Talk:Barack Obama

Redundant discussions

Please skim this page first (and ideally the FAQ) before starting a new discussion on the "president elect" designation, or Obama's race/ethnicity. You'll probably find there's already a section there where you can add your comments. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there an article or section related to the Transition Team? Chadlupkes (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The "Race/ethnicity" section has (presumably by "Wikidemon", the self-styled "owner" of this page) not just been consolidated or shifted to another already existing section: it has, in effect, simply been removed. The contents are no longer available unless one presses a special link to enter the "archive". Wikipedia guidelines explicitly forbid tampering with other contributors' material on a Talk Page. The current treatment of the "Race/ethnicity" section (rendering none of the contributions visible on the main Talk Page, effectively "hiding" it all inside an "archive") is a violation of these guidelines.Jakob37 (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Anything that can be done to speed the loading of this talk page up, I'm all for it. It's taking forever to load, and old issues that have been discussed ad infinitum don't need to be here. It's hard enough to discuss current issues as it is. Dayewalker (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

In that case, there are several other "overly large" sections that could be archived. If User#1 thinks that Topic X is too long and boring, then that user may, without further ado, hide its contents inside an archive. But then User#2 thinks that Topic Y is too long and boring, so that user hides Topic Y's material inside an archive, although User#1 thinks it should stay visible. Is that how it's going to work?Jakob37 (talk) 05:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the issue of African-American, mixed race, Black, designation by oneself vs. by others, etc., this talk page has spiraled completely out of control. I was rather miffed a day or two ago to find that my contributions, along with others, on the subject had, without any consultation, suddenly been stuffed into an archive, and now I am doubly miffed to see that the same subject has grown another head, even much larger than the material subjected to archiving, and yet nobody is archiving it this time -- quite UNFAIR. In any case, the more important point I would like to raise is that 95% to 99% of the contributions on these interconnected topics have no PARTICULAR connection to Obama; these issues are part of the socio-political nature of American (U.S.) life. Since there seems to be no lack of Wiki-editors who love to manipulate other people's contributions, may I suggest that all this material, instead of being archived (effectively out-of-sight, out-of-mind), be used to construct a separate article on "race attitudes in the U.S." or something to that effect (cf. my comment in "Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama" ). The Obama article itself should contain an appropriately brief discussion of Obama's relationship to these issues, followed by a hyperlink to the (proposed) article where these issues are described/discussed in the larger context that they deserve. And the Obama Talk-Page will then hopefully return to a focus on Obama himself. The way that Obama has dealt with these issues is not so different from the way thousands or even millions of other people have.Jakob37 (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussions about image

Image

I propose changing the image to Image:BarackObama2005portrait.jpg. --Chinneeb_{my talk} 06:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Nicer image, but the turning of the body will make it look very strange on the main page. Risker (talk) 06:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)That's a wonderful portrait, IMO - more dignified yet more personal, and certainly higher quality in lighting and composition. However, in the interest of fairness and symmetry I think we should wait until after the election. McCain's portrait is similar to Obama's current one, a direct frontal shot against a textured blue-grey background. The two are not bad, but also not incredibly flattering either. Although there is no policy or guideline requirement to make candidates' articles look alike, I think it's most proper for the moment, and a better fit to appear side-by-side on the main page. So my 2 cents is ask again tomorrow at this time...Wikidemon (talk)

Who said anything about the main page? –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The turning of the body will also make it strange in this article, per WP:MOS#Images, since he'll be looking off the text. (And I'm always leery of images that haven't been vetted at FAC or FAR, even if Commons claims they're free: prefer to have an image reviewer check them out.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it not simply possible to flip the image horizontally in order to have him face the text? Elpasi (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There are some rules that prohibits flipping images (unless they are then clearly marked as such). It was an issue at Palin's page shortly after her nomination as VP if you want to check this out. I dunno have time know; Gotta go voting.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hint: check the (Palin)image hystory at commons.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus on Image

For most of yesterday (and the recent past), one photo of Obama (Image 1, below) was used and it has recently been changed (to Image 2, below). I think we need to come to a concensus on which to use because both are used in a range of different articles. I even changed one yesterday claiming it should match that which is used in the official biographical page.

