijos Treaty made provisions) until the mother applied for recognition of an American citizen born abroad (as my children have been). GBC (talk) 08:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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 What's up, Doc? 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)

Military Experience?
Sen. McCain's article had an extensive section on military experience, but none for this article. Is this fair?
 * well, considering Obama doesn't have any military experience, I think it is. Thingg <sup style="color:#33ff00;">&#8853; <sup style="color:#ff0033;">&#8855;  05:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Interest group ratings?
They are on many other Sens and Reps pages why aren't there any for Obama, also is there a place I could find ratings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.106.205 (talk) 11:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello. Please describe exactly what you're looking for.  I'm not exactly sure I understand what you're getting at.  As far as "ratings" go, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a straw poll or opinion poll. Cheers.  Digital <sup style="color:#20038A;">Ninja  20:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean something along the lines of "Obama is rated F by the National Rifle Association," or "the ACLU has given Obama a score of 80% on civil liberty issues." These are from Political positions of Barack Obama, where it is more appropriate to go into this kind of detail, as this article is in the summary style.  Grsz  11   →Review!  20:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I believe you are correct Grsz. I thought he was referring to Gallop Poll type ratings (e.g. How does the public rate Obama on the economy).  Thanks for clarifying.  Digital <sup style="color:#20038A;">Ninja  21:07, 2 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 Let us reason together. 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)

Obama II ?
I did not know his name is Barack Hussein Obama II. Can we get a citation on the "II"? Timneu22 (talk) 11:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Check the FAQ just above this page. Starczamora (talk) 11:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This didn't really help. I couldn't find useful information in that section or from the link provided in it. Timneu22 (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The link provided in the FAQ is to his Birth Certificate which indicates his legal name at birth was Barack Hussein Obama II. I'm not sure what other useful information you require? --Bobblehead (rants) 19:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Where on this website does it show his full name as Barack Hussein Obama II? Timneu22 (talk) 23:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please check (in the FAQ). I have this question before. --Manop - TH (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This issue is not resolved. I click on your link and it takes me to an advertising page. I am removing the "II" from the opening paragraph until a valid reference can be cited. Timneu22 (talk) 11:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Here are some links to the same image:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cayobo/2969578635/sizes/o/

http://fastblogit.com/media/funnypages_seth_1213290489.jpg

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/bo_birthcert.jpg

http://www.suitablyflip.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/12/bo_birth_certification.jpg

http://centristvoice.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/bo_birth_certificate.jpg?w=450&amp;h=439

At least one of these links should be helpful. Sometimes one can find stuff like that by doing search engine entry. I used Yahoo! to find these. Keep up the good work! If any of these links work, please update your section on Obama's name. VictorC (talk) 12:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I cited this in the article. Timneu22 (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Full name
As regards this reversion of this edit: the obvious reason why it is unnecessary to clarify what people normally call Mr. Obama is that the title of the page, the infobox and the remainder of the article makes it obvious what he is normally called. Add to that normal encyclopedic practice, and if for any reason this affected the rationale here, that months from now the use of "Barack Hussein Obama" will probably not be most strongly associated with smear tactics by his opponents.

The notion that the "First + Last name" convention may be alien to non-Americans is moot. Readers may be equally be confused what an election or office but they can find out elsewhere on Wikipedia. All that needs to be said is that he is American. BigBlueFish (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

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 talk 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 Wikipedia 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. -- Good Damon 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 talk 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 talk 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 talk 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 Wikipedia's policy on article length. So new additions have to be weighed very carefully. -- Good Damon 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 Wikipedia 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. -- Good Damon 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 Wikipedia - 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. :) -- Good Damon 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.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 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 talk 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)


 * I'd just say something to the effect of "In 1995, Obama took part in the national implementation of the Motor Voter Law in cooperation with the DOJ as part of a legal team in behalf of ACORN." - And that's all (except for the mandatory reference). All the links included in the sentence point to the child articles. I'm not going to use the term "milestone," it's up to the reader to figure something like that out (or not). VictorC (talk) 22:03, 5 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)

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 talk 01:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Done Risker (talk) 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 Wikipedia protocols just as if it were any Wikipedia 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 talk 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 What's up, Doc? 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 talk 04:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * MLB.com is cited for facts in baseball articles, yet its neutrality is not challenged. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 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)

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. Glass  Cobra  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? Glass  Cobra  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)

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 vs. president-designate discussions
It turns out that "President-elect" is the correct term after all. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 18:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Grouping them altogether here. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:16, 5 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. ~ <font face="Georgia"> L'Aquatique! <font color="#a96dfc">[<font face="Monotype Corsiva">talk/stats ] 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)

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)

