Template talk:Barack Obama/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Reverend Wright

I feel that Reverend Wright should be in this template. The most notable figures in his life should be here, not just family (esp family members that don't matter like his sister. ObamaGirlMachine (talk) 01:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

agreed - all notable figures related to him should be on here. I'll change the template to reflect that unless someone disagrees. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I've taken all these out. We don't have them for the other candidates. That's a WP:COAT issue. They're mentioned in various articles and it may be appropriate for a category. Wikidemo (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I see, you're right, I checked some other candidates and it appears this isn't usual. That seems odd, but I'll accept it. I am placing Bill Ayers election controversy next to the wright controversy already there, since this is commmon. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I've changed my mind. It seems that Ron Paul has a section for related articles. I believe this portion should be added to include things taken off such as I Got a Crush... on Obama, Yes We Can, and other related articles such as Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and Tony Rezko. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 08:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need to include "I Got a Crush..."?

{{editprotected}} It was a brief-lived Internet sensation, but it's really not that important an article about Obama. Even Yes We Can, which was arguably more noteworthy, could be deleted without great loss to the template, IMO. But it really seems silly to include I Got a Crush... on Obama. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes! Definitely delete these incidental links to internet videos from the template. I watched and enjoyed both, but really this is trivia... maybe something to mention briefly in some related articles, not in the main template. LotLE×talk 19:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks like it's been removed. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Template fully protected

Please refer to . Non-admins, please feel free to use {{editprotected}} template to request making edits to this template. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 06:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to what? Powers T 13:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Remove flash-in-pan "controversies"

{{editprotected}} C'mon... putting partisan coatrack election issues in the template! There's no way the Ayers, nor even Wright, controversies belong in the template. Nothing like that occurs in other politician articles. This is gross POV soapboxing. LotLE×talk 19:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like this was removed. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about the Ayers controversy, but the Wright controversy is completely relevant. It has done a lot that has affected not only Obama, but his presidential campaign and the 2008 presidential election as a whole. The other candidate's template, {{John McCain}}, mentions his lobbyist controversy and Keating Five; {{Hillary Rodham Clinton}} mentions Whitewater and critical authors and books; {{Ronald Reagan}} mentions Iran-Contra. There isn't any coatracking going on, but rather presenting all aspects of Obama's career. And the Wright controversy is just as relevant as his "More Perfect Union" speech. In fact, without the controversy, he wouldn't have delivered the speech at all. Happyme22 (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm undecided on this particular issue, but comparing the Wright controversy to Iran-Contra, or even Whitewater, is ridiculous. They don't even compare. Powers T 13:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not a matter of whether they compare to one another (because I agree with you that Whitewater and Iran-Contra were much more serious). Rather, it is a matter of including controversies/criticisms in the template. Again, Ayers is a no because that one has not impacted the race to as much of an extent as the Wright controversy has. But for WP:NPOV and consistency reasons, Wright needs to stay. Heck, {{George W. Bush}} has entire section devoted to criticism. Happyme22 (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it shouldn't be removed just because it's a controversy, but the question is whether it's an important enough controversy to be included. It doesn't even rise to the level of "scandal", and frankly seems a non-issue at this point. That may change if McCain or other Republican activists bring it up in the general campaign, of course. Powers T 12:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
As I said a while ago now, the norm on Wikipedia is not to coatrack / shoehorn lists of campaign-related controversies onto the politician templates. If we did so across the board, that would be a move away from an encyclopedia and towards news-like coverage. I see that a couple have crept onto the McCain article since then so I'll go over there and advocate for their removal. Wikidemo (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it has impacted Obama himself enough to merit inclusion - that's not a partisan, coatrack, shoehorn, POV-pushing, whatever you want to call it :) viewpoint. He had to give a race-relations speech because of it, it gained widespread media attention with questions about his personal and moral values, it has significantly damaged his relationship with his one-time "mentor", and he has given up membership from his church because of it. I understand the election issues point, which is a good one, but I don't think that legitimate parts of someone's life that may have related to the campaign or started with the campaign and gone of into a different direction, as this has, should be omitted because they were/are "campaign issues". The same goes for McCain - his lobbyist controversy brought up questions of his moral character and was only a campaign issue for a short period of time. But just because it was, I don't think a moral issue relating to John McCain the man should be omitted either. So it goes both ways. Happyme22 (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
{{editprotected}} I think the Wright and Ayers controversies should be added back. It isn't coat-racking, everyone with major controversies is subject to have them included. And these do qualify. I wouldn't dare take a controversial subject off of Bill Clinton's template or George Bush's, why should Obama be given special treatment? QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the Ayers should definitely not be added back because it's an extremely minor controversy, with a debate on the Obama article regarding whether it has sufficient relevance and weight to be mentioned in the article at all. It's a minor, fairly unsuccessful hit piece launched against Obama as a matter of partisan campaigning, and is barely a blip in the overall news coverage and significance of the campaign. Wright is at the opposite extreme, likely the #1 scandal of the campaign to date. Though less important than Rezko to who Obama, and less defining of his "character" (or whatever it is these partisan controversies are supposed to be about), this is the negative campaign issue that has so far resonated the most deeply. There I think it depends what these templates are supposed to be about. Is it about the campaign, the man, reality, the political process? If we want to make a directory of political thrusts and counterthrusts then Wright is a significant one. If we want the template to be a reasonably balanced, complete picture of politics and the candidates, no. In the latter case, as I suggested on the McCain template, we should consider what a neutral reader might find notable 20 years from now. We should go down all the major things - the candidate's political positions, political career, personal life, and campaigns, rather than an index of all the scandals. We used to have an article (I created, I must admit) for a list of all the controversies and political attacks of the campaign. That was deleted out of a desire to avoid a single index of those. If that's the case the template shouldn't be the seat of that index either. Wikidemo (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
That's an interesting point. I'm with you on Ayers, but I'm still not convinced on Wright. It's not about what readers want twenty years from now - it's about what we give readers to read now to present an overall, fair picture of the person. I think that if we want the template to be "reasonably balanced" we should include a link to this article because it is not a scandal; rather it is a notable, influential event that has affected Barack Obama the man and his political career. It has gone beyond the boundaries of a political campaign. If Obama is elected president, then, yes, as the years go on we may have to reconsider what does and does not deserve mention in the template. But now, the event is still fresh in people's minds. It has affected and may potentially further affect the 2008 presidential election. Positive or negative, it is notable and directly relates to Barack Obama himself, having gone beyond his campaign. Happyme22 (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the editprotected template for now, since it's obvious we've not reached a consensus yet. I think perhaps we're focusing on the wrong metric here. It's not whether someone 20 years from now will want to know about this, and it's not about presenting a "fair picture" of Obama -- those are issues for the articles. This template is a navigation aid -- its purpose is to facilitate finding other articles within a particular subject area. In this case, the subject area is "Barack Obama", and the inclusion or exclusion of a particular link should be determined by how relevant the link is to that subject. Powers T 12:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss first

