Talk:Barack Obama

Obama's Faith

I ran across this article and thought it might be an appropriate source identifying Christianity as Obama's declared faith. It also mentions that he draws from Eastern religions, Islam, and Judaism. I hesitate to plop it into the article right away, though, so I thought I'd bring it up here. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It is from an interview with a notable journalist (Cathleen Falsani) in a notable publication (Chicago Sun Times), so it should be OK as a source for the article.--JayJasper (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a very good interview, and outlines what many have suspected Obama's beliefs were, put into writing with his own words. No particular dogma or exact 'brand' of Christianity, just Christian. I'm sure people who are religious/spiritual but have college degrees can relate. As for using it as a reliable source, I have no problem with it. Dave Dial (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to the FAQ above, it would POV to not mention ANY muslim connection to his family roots. Granted he is christian, fair enough and it should be given greatest emphasis, but considering most of his [kenyan] family is Muslim that ought to be mention too.Lihaas (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone making edits or reverting edits regarding Obama's religion views/position please reference this talk page, its FAQ, and this section for discussion prior to further edits. Thanks --Topperfalkon (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with Lihas. Obama's beliefs are his own, and have no connection with other family member's belief. The article is about Obama. To bring in the fact that some of his family have different beiliefs would skew into POV. I mean, if for instance, in the same couple of sentences the article states "Obama is Christian" then next to that "But some family members are Wikipedian" seems to be an attempt to skew toward some sort of POV. Thanks. (This is the first time I have edited on the Obama aritcle.) ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 08:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Steve Quinn (Welcome, Steve!). The religious beliefs of Obama's relatives are of little consequence when compared with Obama's own stated position, just as his "mixed" race heritage is of little consequence compared with his personal identification as an African-American. Frankly, I'm uncomfortable with some of the calls to note Obama's tenuous connection with Islam, as if that's a bad thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Exeternl links

I dont know if this ahs been said, but WP:Consensus can change and WP:EL wikipedia is not a repository of links, so the lsit needs to be cut.

1. certainly dont need a whole list of bios, some can be cited in here (and if they can be then theres no need for EL's)
2. news articles dont need to be here, or if a link to a search fo obama 1-2 can suffice
3. in linewith the above, directories/news searches can be cut too (some 1-2 combined)
4. official sites re the links to have, so this seems good.Lihaas (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Article size

WP:Article size means this page is way too long and takes forever to load, now there already are split off pages, yet at least 2 section still go on for para's on end. A summation and a link to the main page is the point of a split so those 2 can be cut down to size somehow. ill leave it to the page monitors to decide, because this is "their baby" instead of fightingLihaas (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Readable prose is well within the proper limit. The physical size of the page is large because of the large body of references (a higher standard/frequency of sourcing prevents disputes on BLPs that can attract controversy). -- Scjessey (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ownership of article

This article seems to have WP:OWNERSHIP issues here with various editors promptly removing anything added they dont like. to cite this blatant ownership: [4] says added by "article by new editor" If he means that im a new editor them that is not true, if its to this article then that doesnt mean people are restricted from editing articles on wikipedia. this is an open encyclopaedia and furthermore he blindly reverted EVERYTHING in the edits which is ground for either pov or vandalism (take your pick).

[5] is written from an WP:RS with the clear caveat that he was accused not that he is or making an affirmation. the editor's own insecurities of an attack are more suited to a weblog.

Furthermore, when challenging the edit he has not mentioned a word here on talk. If this protecting page by some whitehouse staff members continues it needs to go for admin control.

i have also already posted above to discuss my edit BEFORE revert, yet Newross reverted the tags (in addition to EVERY other edit in between including the cleanup) without saying anything on talk

To explain then the other part of the sub-section merger, all the biographical data was put to a logical one section instead of being spread around the page. I just made it a seperate subsection as a reward of recognition to whoever editor took the time to write it. (maybe that was unwarranted too) (Lihaas (talk) 11:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)).