Presidential Infobox
Being way too assumptive here. Obama is not the 44th President on the United States, elect or otherwise. What if, God forbid, he were to die before January 20th? I suggest we avoid playing crystal ball, is there a better infobox for the president-elect specifically? -MichiganCharms (talk) 07:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In my original infobox, I hadn't included it for that exact reason. Indeed, I find ordering officeholders to be superfluous whatever the case. Therequiembellishere (talk) 07:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should wait til Jan 20 to add the Presidential Infobox. Digx (talk) 07:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not what we're saying at all. We think that ordering him as the 44th president is very presumptive. Much more so than calling him the elect. Therequiembellishere (talk) 07:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ACtually, I'd just call him "President-elect" and only list Biden as "VP-elect". Biden's page will also have to be changed. -MichiganCharms (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well he is actually the "president-designate" until the electoral college elects him. The reality is that Senator Barack Obama has not been elected anything yet. Only the presidential college delegates have been elected.Mattrix18 (talk) 11:37, 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)
 * Just a quick question, shouldn't the infobox not call him the 44th President of the US until he actually takes the oath of office? Shouldn't nothing unexpected happen, the article can be updated in January to reflect that reality then. Imzadi1979 (talk) 07:17, 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  &#9829;  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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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. - auburn pilot   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 talk 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, Wikipedia depends on "Reliable Sources". All the networks are calling him "President Elect". ~ priyanath talk 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 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)

Right now, Google News has 418 hits on "president elect obama" and zero hits when "presumptive" is added to it. I think we should just call him president elect, no further qualification. Wasted Time R (talk) 06:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't really matter what RS are calling him, when we know they're wrong. And it makes a difference. Think what happens if he dies or resigns after 15-Dec, or at least after the votes are counted on 6-Jan: Biden automatically takes his place as President-elect.  But what if it happens before 15-Dec?  The answer is that the DNC would have to pick a new candidate, who might very well not be Biden, and then hope that all Democratic electors obey instructions and vote for whomever they pick.  If enough Democratic electors disregard the DNC pick (since they're not pledged to do so) the election goes to the House.  That's the difference between a presumptive President-elect and an actual President-elect.  -- Zsero (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2


 * "We know they're wrong" runs counter to wikipedia policy, which is "verifiability", not "truth". The sources say "President-elect", and that's what wikipedia must say also. If he dies or becomes incapacitated, then he will cease to be the President-elect, obviously. At present, he's alive and well. And at present, he's the President-elect. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, Obama is the undisputed winner of the election, he is thus president-elect, which is a honorific. the only "President-designate of the United States" was Gerald Ford during the time between when Nixon announced his resignation and it became effective.
 * An excellent-a point. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"President-elect" before the Electoral College vote??
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. <font size="0" color="white" style="background:green"> Esper <font size="-2">rant 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)

Proposed compromise wording: ...is the junior United States Senator from Illinois and the projected President-elect of the United States of America. (changes emphasized). Emax0 (talk) 07:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My two cents here most of the news articles refer to him as elected president not president-elect. Dmckeehan (talk) 07:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the President-elect article, "more accurately he is the president-designate until the electoral college meets and votes." Just a thought. Prothonotar (talk) 07:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * We don't seem to have a president-designate article and if we did, it would just be a stub. Unless somebody wants to work on this then I would probably not suggest using it since it would be confusing, even though it seems like it is the proper term. Emax0 (talk) 07:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking that presumptive president-elect might be an accurate term, although I've never seen it used. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 09:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that presumptive president-elect might be an accurate term, but it seems now universal that everyone in the media and even Obama himself is using "president-elect" even though he will not be elected until the Electoral College meets on December 15. This isn't about "anything happening between now and then." It's more about accurately reflecting United States laws and the Constitution.   The question is, do we go along with the common usage, even though it is wrong or do we stand our ground with accuracy. --Crunch (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think accuracy is most important. We should use presumptive president-elect up until the Electoral College votes - otherwise it is deceptive. We need to use terminology that reflects the actual situation regardless of what the media is using. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Fiddly Leprechaun (talk • contribs) 15:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * We should not be the "only accurate and correct" source of information, in disagreement with every newspaper, magazine, and news channel out of some original research notion of what is objective truth. Wikipedia follows the usages of reliable sources, and they are using "president elect." Google news search shows 16,817 occurrances of Obama "president-elect" -presumptive and only 4 for Obama "presumptive president-elect" of which one is a spoof and one is about Bush.  Edison (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "Accuracy" is another way of saying "truth". Wikipedia is about verifiability, not "truth". The sources say "President-elect", hence that's what he is. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm with you Baseball Bugs. The only problem is, almost every time one quotes WP:VERIFIABILITY, for some reason, a negative reaction is not far behind. Reactions include comments like "condescending", "sloganeering" etc. Go figure. Dr.K. (talk) 02:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I used to think as they do. After nearly 4 years here, I have come to understand the concept much better. To "verify" means "to make true". And the way to make something true on wikipedia is through reliable sources. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree completely. We have policies for a reason. There should be no stigma attached to using or quoting them. Dr.K. (talk) 02:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"Presumptive" President-elect distinction
A note to all editors: Barack Obama is NOT the "President-elect" until the Electoral College convenes. For now, he is merely "presumptive" President-elect, akin to a "presumptive" party nominee who has been **projected** to accumulate the necessary amount of delegates to secure a nomination.

