This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barack Obama article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84Auto-archiving period: 30 days

faq page Frequently asked questions To view the response to a question, click the [show] link to the right of the question. Family and religious background Q1: Why isn't Barack Obama's Muslim heritage or education included in this article? A1: Barack Obama was never a practitioner of Islam. His biological father having been "raised as a Muslim" but being a "confirmed atheist" by the time Obama was born is mentioned in the article. Please see this article on Snopes.com for a fairly in-depth debunking of the myth that Obama is Muslim. Barack Obama did not attend an Islamic or Muslim school while living in Indonesia age 6–10, but Roman Catholic and secular public schools. See [1], [2], [3] The sub-articles Public image of Barack Obama and Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories address this issue. Q2: The article refers to him as African American, but his mother is white and his black father was not an American. Should he be called African American, or something else ("biracial", "mixed", "Kenyan-American", "mulatto", "quadroon", etc.)? A2: Obama himself and the media identify him, the vast majority of the time, as African American or black. African American is primarily defined as "citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa", a statement that accurately describes Obama and does not preclude or negate origins in the white populations of America as well. Thus we use the term African American in the introduction, and address the specifics of his parentage in the first headed section of the article. Many individuals who identify as black have varieties of ancestors from many countries who may identify with other racial or ethnic groups. See our article on race for more information on this concept. We could call him the first "biracial" candidate or the first "half black half white" candidate or the first candidate with a parent born in Africa, but Wikipedia is a tertiary source which reports what other reliable sources say, and most of those other sources say "first African American". Readers will learn more detail about his ethnic background in the article body. Q3: Why can't we use his full name outside of the lead? It's his name, isn't it? A3: The relevant part of the Manual of Style says that outside the lead of an article on a person, that person's conventional name is the only one that's appropriate. (Thus one use of "Richard Milhous Nixon" in the lead of Richard Nixon, "Richard Nixon" thereafter.) Talk page consensus has also established this. Q4: Why is Obama referred to as "Barack Hussein Obama II" in the lead sentence rather than "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr."? Isn't "Jr." more common? A4: Although "Jr." is typically used when a child shares the name of his or her parent, "II" is considered acceptable, as well. And in Obama's case, the usage on his birth certificate is indeed "II", and is thus the form used at the beginning of this article, per manual of style guidelines on names. Q5: Why don't we cover the claims that Obama is not a United States citizen, his birth certificate was forged, he was not born in Hawaii, he is ineligible to be President, etc? A5: The Barack Obama article consists of an overview of major issues in the life and times of the subject. The controversy over his eligibility, citizenship, birth certificate etc is currently a fairly minor issue in overall terms, and has had no significant legal or mainstream political impact. It is therefore not currently appropriate for inclusion in an overview article. These claims are covered separately in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Controversies, praise, and criticism Q6: Why isn't there a criticisms/controversies section? A6: Because a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praise and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per the Criticism essay. Q7: Why isn't a certain controversy/criticism/praise included in this article? A7: Wikipedia's Biography of living persons policy says that "[c]riticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." Criticism or praise that cannot be reliably sourced cannot be placed in a biography. Also, including everything about Obama in a single article would exceed Wikipedia's article size restrictions. A number of sub-articles have been created and some controversies/criticisms/praises have been summarized here or been left out of this article altogether, but are covered in some detail in the sub-articles. Q8: But this controversy/criticism/praise is all over the news right now! It should be covered in detail in the main article, not buried in a sub-article! A8: Wikipedia articles should avoid giving undue weight to something just because it is in the news right now. If you feel that the criticism/controversy/praise is not being given enough weight in this article, you can try to start a discussion on the talk page about giving it more. See WP:BRD. Q9: This article needs much more (or much less) criticism/controversy. A9: Please try to assume good faith. Like all articles on Wikipedia, this article is a work in progress so it is possible for biases to exist at any point in time. If you see a bias that you wish to address, you are more than welcome to start a new discussion, or join in an existing discussion, but please be ready to