Here are the photos in question:

• 
  Image 1
• 
  Image 2
• Image 3 (edit of Image 2 to reduce flash highlights)
  Image 3 (edit of Image 2 to reduce flash highlights)
• 
  Image 4 (crop of Image 3)

Hopefully we can reach some concensus on this and use one of them throughout Wikipedia. Currently, Image 1 has more links to it from legitimate articles, though this can change since there are Wikipedians going around asking to replace it with Image 2. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 1 - I believe this is a quality portrait. It is straight on and shows details of the face, etc. Image 2 is cropped in an odd way and is not centered at all. It is also not from the front. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 2 - At least until January 20th, 2009. By then Obama's presidential portrait will be revealed. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 1 - Just because image 2 is compositionally unsound (he should be facing the page, not away from it). Also, Image 1 gives a clearer view of his face. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 2 or any variant thereof- While the composition is not perfect at least it looks more official. Dr.K. (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 2 - While the composition could be better, I find the second image has much more pleasing lighting and also superior resolution. (behold, the election that REALLY counts. :p) TheOtherSiguy (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 2 - I was almost swayed by the compositional problems, but I agree with TheOtherSiguy -- the overall more pleasing visual effect of Image 2 trumps it for me. Image 1 looks almost like it could be a mug shot, heh. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 3 - the lighting and the tonal range of number 2 outweighs the fact that compositionally it would be better is he were facing the other way. Mfield (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 2 Prefer the more relaxed facial expression. --Janke | Talk 17:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 3 (really Image 2 Edit 1). Everyme 17:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 2. Image one looks like a passport photo...image 2 is much more asthetically pleasing.LedRush (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 1 No preference. - The first is overly lit and his grin is taut, but his face fills the image better with more detail and symmetry. Since both images have problems, I hope that a better portrait is uploaded ASAP. Modocc (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 2 - better tonal range, but cropping the left and bottom would probably improve it. de Bivort 17:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 2 - The lighting and tone are more pleasing, the flag makes it look more official and his smile looks more spontaneous.— Ѕandahl ♥ 18:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If Image 2 is legally ours to use, I would go with it. Tvoz/talk 18:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 2 as long as there are no copy write issues with the image (We've already run into that problem with other Obama pictures in the past!) Brothejr (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image2 - fits better with other presidential portraits on the list. None of the others are passport-style. DewiMorgan (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 2 - This image has been used on the main election article. Matches with other presidents portraits. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 2 i don't really see the difference between it and image 3. - -' The Spook (TALK) _{(Share the Love with Barnstars)} 22:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a rather restrained touch up, but notice the reduced flash highlights on the cheek and nose. Everyme 01:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No real pref at this time, but for information: image 2 was originally uploaded in 2006 (current version from April 2008), while image 1 was uploaded May 2008. I'm guessing that's about when image 2 was replaced by image 1. The recent change from image 1 was not directly to image 2, but to Image:Who-is-barack-obama.jpg. Gimmetrow 22:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 2 or 3. Pics are more presidential looking and set him apart from the rest of the Congressional mugshots. miranda 00:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 2 - It's a better portrait overall. Image 1 looks like a school yearbook portrait. Ryooki (talk) 05:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe another option, Image:BarackObamaportrait.jpg -Marcusmax(speak) 00:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If I remember right, wasn't that the picture that had a copy write problem? (I.E. while it was on a government website, the shot was taken by a non-government photographer who contacted Wikipedia to say that he still had the rights to the photo and not the government.) Brothejr (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You might very well be correct, I just was at Obama's Senate Page and there it says that you have to call for image details. We can't do that obviously as a violation of WP:NOR, do if someone could find more info about the owner of this it would be great. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If you look at question 17 in the FAQs above, you will see that it is a copyrighted image and cannot be used. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 2 all the way. He looks good in it. I am sorry, but I don't like Image 1 at all (IMO, it's just ugly). Image 3 is fine. Few people noticed the difference. Also, in Image 2/3, there is an american flag, which indicates he is american/future president. w_tanoto (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 1 Shouldn't we be using the most current one? 2,3,4 are almost 3 years old.