This is a constitutionally-defined distinction, as Joe Biden's role as "next-in-line" does not take effect until Obama is officially annointed "President-elect". Igarvey (talk) 06:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The term 'President-elect' appears nowhere in the Constitution, as far as I can tell. See above for RS that report his status of President-elect, officially or otherwise Nableezy (talk) 06:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Wrong. See the 20th amendment.  President elect and Vice President elect are constitutional positions, and Obama and Biden don't become those things until at least 15-Dec, and perhaps not until 6-Jan. -- Zsero (talk) 06:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Your right the term appears, but it is nowhere defined in that amendment or anywhere else in the Constitution. And still I have yet to see a RS that makes the distinction of presumptive and current pres-elect.  BBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, hell even FOX News report him as being the President-elect.  Nableezy (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand the distinction you're trying to make here, but it's very technical and no WP:RS uses it. Right now, Google News has 418 hits on "president elect obama" and zero hits when "presumptive" is added to it.  I think we should just call him president elect, no further qualification.  Wasted Time R (talk) 06:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is being discussed above - please stop making the change until we reach consensus. Tvoz / talk 06:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And I agree with Wasted Time R as discussed above - this is common parlance and all sources refer to him as President-elect. This technicality will only confuse, and is unnecessary. Tvoz / talk
 * He's going to win, so what's the point of stating "presumptive"? To be "accurate" for the next couple hours until they've finished counting? A complete waste of time. If it were up to me, it'd say "Obama is the president of the United States." <font color="navy" face="Garamond">Oran <font color ="green" face="Garamond">e  (talk)  06:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not for the next few hours; he won't be president-elect until 15-Dec, and he won't be president until 20-Jan. -- Zsero (talk) 06:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is appropriate to use the term "president-elect" here without the word "presumptive". But other edits in Wikipedia I have seen are inappropriate (e.g., adding him to the list of presidents).  Being less than technically correct on this point may aid in clarity.  Newguy34 (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The electoral college's system of choosing electors to then cast votes for president is a historical anomaly that has no effect on modern general elections. Electors - either by tradition or legal mandate - vote for the candidate that their state did. This is well summarized in Electoral College (United States) and the referenced Green Papers. Besides that, given that the NY Times, CNN, The Economist, BBC, etc. are saying either that he is the President-elect, that he has been elected, or simply that he won (all without qualifiers), we don't need to obsess over this anymore than they do. Appropriate treatment is a footnote in the bottom of the article, and "President-elect" in the lead.--chaser - t 06:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is an encyclopedia, and we are to be proper. If Obama were to die tomorrow (God forbid), the distinction would be made eminently clear. Obama was the "presumptive nominee" before the convention of Democratic delegates, and he is the "presumptive President-elect" until the convention of the Electoral College. Igarvey (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Our objective is verifiability, not truth. If the reliable sources say he "won" the election and is the "president-elect", then that's what we put in the article.--chaser - t 06:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent as on tangent.) If I understand correctly formal counting doesn't finish for days if not weeks (and what are actually being reported are a mix of projections and only some provisional results) and the official results on the popular poll will only come with formal certification (hence a bit of inconsistency in sources about the exact total popular votes in past elections). But if none of these terms have an official definition then it's getting absurd to be arguing over the potential distinction for the four periods between now and Jan 20th (until certification of results, until the electors meet and vote, until their votes are opened and accepted, then until inauguration). What's been the Wikipedia practice for US governors? Timrollpickering (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec)Many WP:RS used the "presumptive nominee" formulation, and so it was appropriate for us to also. Those same news sources don't use "presumptive president-elect", presumably because it's an awkward double-futuring and because the details of the Electoral College meeting are far less visible than a party's national convention meeting.  We should follow their lead on this.  Wasted Time R (talk) 06:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As a mutually-agreeable alternative, it would also be fine to call him the "projected President-elect of the United States" Igarvey (talk) 06:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * He's the President-elect, period. The electors are bound by their states' laws to vote for the guy the states elected. Not that that matters, reliable sources are what matters. And they will all be saying President-elect. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is presumptive(ly) pointless. Does it really change anything? Common sense, yes. But Wikipedia has been known to ignore such nuances, especially if it doesn't serve a strong purpose. Whether we demarcate him as presumptive or not, it's implied that it's not official until his inauguration. <font color="navy" face="Garamond">Oran <font color ="green" face="Garamond">e  (talk)  06:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

←Right. No one is suggesting that we call him President until January 20. All we are saying is that he should be called President-elect starting now, as per all of the reliable sources we are citing. All of them. Use common sense. Tvoz / talk 06:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not only common sense. We can also use policy. According to WP:VERIFIABILITY the threshold is verifiability not truth. So we can call him the President elect if we can cite reliable sources using the term. Dr.K. (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Independently of how to call his status, can we say that he is the "winner of the United States presidential election, 2008", in the lead? I was looking at the article for the first time and was searching for an easy link to the election article but found none. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The argument to add 'presumptive' to the President-Elect designation is the kind of pedantic nonsense which has the side-effect of making page editors look like loons. Dump it. --Fizbin (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Fizbin, at last some common sense to agree with. (see my comment on 'Office of the President-Elect' below Jabberwock359 (talk) 18:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