provide sources to support your viewpoint and try to keep your comments civil. Starting off your discussion by accusing the editors of this article of having a bias is the quickest way to get your comment ignored. Talk and article mechanics Q10: This article is over 275kb long, and the article size guideline says that it should be broken up into sub-articles. Why hasn't this happened? A10: The restriction mentioned in WP:SIZE is 60kB of readable prose, not the byte count you see when you open the page for editing. As of May 11, 2016, this article had about 10,570 words of readable prose (65 kB according to prosesize tool), only slightly above the guideline. The rest is mainly citations and invisible comments, which do not count towards the limit. Q11: I notice this FAQ mentions starting discussions or joining in on existing discussions a lot. If Wikipedia is supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, shouldn't I just be bold and fix any biases that I see in the article? A11: It is true that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and no one needs the permission of other editors of this article to make changes to it. But Wikipedia policy is that, "While the consensus process does not require posting to the discussion page, it can be useful and is encouraged." This article attracts editors that have very strong opinions about Obama (positive and negative) and these editors have different opinions about what should and should not be in the article, including differences as to appropriate level of detail. As a result of this it may be helpful, as a way to avoid content disputes, to seek consensus before adding contentious material to or removing it from the article. Q12: The article/talk page has been vandalized! Why hasn't anyone fixed this? A12: Many editors watch this article, and it is unlikely that vandalism would remain unnoticed for long. It is possible that you are viewing a cached result of the article; If so, try bypassing your cache. Disruption Q13: Why are so many discussions closed so quickly? A13: Swift closure is common for topics that have already been discussed repeatedly, topics pushing fringe theories, and topics that would lead to violations of Wikipedia's policy concerning biographies of living persons, because of their disruptive nature and the unlikelihood that consensus to include the material will arise from the new discussion. In those cases, editors are encouraged to read this FAQ for examples of such common topics. Q14: I added new content to the article, but it was removed! A14: Double-check that your content addition is not sourced to an opinion blog, editorial, or non-mainstream news source. Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons states, in part, "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims." Sources of information must be of a very high quality for biographies. While this does not result in an outright ban of all blogs and opinion pieces, most of them are regarded as questionable. Inflammatory or potentially libelous content cited to a questionable source will be removed immediately without discussion. Q15: I disagree with the policies and content guidelines that prevent my proposed content from being added to the article. A15: That's understandable. Wikipedia is a work in progress. If you do not approve of a policy cited in the removal of content, it's possible to change it. Making cogent, logical arguments on the policy's talk page is likely to result in a positive alteration. This is highly encouraged. However, this talk page is not the appropriate place to dispute the wording used in policies and guidelines. If you disagree with the interpretation of a policy or guideline, there is also recourse: Dispute resolution. Using the dispute resolution process prevents edit wars, and is encouraged. Q16: I saw someone start a discussion on a topic raised by a blog/opinion piece, and it was reverted! A16: Unfortunately, due to its high profile, this talk page sees a lot of attempts to argue for policy- and guideline-violating content – sometimes the same violations many times a day. These are regarded as disruptive, as outlined above. Consensus can change; material previously determined to be unacceptable may become acceptable. But it becomes disruptive and exhausting when single-purpose accounts raise the same subject(s) repeatedly in the apparent hopes of overcoming significant objections by other editors. Editors have reached a consensus for dealing with this behavior: Efforts by established single-purpose accounts to introduce such poorly-sourced content will be summarily deleted. On the second such attempt, the source in question will be immediately reported to the reliable sources noticeboard for administrative assistance. New editors who wish to engage in discussions on previously rejected content are encouraged to ensure that their sources do not violate any of Wikipedia's policies and sourcing guidelines. Other Q17: Why aren't the 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns covered in more detail? A17: They are, in sub-articles called Barack Obama 2008 presidential campaign and Barack Obama 2012 presidential campaign. Things that are notable in the context of the presidential campaigns, but are of minimal notability to Barack Obama's overall biography, belong in the sub-articles. Campaign stops, the presidential debates, and the back-and-forth accusations and claims of the campaigns can all be found there.