Recently, a number of only peripherally related articles have been added to this template. I believe the editors adding them are doing so in good faith, but a widely used template like this should not be a grab-bag for "everything that has a vague relation with the bio subject". Please bring suggested additional links to this talk page before adding to the template. LotLE×talk 22:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Added new section

Using the long approved Template:George W. Bush as a guide, I created a new section entitled "Perceptions" and added articles whose topic centered on Barack Obama and whose title included "Obama" (as a way of maintaining the bar as to what else can be added to the Barack Obama template). I also added entries to existing sections. Suntag (talk) 07:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't! This grocery list of everything vaguely connected to Obama is disruptive, adn feels like a way to try to smuggle in a lot of coatrack content into a widely used template. At the very least, try to get some consensus here on talk before adding items... and even more so when adding contentious and/or only distantly relevant article links. LotLE×talk 08:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Craig Robinson (basketball coach)

I think Obama's brother-in-law should go on the tmeplate. Anyone? Bearian (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Balance -- add "Reverend Wright controversy"

The "John McCain template" contains things such as the "New York Times Lobbying controversy" referring to an article written in the Times that caused a short-lived discussion and remains unresolved. However, if that is included in the template, then in the interests of balance, "Jeremiah Wright controversy" and "William Ayers controversy" links should be included in the Obama template, since these have become major topics of discussion related to his Presidential run. 93.172.146.139 (talk) 08:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Scope

Yo, so seeing a section for Obama's family members, I added a link to the stand-alone article on his (apparent) aunt Zeituni Onyango. Either the scope of this template extends to notable family members or it does not. All of Obama's notable relatives are now included except Onyango - this is clearly inconsistent. the skomorokh 18:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