... a long way below...(sigh) Jabberwock359 (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

President-elect
Don't know why folks aren't reading the Wikipedia article. All is explained. Softlavender (talk) 07:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Therequiembellishere (talk) 08:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it's very late at night in the US? Wikidemon (talk) 08:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree. The fact that WP is a reliable source or not is irrelevant in this context. You can't quote Wikipedia as a source for an other WP article but the definition of President-elect should remain consistent (if the President-elect article is correctly sourced). -- lucasbfr  talk 11:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I heard on the BBC he is President-designate, not yet President-elect. Probably worth checking out. :) --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | <font style="color:#000000;background:#D3D3D3;"> Talk 13:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know how to cite a book, but this book:
 * The American Political Dictionary
 * By Jack C. Plano, Milton Greenberg
 * Contributor Milton Greenberg
 * Published by Dryden Press, 1976
 * Original from the University of Michigan
 * Digitized Feb 2, 2007
 * 481 pages
 * says "Following the November popular election, the winning candidate is unofficially called the "President-designate" until the electors are able to ratify the people's choice."LedRush (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * By who? I've never heard ANYONE call the winner of the presidential election anything besides "president elect" and I've been following these things since Johnson was president. the winner is called "president-elect" from the minute he's declared so by the media.He's been elected, right? the term "—designate" is used for appointive offices. Ericl (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

President-Elect?
Why does the Barack Obama article have him as the "president-elect" when he is really only the "president-designate"? I know I am clutching at straws, but Wikipedia articles should be factual. The fact of the matter is Senator Barack Obama (yes he is still a senator) only becomes "president-elect" when the electoral college votes for him. I think we should change his status to being "president-designate" until the electoral college elects him. Mattrix18 (talk) 11:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * President-elect seems fine, "but unofficially the person chosen in the November general election is called the President-elect even before the Electoral College meets;" and unofficial is a fact too. SGGH speak! 12:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