I support the reversion made by Brothejr (diff) that you mentioned above. You (Lihaas) made some massive changes to the article by moving some sections and more. In the middle of those changes you introduced a paragraph starting 'He was accused of heading to the "dark side"...' which was correctly reverted because it was someone's opinion written as fact, and it used some inappropriate language (dark side?), and is undue. Re your comment about "admin control", please see the "This article has been placed on article probation" note in the header at the top of this page. Your complaints are unfounded. Per WP:BRD it is up to you to explain why your bold edits should prevail rather than the established version. If you are going to reply to yourself, please leave your original signature because it is confusing to see indented comments when they are all from the same person. Johnuniq (talk) 12:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

There are definitely overreactions to content in the article. Two issues though; it is a featured article and very controversial. The revert [11] removed SmackBot fixes and a bot-added link to the Aymaran Wikipedia as well. Difficult to revert the intermediate edits but better care should have been taken. The revert in [12] was from an opinion piece and cannot hold its own in a BLP. I don't consider you a new editor but Newross may have assumed you didn't know how controversial, BLP and featured articles are treated. It is always best to discuss edits here, particularly if they are large. As far as ownership, there is a group of editors that prowl the Obama and other liberal/conservative pages. Some look more like SPAs and others are legitimately around to help control the quality of articles.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, the article is actually not too long, so I have removed that tag. Article length is judged by "readable prose" as noted at WP:SIZE. Tarc (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• I will say that I agree that (11) was probably incorrect, but (12) was definitely correct. But I would suggest to you that if you are going to make edits on controversial articles that are on probation, you should be aware of the history of changes on the article and accept that your edits may be challenged. Especially if you sandwich edits like this in between what I consider article improvements, while also making bizarre accusations and diving in head first defending a banned sock puppet that has over 75 socks over the last month or so and has been adding the same tired bullshit over and over. You are going to meet resistance to your edits if you are going to come in making these kinds of edits. So I would suggest that instead of making sweeping changes to the article, and unfounded accusations on the talk page, you restart and take a more collaborative tone. Dave Dial (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the talk page section again per WP:DENY, and suggest we close down this one as well for the same reason. There is zero chance of any of this getting into the article in this manner. I already moved this discussion[[6]] to the talk page of the editor who asked the question to answer any question about socking or the history of the article. As fond as I am of the sock in question, taking his troll bait here will only encourage him. Aggressively demanding that we take the bait here is not good. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive massive change to article organization

In the first-ever edits to this article by User:Lihaas on September 17, 2010:

• It was inappropriate to make a WP:BRD massive change to the organization of this contentious, on-probation, featured article with absolutely NO prior discussion whatsoever,[7] and it was inappropriate to immediately reinstate [8] the same WP:BRD massive change after it was reverted.[9]
  • It was disruptive to move the long "Family and personal life" (trivia) section from the end of the article and insert it into the middle of a chronological account of Obama's career between his work in New York City at Business International Corporation and the New York Public Interest Research Group from 1983–1985 and his community organizing work in Chicago as director of the Developing Communities Project from 1985–1988.[10]
  • It was disruptive to move the stale, extraneous "Political positions" section from near the end of the article and insert it into the middle of a chronological account of Obama's career between his work as a civil rights attorney from 1993–1996 and his service as Illinois state Senator from 1997–2004.[11]
    • As has been discussed several times ([12][13][14][15][16]) in the talk page archives, the stale, extraneous "Political positions" section does not belong in this article, and should have been removed when a "Presidency" section consuming 40% of the article was added which covers Obama presidential administration political policies.
• It was inappropriate "drive-by tagging" to add "{long|section}" tags[17] to a featured article with no prior (or subsequent) discussion on this talk page about which sections you thought were too long, why you thought the sections were too long, and what material you would suggest removing.[18]
• It was inappropriate (and ignorant) to add a {fact} tag with an edit summary "was before ,mayube after -- bnut NOW?" saying a citation was needed in the infobox to establish that Obama has a private residence in Chicago, Illinois;[19]
  • there is an entire paragraph (with citations) about Obama's Chicago, Illinois house in the "Family and personal life" section (that was apparently moved without being read);
  • Obama stayed in his Chicago, Illinois house on his 49th birthday last month[20][21]
• It was inappropriate (and silly) to add a paragraph[22] based on an op-ed column "Obama edges to the dark side" posted that day on Aljazeera.net by history professor and rock guitarist Mark LeVine[23]—and simultaneously add a {long} tag to the article.
• Re: "different titles for sections doesnt mean one can violate the essence -- and why are the refs all lsited here and not inline?"[24]
  This article uses shortened footnotes with separate "Notes" and "References" sections; see WP:CITESHORT.
• It was unrealistic to begin editing this article with an inappropriate WP:BRD massive change with absolutely NO prior discussion whatsoever, followed by a consecutive series of further inappropriate and uninformed edits, and expect an editor attempting to expeditiously undo[25] the consecutive series of inappropriate edits to preserve the last edit (that removed 11 external links)[26] in the series of edits.