Okay there is a resounding preference for Image 2. Personally I don't see a difference between Image 2 and Image 3. I will begin placing Image 2 in pages where Obama's picture is needed. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

New Picture

This picture of Obama has been doctored (I hope). It reflects mucus, or snot, running down from his nostrils and over his bottom lip. Is this normal or an effect of lighting? Either way, I'd change the picture to something less...weird. Digital^Ninja 23:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If you mean Image:BarackObama2005portrait.jpg, it's either the lighting or it's already been changed.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have cropped Image 3, in case you would like to consider it. --harej 02:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally I like this picture for the article. What do you think? WHLfan (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

he won

i wanted to say he won but it was blocked so i couldnt oh well... Binglebongle2000 (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. (Then again, I can't see how anyone could feasibly disagree that Obama won.) Why fully protect it? Why not semi-protect it, or, if it's at that high of risk, protect it from accounts newer than, say, 6 months or a year? Particularly, it's no longer the featured article, and it's not cool to protect it when there will be people wanting to update it the instant that Obama wins. -- Javawizard (talk) 04:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Because past experience on Wikipedia is that when power changes hands in elections we get edit wars on every conceivable related article (outgoing, incoming, position, election, country, worldwide list of heads etc...) between people who want to immediately list the newly elected person before they've taken office and those who want the articles to be accurate. And no amount of explanatory messages on talkpages has had any effect. Timrollpickering (talk) 04:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It's over. He won. Let the conflicting edit wars begin!  Esper  ^rant  04:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

He may have won but he hasn't taken office yet and won't for over two months. We went through all this chaos with the Australian election last year (and many others) and that only had about 8 days between election and changeover. Let's not have it again. Timrollpickering (talk) 04:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

people please, u can have your edit war when he's elected, till than, just argue —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.184.3.10 (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Everyone please take a deep breath

The article looks pretty good right now, so if we can just keep the vandals (and partisans) out of the editing business for a bit, we might just make it through the evening :) Please remember our civility pledge. Thanks. Newguy34 (talk) 05:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone has left 3 racist statements, using the N-word, on the Contents outline. I know we can collapse the outline, but the language should be removed. It's annoying that most of us cannot made edits, but some moron is able to insert these offensive words. Thanks. Not signed in, but not a jerk, either.

Senate seat

Will he be required to resign his seat in senate? I saw in Kennedy's article that he was in senate until december before he ascended to become president. I also heard Biden will resign his seat. Is this voluntary or compulsory for president/vice president elect? Maybe adding this to the article would help. w_tanoto (talk) 05:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Normal convention is that if he wishes to be inaugurated as president, which he most certainly will want to do, he must resign his senate seat between now and January 20. Illinois state law determines how his seat is filled. Same is true for Biden. Newguy34 (talk) 06:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It's compulsory that they can't hold the Senate seats in office, but there's no requirement to resign before then - there isn't really a legal office of "president-elect". (Of course they don't just sit around twiddling their thumbs until January 20th - they have a lot to do in the transitional period that will consume time.) If Biden hadn't contested his seat this year (or if he'd lost it) then he could have just stayed in the Senate until his current term expires on January 3rd and the new elected Senator would take over. Obama's term doesn't expire until 2011 so he will have to resign it. One factor in the timing may relate to who picks their successors. In most states the governor appoints a new Senator until a by-election can be held at the time of the next regular statewide election, but in a few I think the legislature has the power. With a lot of offices changing hands in the next couple of months (and I'm not sure if this affects Illinois or Delaware) then there may be a tactical decision on the timing to ensure the right person(s) select the successor. Equally Senate seniority is determined by the order in which Senators entered, so early resignations would give their appointed successors a head start. Timrollpickering (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

there isn't really a legal office of "president-elect". Yes, there is: see the 20th amendment. -- Zsero (talk) 06:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That uses the phrase but the use and capitalisation reads as a description to provide clarity when referring to a period that covers more than one President (and, crucially, more than one Veep who might act until there is a President available) than an actual legal office with responsibilities, restrictions etc... And crucially the phrase is only actually used when referring to the President elect (and Veep elect) at the point when they (should) actually take office as President. Timrollpickering (talk) 06:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This Time article [4] indicates that there is flexibility as to when Obama might be replaced, and the timing would be politically driven. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"Seniority" has governed such issues in the past. By resigning even one day early, his successor gets ahead of all the other new Senators. In each case, the replacement would only serve two years until a successor is named in 2010 elections. (I checked RollCall). Collect (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Senate

• When and how will he leave his senator mandate. Does he have to resign ? How will is replacement be designated ? Is it on January 20 or before ? Hektor (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that the governor will appoint an interim replacement. Not sure when he officially leaves office as Senator, though. --GoodDamon 14:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

See United States Senate#Vacancies. Same applies to Biden. Gimmetrow 14:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

So, who's gonna take over being Senator of Illinois?