He's the President-elect because the reliable sources call him that. Any other questions? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be presumptive President-elect (until December 15th). But, I suppose we don't wont edit wars over this fact, for the next six-weeks. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this debate still going on? The technicalities of the Electoral College process aren't important enough in this case to not use the standard "president elect" form that every WP:RS is using.  Do this Google News search for "president elect obama" and you get 1,147 hits and growing by the minute.  Do this search with "presumptive" added and you get 0 hits.  Wasted Time R (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you could easily find reliable, verifiable sources that say when a person officially becomes a president-elect. Wikipedia should try to be factual and not cite things we know are wrong.  This argument is fairly insubstantial, but it's disheartening to see we don't try to get it right.LedRush (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And while we are on the subject, there has been a spate of edits to child articles switching from "Senator" to "President-elect". I have been removing the titles and just leaving the naked "Barack Obama", since (a) it is really obvious who he is and (b) anyone living under a rock can simply click the blue link to find out. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Had the results been 270-268 (for example), this would've been a much bigger issue. But seeing as the margin of victory was quite clear, perhaps it's not worth the hassle (over the next six-weeks). GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying, and I want to agree with you, GoodDay. But with the number of hits this article gets, it'd be nice to actually serve the purpose of an encyclopedia and provide correct information for people looking to educate themselves. I understand that the actual difference is minimal, but the ideal behind the change is quite important.LedRush (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The standard for Wikipedia content is verifiability, not truth. If the media is getting it wrong, well, Wikipedia is not here to right that wrong; we're here to document it.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 15:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. It's easy enough to say "While the mainstream press has named him the president-elect, he is, in fact, the president-designate until December 15 when the electoral college meets."   Or, we could just use one of the thousands of cites that call him president-designate, as they are verifiable.  Or we could use the verifiable references to how the election works.  Please don't be condescending in quoting Wikipedia standards...everyone here has been around the block.  Let's discuss the issue on the merits.LedRush (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with ya LedRush. Nobody has been elected President or Vice President yet. It was the Electors who were elected yesterday. But, six-weeks is a long haul (to push this fact). GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look at the article President-elect, you will see it says that until the electors vote, the proper term is "president-designate". We should use this term or presumtpive president-elect, as it is most important to be accurate. We can't base our usage on the media's, since they often use terms because of time constraints or the need to have easy clarity. As an encyclopedia, we do not have the same bounds and it is most important to use the correct designation. I think LedRush's idea is the best.The Fiddly Leprechaun (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * LedRush's proposals are acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That article isn't sourced for its bold statements and I'm not sure why, if there is any precision on this point (remember the only time the Constitution refers to a "President elect" it is referring precisely to the actual point of taking office so bypasses all this completely), the "official" date is when the electors vote rather than when the votes are opened, accepted and counted in January (and there have been past elections when results have been disputed and challenged in Congress - e.g. 1876). Timrollpickering (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, not everyone here has "been around the block". Many readers here are viewing a Wikipedia article for the first time, and I think it would do them a dis-service to mislead them about how Wikipedia works. Logical arguments about what is right or true most often lead to people trying to add material which is unpublished original research. We should not re-interpret what the media say because we know better. We should present material from the most reliable sources neutrally and fairly.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 16:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Mind the words most and reliable. We don't need to parrot tabloid-quality headlines. And with all due respect, almost all headlines were tabloid quality, even the revered NYT. Obviously, they are trying to avoid any "confusion" as to the status and thus use the popular term elect instead of the accurate term designate. That doesn't make it a fact and Wikipedia is not here to write about anything as fact, what we do, even with the most reliable sources and all but the most basic of informations is we use simple formulations. And of course we should simply cover the facts. Obama is called President-elect by most sources. But strictly speaking this is incorrect as of right now, as he is actually the President-designate until the electoral college convenes. What's the big deal? It's a really simply thing to state and reference the facts, and improve the article's and Wikipedia's accuracy. No need to dumb ourselves down to tabloid level: We're not a news outlet, we're an encyclopedia, and we strive for accuracy in all things. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">Everyme 17:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How is it that the NYT are now described as a tabloid? There is also such thing as accepted practice and common usage of a term. Language is a living thing, it evolves. There is also such thing as sounding stuffy and out of touch. It remains to be seen if the benefits of linguistic hyper-accuracy outweigh the disadvantages of sounding like we came out of a stuffy linguistic closet with a bunch of dusty rarely used terms. Dr.K. (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Yes, it's splitting hairs to an extent. However, there are very real consitutional and legal implications, not just issues of terminology arising from the difference between what President-designate means and what President-elect means. I don't have a strong opinion either way, just wanted that valid point to be heard. Since accuracy is of course subject to a democratic vote, I'll leave it to the majority. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">Everyme 18:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Legal and constitutional implications are present. It is a difficult question. Adding to these problems is the fact that the term "President elect" enjoys widespread acceptance in the general culture and Google echoes that. So your point about accuracy being the subject of a vote is well made and captures this dilemma well. Personally I think "President designate" is an elegant term albeit a bit stuffy since its usage is not that widespread. But you can't have everything. Dr.K. (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Consider commenting on Talk:List of Presidents of the United States to weigh in on whether you think Obama should be listed as a President of the United States. We need to gain a consensus so an admin can make changes if necessary.  ~ Wadester16 (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: PRESIDENT-ELECT: Just find a citation and attach it and end this interminable discussing. There are innumerable reliable sources listing Obama as President-elect. Just put one in so it doesn't keep getting changed. If someone finds a reliable American source that cites him as president-designate, then this discussion has some merit. Until then, source it and quell this endless recurring river of arguments and counter-arguments. Softlavender (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, if somebody who has a problem with applying the title president-elect to Sen. Obama, please find a RS that actually calls him something else. As written above, every RS I have seen since last night has labeled him President-elect, these include NY Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, BBC, Al-Jazeera, FOX News, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post . . . Nableezy (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nab, it doesn't do any good to say that -- people have said that continously here. What needs to happen is to apply a citation right now to the article. Softlavender (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So are you guys saying that no RS uses the term or acknowledges the process of the electoral college?LedRush (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, what I am saying is that I have yet to see a RS that adds presumptive or projected or any other qualifier to that they label 'President-elect.' If you can provide a reliable source that says that he is the presumptive or projected or any other qualifier you feel is needed, please add it.  I am saying that everything that I have looked at, and the list is above, labels him as the President-elect (sometimes without a hyphen).  I don't claim to have looked at every source, so I am asking those who have a problem with calling him the President-elect to please provide a source that adds some sort of qualifier to that title. Nableezy (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think my previous post got messed up. Here it is: I don't know how to cite a book, but this book:

The American Political Dictionary By Jack C. Plano, Milton Greenberg Contributor Milton Greenberg Published by Dryden Press, 1976 Original from the University of Michigan Digitized Feb 2, 2007 481 pages says "Following the November popular election, the winning candidate is unofficially called the "President-designate" until the electors are able to ratify the people's choice."LedRush (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not disputing the source, it seems fine to me if we use that term, but a quick google search on "President-designate" has results that point to when a person has been appointed president but has not yet assumed the office, as in the case of University presidents and other unelected posts. But the source seems to me to be a good one so I personally would not have a problem with that title being used. Nableezy (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That source is over 30 years old and probably reflects its author's opinion. I have NEVER EVER heard any term other than "President-elect" since the first election I was old enough to know about, in 1960. Besides which, he wasn't "designated", he was elected. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Has the constitution changed that much in 30 years? All this seems to be a pretext anyway...a way of avoiding the real discussion as to whether we should be accurate or simple.LedRush (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Bugs, he was not elected, the electoral college was. The American president isn't directly elected by the American people. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">Everyme 02:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am perfectly aware of how the electoral college works. They are legally bound to uphold the will of the voters in their respective states. So Obama is de facto elected, and that's why the sources say "President-elect". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,817343,00.html?iid=digg_share If you love old references, here is a great one.  Anyway, searches of the internet find tons of sites that confirm this understanding of the "president-elect"...it's just that many references come from books or from sources that, while meeting many people's standards, aren't slam dunks.LedRush (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The term "president-elect" admittedly is a colloquialism instead of the more technically correct "president-designate", but the two factors that: a) The term is only applicable for a few weeks; b) it has fallen completely out of use; really indicates that it takes more time, trouble and controversy to use the technically correct, but more obscure term than the colloquial term. No reliable sources use the technically correct term. It's more accurate, since technically electors are allowed to cast their votes any way they want - and we all know that will never happen. So why not keep the colloquial term, and perhaps have a short notation for the sake of information that the term "designate" applies but is obscure and has fallen out of use? VictorC (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That is precisely the proposal I voted for below.LedRush (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Official Title
Barack is President-designate of the United States. When the electoral college convenes and votes, he will then become President-elect, and finally President after taking the Oath of Office.