Newross (talk) 02:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Newross, for taking the time to write this up. I agree with your analysis. Tvoz/talk 05:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Overall I agree. However, this page isn't a good place to go over editor behavior. Could we close this down and take it elsewhere, if at all? - Wikidemon (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

A question of Race

hatting of endless discussion about race
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hey all, Quick policy question. I'm a little curious about what justifies Obama's inclusion into all the "African American" categories he's in. I mean technically, he is of "mixed race". Can someone point out to me the policy that covers this kind of thing? I'm sure this issue has been discussed ad infinitum, I'm just curious because it relates to seperate debate I'm having. Many thanks, NickCT (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC) He is mixed race, but of course he is also African-American. No policy, just facts (WP:V, WP:RS). font color="black">Grsz11 19:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC) This seems as though it would be frought with POV issues though. I mean, if he was 1/4 African-American would WP still call him "African American"? How about 1/8th? 1/16th? Surely there has to be some policy guiding this..... I mean, I could find plenty RSs which point out that he's not purely African American, so I don't think (WP:V, WP:RS) are sufficient here. NickCT (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC) The term "African American" speaks more to cultural/historical roots than to one's literal racial makeup. It's just a word that has become the preferred descriptor over "blacks" which in turn replaced "negro". Nothing more. Tarc (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure how that clarifies things Tarc. Who's to say what someone's cultural/historical roots are? NickCT (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Please refer to the FAQ question#2 at the top of this page for an explanation of the issue and a rationale for how it was decided for this page. Race is a socially constructed concept (with some biological and historical roots, obviously, but our conception of race is a social one). We follow the credible reliable sources on this, and the vast majority describe Obama as African-American. Those that mention his mixed heritage do not seem to consider it a conflict, and there are some extensive articles about the issue of how he can be both at the same time. Who knows how we would describe an American of 1/4 African ancestry? We can cross that bridge when we come to it, and no doubt we have in other articles. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Well, I guess I'm just going to have to live with that response. Somehow though WP:V & WP:RS don't feel like sufficient standards for race. As Wikidemon notes, race is a somewhat subjective "constructed concept". I wonder whether race should be treated like religion and sexual oreintation as in WP:BLPCAT. NickCT (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Obama is the first Bi-racial President. To call him African American is technically incorrect. Is a white person born in Kenya that becomes an American citizen, an African American? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.87.83.241 (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC) "I mean, if he was 1/4 African-American would WP still call him "African American"? How about 1/8th? 1/16th?" ... Wikipedia doesn't make these determinations, we simply reflect what is said in reliable sources, so yes, WP:V and WP:RS have everything to do with it. Grsz11 21:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC) I've never heard anyone try to figure out what percentage "African" someone who looks African-American is, and then try to label them based on it. "Mixed race" is a concept that doesn't apply in the US. I've heard of it being used in South Africa or in Central America, since it refers to the mixing of Europeans and the native peoples, but the experience here is completely different. I'm betting that if you tried to say that anyone appearing to be African-American who had any white, Latino, Asian, native American or other non-African ancestors was "mixed race" and not "African-American", you'd slice the population so many ways, it would be meaningless. It's a silly idea to say he's not African-American, just as it would be silly to say I'm not Irish-American because only one of my great-grandparents is from Ireland. --Habap (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Indeed. Spanish America under the Bourbons had 64 different terms for racial backgrounds when Mestizo, mulatto, zambo and white just didn't cut it. Grsz11 21:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Bottom line: In most cities in the US he'd have trouble flagging down a taxi. PhGustaf (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC) @Habap - Re "It's a silly idea to say he's not African-American" - For the record, I'm not trying to suggest he's not African-American. I guess my question is, what justifies categorizing him as such? Is it just WP:RS, WP:V? Is it up to reliable sources to determine what a person's race is? I think claiming you're Irish American b/c of a great parent being Irish is pretty tenuous. How many generations do you have to go before you're not Irish any longer? Surely that's a purely subjective question. @Grsz - Re "so yes, WP:V and WP:RS have everything to do with it" - And if there is debate among RS? Or what about someone like Tiger Woods where it's sorta ambiguous? How do we categorize then? @PhGustaf - (polite chuckle) NickCT (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC) All this talk is silly to me. Obama himself identifies as African-American. Just look at the links. Do you have a problem with that? Do you think being of African descent is ugly? What's your game? I think this section shoud be closed like the others.B-Machine (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Yep. Tvoz/talk 15:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC) @B-Machine - I was just asking the question dude. No need to get confrontational. Saying "Do you think being of African descent is ugly", severely fails to WP:AGF. Interesting you would point out that Obama "self-identifies" as being African-American. Do you think that matters when we categorize him? NickCT (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Nick, my claim to being Irish-American is tenuous? I recommend you stay out of Irish pubs if you think that! For that matter, stay away from Italian-American parades, Greek festivals or any other ethnic celebration, where everyone with any portion of that ancestry will consider themselves a member. Heck, Obama's father was African. If my father was from Ireland, would you say I wasn't Irish-American because my mother wasn't? That's lunacy. Everyone I've encountered who suggests