Will there be an election for that or some other method? --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

There will be a special election. For older examples, see List of special elections to the United States Senate. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Governor Blagojevich would be appointing our next Senator. Illinois2011 (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Good call. Adding a ref to that fact in the main article? VictorC (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That is my understanding also. There is even speculation that he might appoint himself to the Senate and resign his job as Governor, since he'll probably be defeated in the upcoming Governor election. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Is that even legal? It seems odd. But if it is, it would be a fascinating addition. If it could be properly referenced, "Gov B is legally responsible for appointing a replacement for Sen O's spot. It is legally possible for him to appoint himself." VictorC (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it's legal or not. It would depend on the Illinois laws. However, until Obama is inaugurated, he could presumably retain his Senate seat, along with Biden, especially if a lame-duck session is called. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It is legal in the state of Illinois, but highly unethical and unlikely. There is a lot of talk why Governor Palin can't appoint herself to Sen Stevens' seat once he's kicked out of the senate; It's because Alaska passed the law where Governor can not appoint a Senator, but a special election will be called. This was because a former governor of Alaska appointed his daughter to a vacated Senate seat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Custovic (talk • contribs) 07:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Blagojevich has not shown much inclination to be concerned about ethics. But the Time article (see below) agrees, as do I, that it's unlikely. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The wording of this Time article [5] suggests that it would indeed be legal. Getting away with it might be another story. And Blagojevich has potential to be yet another Illinois Governor who ends up in the slammer, which might put a crimp in his career aspirations, but we'll see. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It's rather more likely that Blagojevich will resign as Governor, and that Pat Quinn will take the office and appoint Blagojevich as Senator. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 09:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Full name in infobox

Most of the infoboxes for other recent presidents all include the full complete name of the person not just First + Last name. Examples include:

• Dwight David Eisenhower
• John Fitzgerald Kennedy
• Richard Milhous Nixon
• Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr.
• James Earl Carter Jr.
• Ronald Wilson Reagan
• George Herbert Walker Bush
• William Jefferson Clinton
• George Walker Bush.

This is the way it is done and why must we make an exception for Obama? We only go by the facts and it is what it is. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 19:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, most infoboxes use the 'commonly called' name, and the complete name is at the beginning of the article. I see no reason why presidents should be treated differently. jftr, Eisenhower's infobox was changed 12:02, 26 November 2006 by Bart Versieck and was marked as a 'minor edit'. Doesn't look to me like a the way it is done thing at all. (I prefer Dwight D. Eisenhower, myself.) Flatterworld (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Dwight D. Eisenhower would be the most obvious to use. Most Presidents go by their formal names including just a middle initial, not the full middle name. Some, like Carter and Clinton, go by their nicknames. Generally, the only time you hear their full names spoken out loud is when they get inaugurated. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

FDR and LBJ are other exceptions. It doesn't really make sense to have the full name in the infobox when it's already in the article. And it's too late to try to make some point about Obama's middle name being a common Islamic name. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflict)1. This has been discussed here countless times. See FAQ and archives. Consensus was to use his common name in the infobox.

2. There is no official Wikipedia policy for using the full name of the president in the infobox. Note that as of 19:30 on November 5 (I'm stating the time in case someone makes changes), the following presidents follow the format of this page, which is to use the common name and not the birth name: Ulysses S. Grant, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley. I'm sure there are more, but I'm not going to waste my time on finding them. ~ priyanath ^talk 19:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson only have the middle initial where the guy had a middle name. Also Grover Cleveland, who went by his middle name. See List of Presidents of the United States for a quick cross-reference. There is obviously no set-in-stone standard. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Having noticed the above remark. I have corrected the problem and FDR and LBJ's middle names are now up in fullEricl (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Let's use his full name and ignore other articles. Everyme 19:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Previous consensus, argued many times in the archives, is to use the common name in the infobox. ~ priyanath ^talk 19:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Previous consensus was based on right wing attacks. Currently, that shouldn't be as much of a problem.LedRush (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Previous Understanding My A**. Everyme 21:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