There are a huge number of more distant family members listed in the "Family of" article. Putting all of them in the template would make the template unwieldy and substantially less useful. The inclusion of Onyango in particular among these non-immediate relatives seems to be only a gesture towards today's news stories, hence violating WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Only include immediate family members, and a link to the general "Family" article, in the template. LotLE×talk 18:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the Family of Barack Obama article, I don't see any other blood relatives of Obama with stand-alone articles who are not included here. This omission smacks of pov editorializing. The template is not bloated, and the Onyango article is clearly relevant to readers interested in Obama. Onyango is not RECENT, she has always been his aunt, afaik. the skomorokh 16:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit request.

{{editprotected}}

Very recently the exact relations of Obama to each of the family members was added to the template. This is an unnecessary addition that lengthens the template for no great purpose; do we really have to have Michelle Obama (spouse) rather than just Michelle Obama? The succinct form is how the template's been for a long time, and is far preferable.

Additionally, the "state" trick should be added so that the template can be manually expanded or changed from autocollapse. The main Obama page should probably force an expansion, for example, and there's no harm in adding it.

Here's my suggested form of the template: 

{{Navbox
|name  = Barack Obama
|title = [[Barack Obama]]
|state = {{{state<includeonly>|autocollapse</includeonly>}}}
|image = [[Image:Barack_Obama.jpg|right|60px|Barack Obama]]

|group1 = Political activities
|list1  = [[2004 Democratic National Convention]]{{·}} [[Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama|Illinois Senate career]]{{·}} [[United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004|U.S. Senate election in Illinois, 2004]]{{·}} [[United States Senate career of Barack Obama|U.S. Senate career]]{{·}} [[Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008|Presidential primary campaign, 2008]]{{·}} [[Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008|Obama–Biden 2008]]{{·}} [[Electoral history of Barack Obama|Electoral history]]{{·}} [[Political positions of Barack Obama|Political positions]]

|group2 = Books authored
|list2  = ''[[Dreams from My Father]]''{{·}} ''[[The Audacity of Hope]]''

|group3 = Life
|list3  = [[Early life and career of Barack Obama|Early life and career]]{{·}} [[Public image of Barack Obama |Public image]]

|group4 = Family
|list4  = [[Family of Barack Obama|Family tree]]{{·}} [[Michelle Obama]]{{·}} [[Barack Obama, Sr.]]{{·}} [[Ann Dunham]]{{·}} [[Lolo Soetoro]]{{·}} [[Maya Soetoro-Ng]]{{·}} [[Madelyn and Stanley Dunham]]
}}<noinclude>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barack}}
[[Category:United States political leader templates]]
[[Category:Barack Obama|τ]]
[[id:Template:Barack Obama]]
</noinclude>

SnowFire (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotect}} That state fix seems fine but please re-add the relationship that each of these people have. You may know who Obama's wife is but there is a handful of names that aren't clear what their relationship to the subject is so a simple description is quite helpful to those who wish to read about his recently decease grandmother, for instance, versus someone else. Template are to help guide our readers to the relevant articles of their choosing not send them on a quest for the article they really want. -- Banjeboi 19:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Benji, the parenthesised explanations are definitely a help, as the average reader will be unfamiliar with these names. I think it's best not to bluelink the relationships, however; "Michelle Obama (wife)" is visually and semantically clearer. the skomorokh 20:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. The heading is "Family." It's obvious that these are the members of the Obama family. You're correct that it may not be obvious at first glance who's who... but... that's what the Obama article is for, or the specific articles themselves (all of which state the relationship prominently in the opening). More to the point, this is navigational template, not an article. This is for getting between articles, not really being content. This isn't the greatest analogy, but as an example, take the various periodic table templates (though now that I look I see they're also weirdly semi-articles, like Periodic table (standard)). I'm sure not everyone knows much about Ruthenium at first glance... but... there really isn't room in a template for much more than abbreviations and possibly atomic numbers. And that's fine. There are fewer Obama family members than there are elements, so it's not as bad to include extra information here, but the same principle applies. Let's just lay out the articles and keep it simple and clean. SnowFire (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template.. --Elonka 22:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} With all due respect the above request is to revert a change that was made without consensus. I concur with the skomorokh that "Michelle Obama (wife)" is visually and semantically clearer. Please at least revert the last change since consensus on that editprotect was limited to one editor and the admin who made the change. -- Banjeboi 03:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been bold and removed your request because the template is no longer cascade protected. You can make the change if you like. However, I'd still strongly request you wait on this. There is no consensus in favor of this change - this template has not had that information for its entire history, and was only added very recently. Two people agreeing on a change does not a consensus make. If you'd like, perhaps we could move this to Talk:Barack Obama and discuss it there with more people? SnowFire (talk) 06:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I left off descriptors for Michelle and Barack Sr but the others do seem to merit inclusion I'm unsure if his entire family should be included as the list seems like it could be quite extensive. My task was to clean up Zeituni Onyango and that's been mostly done for now. -- Banjeboi 13:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I know it has been a bit, but the "Family" link points to "First Family" instead of Family of Barack Obama...could this at least be fixed...along with adding "First Family" to the other article? -- Mjquin_id (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