Hybrid1486 (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See above, for previous discussion on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Read this. Softlavender (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

=== Proposal on Language === Let's just come to a consensus and then never talk about this again. Here are my proposed options.

1. Just say either "presumptive president-elect" or "president-designate" until Dec 15th.

2. Just say "president-elect".

3. Say "president-elect" in the info box, but the first time we use it in the article, just add some language a footnote (with cites) to the effect "While the mainstream press has named him the president-elect, he is, in fact, the president-designate until December 15 when the electoral college meets." Then, in the rest of the article we just call him president-elect.


 * Modocc currectly points out that this law “(c) The terms ‘President-elect’ and ‘Vice-President-elect’ as used in this Act shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the office of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained by the Administrator following the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2 [sections 1 and 2 of this title]." which can be found http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ293.106.pdf names Obama the president elect. I apologize for getting caught up in arcane laws, but consider this matter closed.LedRush (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Proposal 3 - It gets the facts right, but acknowledges the popularly used language.LedRush (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Proposal 3 Per above. Good idea. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't need a consensus. We just need a source. Anything that gets inserted into the article is going to need a source, a citation. Just find one for P-E (there are dozens) and put it in the article. Consensuses are refutable. Citations, on the other hand, are recognized facts unless refuted by another citation. At least, that is the presumption on which Wikipedia operates. Softlavender (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The question is what to do with the vast majority of sources naming someone something that everyone here knows is slightly inaccurate, and only a few (http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/11862-pak-lah-hopes-for-positive-changes-from-obama-win) using the correct term. Also, we could just cite electoral college facts (stating that you're not president-elect until after the electoral college votes).  The proposals above contemplate all these truths and all different opinions.  Let's just openly talk about an interesting subject and see what we think, without hijacking or disrupting the process.  If you want to attack sources, please do so above.  (btw, I'm not saying that you're disruptive or hijacking, I only fear that having the discussion here will have that effect.)LedRush (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you are citing a Malaysian newpaper, which calls Obama P-E but is not a reliable American source. You seem to be presuming/implying that P-E is incorrect and that everyone agrees with you; however, reliable, notable American sources cite Obama as P-E, and P-E is and has historically been the universally used term for anyone voted President on election day. Softlavender (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Proposal 3/Softlavender. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">Everyme 18:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ONLY 2 Where is the RELIABLE SOURCE that states anything other than president-elect that is appropriate? Otherwise there is nothing to discuss, and even if you come up with a reasonable RS, the note would still not be notable enough to cram into the lead, and a footnote would do. Modocc (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Very true. Even if he actually is something else, WP:V states that WP is about verifiability, not about truth, and WP:NPOV states that we should express the information as it is expressed in the sources. DigitalC (talk) 07:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Can someone explain why December 15 rather than January 6? Surely when the electoral votes are counted and certified is when any official status applies, not just when they've been cast? Timrollpickering (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See Electoral College (United States). <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 19:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In short, the electors meet in their respective states in mid-December, and their election results are certified by joint session of Congress on January 6th. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm none the wiser from that. December 15 is the day of voting in the individual states but January 6 is when the votes are accepted and counted. Surely any election only ends, and the person formally becomes the elect, when the votes are officially accepted and counted? Timrollpickering (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The article could be a little clearer on the matter, as it gets bogged down in verbiage. The one sentence I stated above is a quick explanation of what's going on. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry that still doesn't make it clear. Am I being thick or is the idea that an election is formally declared when the votes are actually accepted & counted, not when they are cast, an outdated concept? Timrollpickering (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a three-step process. The public election was held November 4th, at which point Obama became the President-elect. The electors will meet in their respective states and seal their votes on December 15th. Those votes will be unsealed and certified by the joint session on January 6th, at which point it will become official. The second and third steps are mere formalities unless something happens to Obama (or Biden) in the interim. The electors are not going to overturn the public election results. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's practical politics not a formality. But if the question is about when Obama "formally" becomes President-elect then I still don't understand why it would be December 15 not January 6. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