	Barack Obama is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 18, 2004, and on November 4, 2008.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 12, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted August 18, 2004 Today's featured article Main Page December 21, 2007 Featured article review Kept January 23, 2007 Featured article review Kept July 26, 2007 Featured article review Kept April 15, 2008 Featured article review Kept September 16, 2008 Featured article review Kept November 4, 2008 Today's featured article Main Page December 2, 2008 Featured article review Kept March 10, 2009 Featured article review Kept March 16, 2010 Featured article review Kept March 17, 2010 Featured article review Kept June 17, 2012 Featured article review Kept October 22, 2012 Featured article review Kept December 4, 2021 Featured article review Demoted A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on November 5, 2008. Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 5, 2013, November 4, 2016, and November 4, 2022. Current status: Former featured article

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Barack Obama (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama Biography: Politics and Government / Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Top-importance). United States: District of Columbia / Presidential elections / Presidents / State Legislatures / Government Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Presidents of the United States (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. State Legislatures (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Top-importance). More information: /  This article has been selected for use on the United States portal. This article has been selected for use on the Illinois portal. This article has been selected for use on the Chicago portal. This article has been selected for use on the Hawaii portal. U.S. Congress High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) person(s). Politics: American High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance). Hawaii High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HawaiiWikipedia:WikiProject HawaiiTemplate:WikiProject HawaiiHawaii High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Illinois High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Chicago Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. New York (state): Columbia University Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Columbia University (assessed as High-importance). African diaspora Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Kenya High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kenya, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Kenya on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.KenyaWikipedia:WikiProject KenyaTemplate:WikiProject KenyaKenya High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. 2010s This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s Law Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Jose Antonio Vargas (September 17, 2007). "On Wikipedia, Debating 2008 Hopefuls' Every Facet". The Washington Post. Alison Stewart, Rachel Martin (April 3, 2008). "'Round the Clock: Obama, Clinton Wiki-Warfare". The Bryant Park Project, NPR. Brooke Gladstone, Bob Garfield (April 4, 2008). "Editors in Chief". On The Media, NPR. Eve Fairbanks (April 9, 2008). "Wiki Woman". The New Republic. Jesse Brown (April 10, 2008). "Hillary's Wiki Defender". Search Engine, CBC Radio One. Tom Foreman (April 11, 2008). "Wikipedia Wars". This Week..., CNN. John J. Miller (April 21, 2008). "Liberal Web". National Review. Kelly Heyboer (May 28, 2008). "Clinton's entry in Wikipedia has a watchdog". The Star-Ledger. Paul Murnane (May 28, 2008). "NJ Man Appoints Himself Wikipedia Watchdog". WCBS Newsradio 880. Noam Cohen (November 9, 2008). "Updating a Reference Site on the Fly". The New York Times. Adrian Bridgwater (January 22, 2009). "Obama Wikipedia page under possible security attack". ZDNet. Aaron Klein (March 8, 2009). "Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility". WorldNetDaily. Joshua Rhett Miller (March 9, 2009). "Obama's Wikipedia Page Distances President from Wright and Ayers". Fox News Channel. Mark Coleman (March 10, 2009). "Barack Obama 'receives preferential treatment on Wikipedia', report claims". The Daily Telegraph. Noam Cohen (July 19, 2009). "Wikipedia May Be a Font of Facts, but It's a Desert for Photos". The New York Times. Staff (August 17, 2009). "The 50 most-viewed Wikipedia articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph. "Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger says online encyclopedia scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics". Fox News. 2020-05-21. Retrieved 2020-05-22. The first example pointed out by the site's co-founder is that President Barack Obama's page "completely fails to mention many well-known scandals" such as Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP phone records scandal and the so-called "Fast and Furious" operation.

Bookmarks: Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive1 Talk:Barack Obama/Historical diffs Talk:Barack Obama/weight Talk:Barack Obama/race