What? SGGH ^speak! 20:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus was (and still is) based on using the name that is most commonly used; is used by Barack Obama himself; and on Wikipedia:MOSBIO#Names, which recommends using the full name in the lead paragraph. ~ priyanath ^talk 20:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't care what's in the info box (though I do have a strong preference to conformity), but Priyanath's statements seem incorrect to me. Just look at that list above...who called Clinton, "william", nonetheless, "Jefferson"?. Also, where is the policy that says info boxes shouldn't list the full names (it could exist, I really just don't know)?LedRush (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

SGGH, I said let's use his full name and ignore other articles. Everyme 21:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy says to go by consensus. For previous discussions here, see Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_37#Full_name_in_lead, Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_29#Middle_name_in_infobox. If you can get consensus here for putting in the full name, then that's fine, but you should notify the other editors who voiced their opinions earlier and give this discussion some time. For the record, I'm opposed to putting the full name in the infobox for the reasons I've explained above. ~ priyanath ^talk 21:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Putting in the full name here does of course not require the nod of people who have argued against doing so on some other articles. Unless it's such a stable consensus as to be described in policy or the MOS. More importantly, please consider that consensus can change, so arguing on rather weak past consensus holds no water. Everyme 21:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it's important to let others voice their thoughts. I'll also be taking a long wikibreak soon and wanted to put my two cents here. Your opinion that consensus is 'nonsense' probably isn't going to get very wide acceptance on Wikipedia. ~ priyanath ^talk 21:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense again. What I (quite obviously) meant was that your line of reasoning was nonsense. And it is. Completely and utterly. Everyme 01:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If his middle name is Hussein, then we should use it. He ain't Barry DunnhamEricl (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Please try to keep it civil, Everyme. You might not take comments such as you made as an attack. But there are plenty of people who would. I, for one, agree that it is enough to state the full name at the beginning of the article and use the common name in infobox. Nobody calls him "Barack Hussein Obama". But many people did call Clinton "William Jefferson Clinton". Jrobinjapan (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobody calls Jimmy Carter James Earl Jr. His full name is appropriate in the info box. What's the big deal? --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I just made a comment below and saw this. We MUST treat everyone the same. We MUST standardize the presidential articles. While other crap exists, with presidential articles, there is enough input and traffic and we must eliminate all crap and standardize it. I don't vote nickname or full name, just voting that all names must be the same. ImNotObama (talk) 05:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue of consistency is one that matters a great deal on Wikipedia. What we put in the infoboxes of our presidents needs to be consistent, and so far it has been. Every president beginning with William Howard Taft uses their full name in the infobox (Harry Truman's middle name is S), so I see that a common trend has already been formed. I participated in a discussion about what call Jimmy Carter in his infobox here; the concensus was to place "James Earl Carter, Jr." in the infobox. Why would Obama be any different? Upon his inauguration, he should not be excluded from this due to consistency reasons. Happyme22 (talk) 01:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Both consistency and compliance are important and full names are not compliant and are inconsistent with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Identity. The most recent change(s) were due to citing a temporarily non-compliant template and not due to any change in either consensus or policy. This page should remain compliant. Modocc (talk) 05:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Request to add fact on age

I don't think that this fact is in the article... as far as I can tell, Obama will be the second-youngest elected president of the United States (behind John F. Kennedy), and third-youngest president overall (the youngest having been Roosevelt). Obama's relative youth has been the topic of some discussion in the media; can this be added? *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 21:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be best to find a source supporting your research on the matter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

According to this article here, both Bill Clinton and Ulysses S. Grant were younger. Obama turned 47 last August.Ericl (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Race and ethnicity