He's the President-elect, and that's that. Let's not try to make wikipedia look any stupider than it already does, OK? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Option three would need to be well sourced so as not to violate WP:OR. ""While the mainstream press has named him the president-elect, he is, in fact, the president-designate until December 15 when the electoral college meets. ". The underlined text would need to be sourced, and describe the fact that he is president-designate. DigitalC (talk) 07:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Does anyone have a good source for the explanatory statement in option 3? Assuming such sources can be found, I'd support adding the explanation near to the first usage of the term "president-elect". S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 19:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's already explained in President-elect. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, he's not "officially" the President-elect until January 6th. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * President-elect cites no sources and wikipedia is not a reliable source. Modocc (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nor are the opinions of pedantic wikipedia editors who want to try to make some point to the casual readers, despite the fact that the reliable sources will say "President-elect" without qualification. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Proposal 3, though I'd rather see the clarification as a footnote that appears after the first time President-Elect is mentioned in the article. Good compromise though...  That way nobody is confused by the infobox, but we get to be pedantic anyway :D --Jaysweet (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In the footnote is fine. Not in the text of the intro itself. That way the facts are there and wikipedia doesn't look stupid. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Proposal 3 - agree with Jaysweet on the approach. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Jesus, I'm having trouble finding any sources that use the word "president-designate" that aren't either foreign sources mentioning it offhand, or else an extreme partisan source referring to "King Barack the President-Designate" or "His Serene Majesty President-Designate". Holy crap, I thought the president-designate thing was an issue of pedantry.. but it's partisanship?!?  What the hell is wrong with you people?  :( :(  Anyway, I'm going to stick the footnote in and see if anybody reverts me.  I think it's a good compromise, though I have to say I am sickened at the level of sore-loserness going on here.  There's no other way to put this other than Fucked Up with a capital F. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You know what, nevermind, I'm striking my vote above. I'm not going to be a part of this.  I'm just stunned.  Here I thought this was some typically Wikipedian discussion of technicalities that nobody cares about.  I am so disillusioned to find out that people are using president-designate as, I guess, some kind of slur or dig???  I just don't get it... :( :( :( --Jaysweet (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that anyone on Wikipedia is using the word as a slur, merely a way to be accurate. Check the sources above to see Time and a political encyclopedia which explain the use of the term.LedRush (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a slur, nor is it accurate. President-elect is what the sources say, and that's what it is. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Except for the other sources, that is.LedRush (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Undue weight. A smidgen of foreign sources are irrelevant against predominant usage in this country. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Except for the US sources, that is.LedRush (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Still undue weight. Predominant usage is "President-elect". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Baseball Bugs. However if we can put the dictionary definition info in a footnote and not in the main text it would be ok IMO. Dr.K. (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Explanation in a footnote would be fine. That's option 3. I might have said that already. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As have I.LedRush (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The current language of proposal 3 talks about "first time we use it in the article, just add some language...". Maybe it can be modified to make it clear that the clarification will be only in the footnote and not in the main text. Dr.K. (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That dictionary definition says its used. It does not say it is more accurate. So no this is not a good source for the footnote. In fact, it states its use as "unofficial". President-elect is also not "official" either, with or without the ratification of the election, which, by the way, was an election, and Obama won and he is President-elect. Advocates will need to put up a better sourcing for this so-called more "precise" officialdom, which is arguably moot. [Correction: see the | Presidential Transition Act of 1963 and its amendments for the official usage.]  Modocc (talk) 19:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't have to say president-designate, you could say "technically, Obama will not become the President-elect until the Electoral College meets in state capitals on Dec. 15 to confirm the voters' choice" which is a word-for-word pull from the Time article (minus Obama, of course). Let's not make this harder than it needs to be.LedRush (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would avoid the negatives. There's a way to say that positively and hence more succinctly. And keep in mind it's not official until January 6 when Congress certifies it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The footnote could simply state that the Electoral College will meet on December 15th and the election will be certified by joint session of Congress on the 6th, at which point the election of Obama will become official. And it could point to the Electoral College page for those who want to review that whole arcane subject. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's (largely) fine, though I would word it this way: "the Electoral College will meet on December 15th and the election will be certified by joint session of Congress on the 6th, at which point the Obama will become officially become the president elect." Not a big difference, though, as long as we link to the arcane article.  Baseball Bugs, do you want to take a crack at it?  I would, but don't know how to add a footnote.LedRush (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't do footnotes. I'll let the experts handle that. FYI, as noted below, the U.S. Government considers Obama to be the President-elect. That's the trump card: Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * LedRush, the TIME source predates the current law, so we cannot use it. See the link I provided. I'm OK with Bugs version of a footnote, but I don't think its warranted and won't be adding it. Modocc (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Modocc...you are correct. Your link doesn't get to the law, but it can be found at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ293.106.pdf .  President elect is indeed the correct term.  I apologize for getting bogged down in arcane laws and technicalities.  In an odd way, though, Wikipedia has served its purpose.  No we need to correct the president-elect page.LedRush (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