Obama is not African-American has an agenda and is making the comment to try to discredit him. It's just silly. What difference does it make whether he is or not anyway? You're wrong if think fewer African-Americans would vote for him if he was labelled "mixed race". I didn't and won't vote for him, so it's not that I'm an Obama partisan. --Habap (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Look Habap, I think we both agree that if your Dad is fresh off-the-boat from Ireland, it's probably OK to call yourself Irish-American. But what about if it's your dad's dad? Or your Dad's dad's dad? Or your dad's dad's dad's dad? My question is purely when do you stop being Irish, and who makes that decision and what WP:RS can we go to for answers? Re "Everyone I've encountered who suggests Obama is not African-American has an agenda" - Look, I'm personally pro-Obama. My question really had less to do with him than it had to do with race in general. Perhaps I posted to the wrong forum.... NickCT (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC) I have never met anyone who would deny someone an ethnicity based on how far back their ancestors came to the US. Well, except that Red Cross guy who said he wouldn't check off the 'hispanic' box because my Basque ancestors arrived here before the colonies revolted. It honestly sounds like an argument that would be started by an America Firster. I'm going to insist that I am an Irish-American, Basque-American, German-American, Dutch-American, and French-American, regardless of what anyone else says, and I think Obama has the right to think of himself as African-American as well. --Habap (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC) So if my great-great-great-great-Grandad happened to be from Africa, but I was as white as the driven snow, you'd still call me African American? Respectfully, I think that opinion would be in the minority. NickCT (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC) @y'all...let's dial it down a bit here. Yes, 99% of the time when this subject is brought up it is on bad terms, but this one appears to have been asked in good faith. Everyone return to your corners and play nice, pls. Tarc (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks Tarc. Perhaps I was expecting to much when I hoped this subject could be discussed in a detached/academic manner. NickCT (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC) My apologies if I offended you. --Habap (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC) That's ok. I just wanted to make it clear that I'm not approaching this w/ "an agenda". NickCT (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC) These discussions never really get anywhere, and I'll tell you why. The person asking the question is never convinced by the answers. So they are bringing a prejudice (in the abstract sense, at least) to the question, and the question is really intended (subconsciously if not consciously) more as a suggestion, or an innuendo, than a question. Any one of a dozen of us can answer why something is what it is. Why something isn't what it isn't, is, on the face of it, a loaded and counterintuitive question, akin to proving a negative. Your assertion that someone's parent has to be "fresh off the boat from M" in order for you to consider them M-American sounds more like an ideological statement by a person who has forefeited his own heritage — and has probably experienced little or no unique treatment for that heritage — than from one that is interested in understanding someone else's. It is not un-American to retain your culture and your family history; it's as old and WASPy as acknowledging that one's ancestors came over on the Mayflower or declaring onesself among the Sons and the Daughters of the American Revolution. When your culture and family history is something that is more present in your day-to-day life, be it in the way others perceive you or the way you're encouraged to pidgeonhole yourself and that heritage from all manner of official documents, it's that much more relevant. Put more bluntly, it's simply more relevant to who you are in America if you're some kind of non-white than if you're some kind of white. And that is why the president's blackness or African heritage is acknowledged more than his whiteness. That will cease to be when people cease to treat one another differently because of what box you're compelled to check on a form—or compelled to work to overcome, or compelled to hide, or compelled to make up for. And lastly, it's not the purpose of this page to arrive at greater personal understandings about broader cultural or social or scientific issues, even though it's not antithetical to the purpose of an encyclopedia in general to do so. Why, for example, would you raise a broader question of heritage that would, it seems, apply to anybody whose father isn't "straight off" some "boat", at a particular individual's page rather than at a page that deals more generally with race, ethnicity or heritage? Which is yet another reason why responsible editors here range from puzzled to perturbed to peeved at the semi-regular phenomenon of people arriving here to grapple with the concept. As someone else pointed out, it's not Barack Obama's dad's dad's dad's dad that we're talking about, it's Barack Obama, whose dad was born African, not African-American. So apart from the broader definition of African American that I recommend you read and digest, it really doesn't seem it's that much of a puzzler why the product of someone born an African and someone born an American would be termed by some who choose to observe that aspect of him an African American. Does it honestly still to you? Abrazame (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Thank you, Abrazame. These edits people make are nonsense. It's been discussed too much. It's time to put it to rest and close this section. By the way, this is not a place to discuss ethnic and cultural backgrounds. It's here to discuss the improvement of the article. Go somewhere else with that mess. B-Machine (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC) @Abrazame - I find your argument slightly "ad hominenish". I don't really understand why people are suspicious when I ask the simple question "How does Wikipedia determine the appropriate race to categorize someone by?". I was considering this more as a general question, and I thought I'd post to this talk page because Obama is the first person I could think of who's race was arguably ambiguous. I thought someone here would have grappled with the question, and would have had a simple policy to point to. Instead I seem to be getting angry "It's obvious" answers. Well this was an unsatisfying discussion. C'est la vie, I guess.... NickCT (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC) You were given policies answers, and you didn't like them. Besides, this isn't the place to have this discussion. Grsz11 22:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Some trivial info