ru

{{editprotected}}

ru:Шаблон:Барак Обама --TarzanASG (talk) 08:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Done--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 19:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Presidency

Remember to add this article, Presidency of Barack Obama, into template. Bye :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.11.20.22 (talk) 09:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

pt

pt:Predefinição:Barack Obama -- Breno Rocha RJ (talk) 19:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- Banjeboi 01:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Heads up: Obama Day

Obama Day might not be well-developed enough for the template at present, but it may be worth keeping an eye on. the skomorokh 21:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed "iconographic" links or section

I added three of the most influential Obama icons. I think this is apropos to the template at hand.--The lorax (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

These are of only remote and peripheral interest. The template is not meant to contain everything vaguely related to Obama, but only the central things, especially things that are directly about him, not merely "inspired by" him. LotLE×talk 01:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Strong Keep -- The Shepard Fairey HOPE poster is being featured in the Smithsonian. The Yes We Can iconic video had 15 million views and the O logo speaks for itself as Pepsi appears to be ripping it off now.--The lorax (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep the 3 links. IMO bottom nav templates are designed to contain as many articles as possible: yes, flattering ones, such as these (plus even the unflattering ones eg the one re citizenship conspiracy theories). ↜Just me, here, now … 02:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Strong Avoid. Stop voting so much too, not everything is supposed to be a poll, it's supposed to be about consensus for changes. The three cultural productions now mentioned are all moderately interesting. So are hundreds of other cultural/artistic works that have or will be produced that are somehow inspired by Obama. Having an article (maybe a List of ---) for this would be fine, and one link to that article in the template would be OK. But trying to throw in every song, painting, video, whatever that might mention Obama turns a useful template into a worthless (and harmful) link farm. LotLE×talk 20:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it serves readers well to link the subarticles as well as the main articles in the template. These are mostly subarticles of Public image of Barack Obama and the campaign articles, but if readers are looking through the template browsing for Obama-related articles, there is something nice about completeness and not too much downside. However, we should not be editorializing by including some and excluding others, if peripheral topics like these three included in the template. It would also have to have I Got a Crush... on Obama, There's No One As Irish As Barack O'Bama, We Are the Ones, Sí Se Puede Cambiar, and whatever else we have articles on. Also, I note that Barack Obama election victory speech, 2008 is listed as "Hope Has Come to America". If this is an accepted title for it, that should highlighted in the lead of the article; otherwise, the template should refer to the article's title.--ragesoss (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Alternatively, we could create a separate "Public image of Barack Obama" template. Currently, that function is being performed awkwardly by partly incomplete "see also" sections in most of these articles.--ragesoss (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
FWIW I agree we shouldn't necessarily let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Eg could we perhaps let the three links stay till an icono- catch-all article (or subsection of the "Obama public image" article) becomes written? (PS There could also be parent aricle or articles for the books authored by Obama and/or the speeches he delivers as well.....) ↜Just me, here, now … 00:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
For such a prominent template, that is transcluded in many places, this not-perfect isn't good, but actually quite bad. It's just ugly and distracting to put in such incidental and accidental links in the template. The good here is leaving the template be until such time as there is an article that discusses all the various arts and culture that people have done inspired by or in reference to Obama. Having nothing in the template is perfectly fine, having one such link is bearable. LotLE×talk 02:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree those 3 links should be kept, they are extremly useful links for the reader to have acesss to. Epson291 (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"Public image of Barack Obama" template

I've created a template that can be used on some of the second-tier Obama articles, to make it easier for readers to find them.