Other talk page banners

This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 155 million views since December 2007. This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 6 times. The weeks in which this happened: January 20 to 26, 2013 July 24 to 30, 2016 November 6 to 12, 2016 January 15 to 21, 2017 November 1 to 7, 2020 November 8 to 14, 2020 This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2020. Section sizes Section size for Barack Obama (55 sections) Section name Byte count Prose size (words) Header Total Header Total (Top) 9,109 9,109 649 649 Early life and career 13,764 72,733 483 2,593 Education 29,270 29,270 1,002 1,002 Family and personal life 21,727 21,727 705 705 Religious views 7,972 7,972 403 403 Legal career 933 933 71 71 Legislative career 23 28,357 0 1,023 Illinois Senate (1997–2004) 10,898 10,898 299 299 2004 U.S. Senate campaign in Illinois 5,397 5,397 297 297 U.S. Senate (2005–2008) 12,039 12,039 427 427 Presidential campaigns 27 22,779 0 714 2008 presidential candidacy 13,370 13,370 456 456 2012 presidential candidacy 9,382 9,382 258 258 Presidency (2009–2017) 168 135,376 0 5,692 First 100 days 5,359 5,359 140 140 Domestic policy 13,047 74,121 357 2,895 Racial issues 8,084 8,084 268 268 LGBT rights 3,181 9,030 142 331 Same-sex marriage 5,849 5,849 189 189 Economic policy 21,043 21,043 903 903 Environmental policy 8,960 8,960 323 323 Health care reform 13,957 13,957 713 713 Foreign policy 9,347 55,728 419 2,657 War in Iraq 5,827 5,827 244 244 Afghanistan and Pakistan 4,469 9,736 318 575 Death of Osama bin Laden 5,267 5,267 257 257 Relations with Cuba 4,220 4,220 216 216 Israel 7,658 7,658 387 387 Libya 6,444 6,444 239 239 Syrian civil war 4,308 4,308 143 143 Iran nuclear talks 3,748 3,748 241 241 Russia 4,440 4,440 193 193 Post-presidency (2017–present) 21,981 21,981 432 432 Cultural and political image 5,527 20,020 175 689 Job approval 8,907 8,907 308 308 Foreign perceptions 5,586 5,586 206 206 Legacy and recognition 13,974 15,957 828 1,005 Presidential library 619 619 30 30 Awards and honors 1,300 1,300 147 147 Eponymy 64 64 0 0 Bibliography 70 5,504 0 0 Books 1,037 1,037 0 0 Audiobooks 216 216 0 0 Articles 4,181 4,181 0 0 See also 98 1,250 0 0 Politics 506 506 0 0 Other 68 68 0 0 Lists 578 578 0 0 Notes 24 24 0 0 References 48,737 50,790 0 0 Bibliography 2,053 2,053 0 0 Further reading 2,806 2,806 0 0 External links 308 8,416 0 364 Official 457 457 0 0 Other 7,651 7,651 364 364 Total 396,035 396,035 13,232 13,232

There is a request, submitted by Catfurball (talk), for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: Important.

In the lead, the sentence currently reads:

> Obama left office in 2017 with high approval ratings both within the United States and among foreign advisories.

In this sentence, "foreign advisories" seems out of place. I suggest changing the sentence to:

> Obama left office in 2017 with high approval ratings both within the United States and abroad.

This is more idiomatic English and matches the intended meaning (high approval both domestically and internationally). Another option is:

> Obama left office in 2017 with high approval ratings both within the United States and internationally. MakingEditsHavingFun (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

‘Abroad’ is much clearer. Do you need consensus to add the template? Gloobles (talk) 12:47, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Obamabarack has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 9 § Obamabarack until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure whether this suggestion has been made before. Should we credit the person who took Obama's official portrait in the image caption? Thus, it would read, "Official portrait, 2012, by Pete Souza". I think it best to recognize the author if we are to use their artwork and make readers aware of their work, even if it lengthens the caption. Note that this suggestion can apply to other articles on US presidents and politicians in general. Thank you. DannyRogers800 (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, he's credited on the image page. It's not outlandish since he has a WP-article, and I've certainly seen WP:LEADIMAGE-captions like Women in the Bible, but afaict we just don't do this with leadimage-photos, unless in special circumstances like Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima or Donald Trump raised-fist photographs (not Mug shot of Donald Trump though). There is no such credit for Obamas successors or ten (at least) most recent predecessors, and I see no good reason to start here, it would just look odd. I note the leadimage caption at Donald Trump, though. And why treat US politicos different than other politicos/people? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I'm surprised. Wikipedia has devolved into a partisan hack. ~2025-39650-38 (talk) 06:25, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for discussing potential improvements to the article. Do you have a specific recommendation, using [[WP:RS}reliable sources]]? HiLo48 (talk) 06:44, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki? You're obviously not talking about an incident mentioned at Barack_Obama#Foreign_policy, that would be partisan hackery. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:45, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or the fact that his birth certificate was copied from someone else born on the same day. It's obvious if you see them side by side. ~2025-43517-93 (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No it was not. I suggest you read more reliable sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This one? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Youtube candidate has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 22 § Youtube candidate until a consensus is reached. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 17:59, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]