White House's choice of words
When I go to the White House web site I read "President George W. Bush speaks with President-elect Barack Obama during a congratulatory phone call ... ". When I listen to President George W. Bush's speech, he speaks about president-elect Obama. So ? do we know better ? Hektor (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * [redacted "pot shots" at President George Walker Bush, see this external link for more information] <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">Everyme 19:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think it's Bush himself who maintains the whitehouse.gov web page? Surely he has a few other things to keep him occupied. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't whitehouse.gov, like, the President's blog? <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">Everyme 19:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I was trying to provide a good reference, the web site of the US Presidency itself, and you become emotional and start anti-Bush rantings. I think this is not very constructive. For me the White House web site is indeed quite a good reference. I don't see why wikipedia should call Obama in a different way from the White House choice of words. Hektor (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a forum, cut it out. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  20:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And you are rude and probably trolling. I am not trying to use wikipedia as a forum, I am providing a reference to try to solve an issue. Hektor (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You should learn to pay attention to the indentation level, and, watch who you call a troll (indeed, I would appreciate it if you retracted that personal attack). SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  20:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly, he was addressing me. And I wasn't emotional, I was just poking fun at your line of reasoning with which you dismiss the simple fact that what most say --even if it includes all major media outlets as well as the White House website-- is not necessarily factually correct. The ramifications of the existing distinction between President-designate and President-elect are just not trivial. Every line of reasoning that attempts to contradict that is ridiculous and without any potential merit for improving this article. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">Everyme 21:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and, to expand further... Taking potshots at bush, on this talk page, is unneeded, inappropriate, borderline in violation of BLP, has nothing to do with improving the article, and, will not continue here, we clear? SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  21:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe I have made myself clear. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">Everyme 21:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent) You know I was reading this rather extremely long back and forth between editors over what to call him. I hear presidential elect, presumptive president elect, presidential designate, and so on. I am a simple person and I like to keep things simple. There are hundreds of reliable sources out there that all call him presidential elect. While I appreciate that people want to argue this out to the nth degree about how the electoral system has not voted yet, and some editors are arguing here because they hope against hope that those electoral voters may some how defy the system and vote for the other candidate. Yet, sadly we are simple people and at times we need to keep it simple for the readers. The majority of them do not have an in depth knowledge of the electoral system other then what the news channels tell them. So I say again, we have have enough reliable sources calling him president elect and we should use the same term too. Remember this simple saying: K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid!) Brothejr (talk) 03:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Office of the President-Elect

 * If you go to http://www.change.gov/ it is called "Office of the President-Elect". I think that solves the issue. Hektor (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. A couple of clicks turned up these official documents.Modocc (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

perhaps I may politely point out the premise that he is potentially the putative-possible-proposed-projective-predesignated-presumptive-postulated-presumed-probable-prospective-plausible-presidential-type-person :) Jabberwock359 (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, a wise guy. Watch me paste this pathetic palooka with a powerful, paralyzing, perfect pachydermous percussion pitch! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

HERE is Law
From this

(c) The terms “President-elect” and “Vice-President-elect” as used in this Act shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the office of the President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained by the Administrator following the general elections held to determine the electors of the President and Vice-President in accordance with title 3, United States code, sections 1 and 2.

That about sums up this discussion. :-) --Modocc (talk) 23:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it does. Great work. I was wondering throughout this discussion how it was possible for all the experts advising the mass media to be wrong on something like that. Dr.K. (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We should probably mention it in the FAQ before this looooong discussion is archived. Modocc (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Dr.K. (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

One question: Who is this mysterious "Administrator"? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

From the same citation: "Sec. 3 (a) The Administrator of General Services, referred to hereafter in this Act as “the Administrator,” is authorized ....." General Servises Administration, or GSA. 71.214.65.192 (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I was wondering about that too. It appears that the office of the Administrator validates the election results and facilitates the logistics of the transition. Dr.K. (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a great reference for the FAQ, and for ending talk page discussion, but should not actually be used in the article, since it does not directly relate to Obama. It does mean we can end and archive this huge discussion. DigitalC (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It belongs in the President-elect article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. DigitalC (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Done (updated President-elect). Modocc (talk) 04:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Parents' marriage
I'd prefer it if the article detailed his parents' marriage, and what year they met. Right now there is no indication that they were married when Obama was born, only that they divorced at some unidentified later date (which year itself should be given).

What year did his parents meet — or at least, what years were they at UH? What year were they married? If they were married when Obama was born, his mother's name was probably Ann Dunham Obama (she is called "Mrs. Obama" in his birth announcement provided from the newspaper), not just Ann Dunham. What year did they divorce?

Thanks very much in advance. Softlavender (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Feel free to research it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks; I found the info on the mom's Wiki article -- I'll filter it in. Softlavender (talk) 07:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Update: The article is locked now, but the info is on my userpage . I'll place it into the article when it gets unlocked. Softlavender (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Softlavender (talk) 07:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)