What do you think?--ragesoss (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks great, good job! - Epson291 (talk) 04:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Why does Yo-Yo Ma get special billing for Air and Simple Gifts? He's just one of the quartet that performed the work. Itzak Perlman is equally famous. And why special billing for the performers and not the composer John Williams? I would drop Yo-Yo Ma from the template. DavidRF (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

First 100 Days link error

The link in the first 100 days section is broken, and ought be repaired. It takes the user to the correct page, but not to the correct section. It should link to section 3, "First 100 Days" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Barack_Obama#First_100_days.

Good catch. However, i just removed the link as there already is a link to Presidency of Barack Obama. While the first 100 days is generally the most productive of a presidency, I'm thinking linking to the same article twice is a bit redundant. If a child article is created from the first 100 days section I can see adding a link to the child article, but right now that article is so small there isn't a need to link to a specific section within it. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Corrected Speech Label

I changed the label that read "2009 State of the Union" to "2009 Speech to Joint Session of Congress" because it's more accurate and reflects the name of the link's destination. --SAP2112 Sap2112 (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Except it still redirects to 2009 State of the Union Address. Fixed. --MicahBrwn (talk) 04:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Bo (dog) listed under family?

Question: Why is Bo (dog) listed in its "own" category of Also? I know this is debatable, but I feel that many people would consider a beloved family pet as family, and therefore the dog (maybe) should be put as such. Thoughts? Jrcla2 talk 17:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Answer: a dog is not family. Full stop. Maybe call it "family life", but that's a different thing. Also removed cat from the dog. -DePiep (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Once again (after talk here): A dog is no part of a family, here on wikipedia. A family constitutes of people (ie human beings) connected by descent, marriage, or juridical (eg fostering) binds.
Also, a navigational box should not be "simplified" by compromising sub-boxes (we do not mix "family" with like "family life" for perceived conveniance). The dog is no part of the family. Part of "family life" - good idea. Like the White House kitchen table. -DePiep (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Just to offer another opinion, I support the template in its current form with Bo in the family section. Whilst I agree that a dog isn't a member of a family when the traditional biological definition is considered, in a broader sense, pets are often considered to be part of the family. I see no reason for us to stick to such a strict definition of "family" when the primary purpose of a navigation box like this is to simplify navigation, a task which isn't compromised by listing the dog in this way. I can't consider there to be a risk that readers are going to be misled by this. Where the purpose of a navigation box isn't going to be damaged, nor is there a realistic risk of confusing users, it is perfectly appropriate to simply such templates as this. Adambro (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Just a question: is it really usage & common in US-English to extend a family this wide? -DePiep (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
No idea about en-US, but in en-GB: yes. —Sladen (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
If I ever get an article here, I will (or would) not allow a dog be called part of my family. Very denigrating. Would it be the same for a white man? Was that monkey part of Michael Jackson's family then? -DePiep (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Template:Michael Jackson does include a link to Bubbles (chimpanzee). —Sladen (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and right so, but in the group "Related articles", not in a group "Family" (which is the topic here: is Bo part of the Family). We might find examples in other families. Anyway, I'm curious still, but not striving to edit it. -DePiep (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Merging

Hi, I have merged Template:Public image of Barack Obama and Template:Obama family to here because the main Barack Obama has reached the page template limit. see Talk:Barack Obama#Numbers of template. I have decided to do this per WP:IAR. So, hopefully, this won't be controversial.—Chris!c/t 21:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Order of family members

Is there any particular reason that Barack Obama, Sr. is listed after Bo the dog? I'm going to move him up a few places unless anyone presents a good reason not to. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Moneygall

User:Odea has added a link to the article on Moneygall against two editors' suggestion that it be excluded. I am going to revert the latest addition of the link to maintain the status quo while we build consensus for the inclusion/exclusion of it here.

Question: Should a link to Moneygall be included in this template?

Films

I see in the Public image section, there is a section for books about Obama. That being said that are many movies/films that are about the President as well, should they be included? If so, here is a list I found that may help populate that new section. I will notify appropriate noticeboards about this conversation per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I would presume they should be included. After all, books and films are included at {{Sarah Palin}}, including the not so flattering ones. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_1&oldid=1141949839"