The paragraph about his smoking and some of the details on the teams he supports should be removed to the sub-articles as they're just trivia and don't belong in the main article. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

 'Not done: You should establish a WP:CONSENSUS before attempting to make any edits to the article. As for the teams he supports and the smoking - they are in sub-article paragraphs, not the main heading paragraph. -Dillon (talk)

The name's pronunciation

The one given in the article (/bəˈrɑːk huːˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/) raises a question: Is this really THE way his name is pronounced in every-day speech. My impression is that the stress tends to be on the first syllable in his Christian name; and the first sound in the surname is usually reduced to the shwa (at least that seems to be the case in British English).Axxxion (talk) 18:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

As an Englishman living in the US, I can tell you that many British people mispronounce the name. Listen to this Oath of Office clip to hear how it should be pronounced (please forgive the Chief Justice making an arse of it). -- Scjessey (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Assassinations

The fact that the CIA went from spies to assassins should be noted. I mean, the fact that the CIA can kill US citizens without due process and in non-combat zones as a result of his authorization should be noted. Sources: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/27/yemen http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/02/04/assassinations http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/25/secrecy Every source is cited on those pages. I'm not sure I could make it simpler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.12.219 (talk) 11:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it (didn´t read all), he´s reffering to an article from Washington Post, but that article now says Oops, that was wrong. Also, this seems to be the wrong article for it, at least until this become a very notable event in his precidency.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/26/AR2010012604239.html?hpid=topnews Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm pretty sure that article has absolutely nothing to do with it whatsover. I don't mean any offense, I just can't seem to see a link with what you're talking about and the document posted. All it seems to say is that Obama has authorized more strikes than Bush has in the past 3 years compared to 1 year of his time. The links I provided are updated information, with updates at theend of the page whenever he finds new sources of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.12.219 (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Commission report on oil spill

A commission report on the Obama Administration's handling of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill was released today.[27] Should it be mentioned in the article? Truthsort (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

This is meant to be a biography of Barack Obama's entire life, so I would argue that this report isn't notable enough within that context. There are a couple of daughter articles that would seem more appropriate places. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

There should probably be a short mention in this article under the oil spill section. A more detailed entry would be better entered on the main article of the oil spill and the Obama Presidency article. Although I would use references from the Washington Post and New York Times, with an additional link to the Commission's original report documents. Dave Dial (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for the external links section

Here is an article from the New York Times that might be worth to add: Education of a President. I'm posting it here before integrating it into the article to see if there is support/consensus for it here or maybe at the Presidency of Barack Obama article.TMCk (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

WHAT THE HELL?!

He was NOT born on 9/11, please change it! 94.11.158.183 (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, vandal cautioned, lather, rinse, repeat. PhGustaf (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

hahah death to this war criminal ! --188.23.179.183 (talk) 08:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)