Misc. discussions

Closing and consolidating multiple threads, and removing headers to unclutter menu index
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Punctuation of "African American" At present the article has "African American", "African-American" and "African–American". Could we have consistency? Nurg (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC) In my quick hunt through the MOS I see no preferred version. There is a rejected style guide, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (immigrant ethnic groups), that does not address hyphenation other than to say usages "vary". The Hyphenated American article claims that most style guides recommend dropping the hyphen except when the term is used as an adjective, but it cites only one such guide[6] that does not say this so clearly. At a Q&A page the Chicago Manual of Style recommends against the hyphen entirely.[7] At Talk:African American#hyphen there is no agreement. At Wikipedia talk:African American there is a comment that the matter is ad-hoc here, but consistent within an article. All in all I would vote for changing them all to "African American" without the hyphen. Wikidemon (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC) I agree. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC) I have changed the instance of an en dash to a hyphen. This is not ruling out a further change to a space, but I wanted to at least get rid of the dash. Nurg (talk) 10:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC) I believe a hyphen is necessary for good grammar. For example, there is a difference in meaning between between "African-American candidate" and "African American-candidate"Gregcaletta (talk) 06:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC) The grammatically correct way of putting it is African American. It is a simple adjective/noun relationship similar to that of the red ball. The ball is red, the American is African. Should the term be used before a noun, a hyphen is necessary (i.e. the African-American man), but if it's just something like, "I saw an African American at church today," there is no need for a dash or hyphen because it is like saying, "I passed a blue house today." I'll see if I have time to go in and fix. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC) African American is used as both a noun and an adjective several times in this article with no consistent use of hyphen vs. no hyphen. I'm going to be bold and put a hyphen where used as an adjective and remove the hyphen where used as a noun. Please revert/correct if you don't agree. Jrobinjapan (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Is this legit? For some reason, I don't think a consensus has been reached in redirecting ethnic links concerning Obama's race. This kinda smells pooy [8]. I've already revered once, so I won't again lest some editor runs off to AN/I accusing me of edit warring. Any thoughts? DigitalNinja 19:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC) His father is a Luo, so linking to that ethnicity is more specific and improves the article. Four words later, a link to Kenya (which is where Kenyan redirects to) is provided. The original text (that you reverted to) is more specific and informative to the reader. --guyzero | talk 19:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC) No worries. If anyone, it's the other editor that will be awarded the "Order of the Boot". Regards SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC) My interpretation is this: if the person has readily identifiable and well known African roots, such as originating in Kenya (or Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Liberia, etc.) and the person is Black, nationality (not race) should be the preferred and more accurate method of scrutiny. Simply being Black is so much less specific. I feel that it's preferable to go with the most specific terminology. So if the person originated (ancestrally) from a tribe geographically from the land of Kenya called "Luo," it's by far a more informative way to label the entry in the article. I will update it to that effect if there are no objections. VictorC (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC) (edit conflict) Absolutely correct, and that's the way it was before these edits. There's no need for it to be consistent with "white American" on his mother's side. --GoodDamon 20:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC) I'm not as comfortable with the term "Black" as it's referring to Obama Sr. who is already from Africa as it is. I suggest we replace it simply with "Luo," if there aren't any objections. Additionally I get the feeling it clouds the issue, and hints that Obama Sr. is "Black American." For those who consider it pertinent, the context is abundantly sufficient to make matters (of race) obviously clear, (just by reading on through the rest of the article). VictorC (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC) Already done. That's the way it was before that spate of edits, and that's the way it should be. --GoodDamon 20:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC) According to the official US Census, he is NOT "African-American", but multi-racial. Calling him "African-American" is a decidedly political move, and distorts his heritage [9]. Let's leave politics out of this, and stick to facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 52pickup52 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Ugh. This is why I'm a deletionist. DigitalNinja 20:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC) Though the edit-warring user has been blocked, I will add to the consensus that the wiki-link to Luo is more precise & more informative than the link to Black. - DigitalC (talk) 07:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC) African American Obama is not an African American. he is not a negro. his background is Kenyan, so it should say Kenyan American, not African American. Kenya is in Africa, because Africa is a continent, but America is not a continent, so for the sake of consistency and logic if one were to persist with using the word African, it would be African-North American. Otherwise Kenyan American us the correct term. I doubt this will get changed though, people in the US just assume that if you're black you're a negro and an African American. You can call a spade anything you want, it is still a spade —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.117.97 (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Last time I checked, Kenya is in Africa. And by the way, "spade" is nearly as offensive as the N-word. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC) That's an interesting point; is there any precedence for this though (either IRL or on Wikipedia)? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC) In my quick hunt through the MOS I see no preferred version. There is a rejected style guide, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (immigrant ethnic groups), that does not address hyphenation other than to say usages "vary". The Hyphenated American article claims that most style guides recommend dropping the hyphen except when the term is used as an adjective, but it cites only one such guide[10] that does not say this so clearly. At a Q&A page the Chicago Manual of Style recommends against the hyphen entirely.[11] At Talk:African American#hyphen there is no agreement. At Wikipedia talk:African American there is a comment that the matter is ad-hoc here, but consistent within an article. All in all I would vote for changing them all to "African American" without the hyphen. Wikidemon (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC) I (and the IP) was referring to the idea of specifying the ancestry of "Kenyan" as opposed to just "African". — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC) On the surface your request makes sense, but that catagory only applies to persons born in various countries. African American is justified in this case since Obama was born in the U.S. and not Kenya.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC) I've stricken my earlier answer. It was intended for the section on hyphenation. Regarding the racial designation, please see FAQ #2 (expand the FAQ at the top of this page). This issue has been discussed repeatedly, and there is strong long-term consensus for calling Obama African-American as a primary ethnic designation, then describing his background in more detail (as has been done) in the article. It is a combination of his self-identification and the overwhelming weight of reliable sources. Although there is a lot of history, politics, and arbitrariness in the words used to describe race, ethnicity, nationality, ancestry, etc., Wikipedia's choice is to follow the most universal reasonable standards rather than to be at the forefront of changing language. Wikidemon (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Cf. European-American or Asian-American. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Maybe one day we won't even have this discussion. I don't see in the John McCain article where we spend one kb of effort to describe him as Irish American (although I do note something in one of the article's category). I don't care that Obama is anything, I care only about what he may or may not do for this country. But, I'm like standing against a tsunami here, so I just think this discussion is queerly (meant as strange not a gay pejorative) American. Sigh. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC) It was a valid question and perhaps the person asking was just needing a clarification. If a person is born in Kenya, then he is Kenyan-American, but if he is born in the US, then he is an American. African-American is used to clarify race, since using the term black is no longer politically correct.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC) It's a legitimate question for sure, and an important one to boot. Just one that has been asked and answered many times on this page, so it's helpful to point people to the relevant discussion so we don't start from scratch each time. Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC) You mean one of the 39 index archives, that are near impossible to navigate?--Jojhutton (talk) 02:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Please see the FAQ question 2. Brothejr (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC) I know that this subject was discussed "ad nauseam" but I can't help noticing that calling Obama an "African American", in spite of his mixed European and African roots, is analogous to applying infamous Nuremberg Laws to people of mixed Jewish and Aryan descent. Somehow it implies that "bad" African blood prevails over his "good" white half.Tsf (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC) It's what the reliable sources call him, ja? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Black? Excuse me for asking a simple question, but if his mother was white, how and why would we label him as 'black?' This is a classic example of a half-truth. --Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 15:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Actually, this is a classic example of half-wit. Please refer to Q2 of the FAQ section (as suggested by the previous comment that you somehow missed) at the top of this page, or the millions of words on the subject in the archive of this talk page.. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Actually, this is a classic example of half-wit. You are not trying to insult me are you ? --Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC) I was paraphrasing you, for which you should be mildly flattered. Seriously though, what is the point of having FAQs, and archive and search facilities if people don't use them. This issue has been address literally dozens and dozens of times. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC) While this is, of course, another junk thread, it is hilarious to me that there are people who would argue with a straight face that a man with an African father and an American mother would not be "African-American". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Yeh, it's a junk thread, in large part because the IP address who posted it did so in order to slip in a racist joke about "spade". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC) African-American, American, or Mullato Mr. Obama was born in the United States, making him an AMERICAN. He does have ancestral ties to Africa, but, it is my opinion that an African-American is an individual born in Africa, whom has become an American Citizen. To be absolutely truthful, Mr. Obama is of "white" (caucasian) and black decent. Correct mention as to the making of history should not claim "the first African-American (or Black individual)". He is a mixture of Black and White.208.253.77.66 (talk)DMC —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC). Please read the FAQ above. This is a frequent question, and the answers are available there. In a nutshell: Obama refers to himself as an "African-American" and the mainstream media by and large refers to him the same way. Wikipedia reflects the consensus of reliable sources on the matter. --GoodDamon 19:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC) He refers to himself as a school? To the top of this topic. It doesn't matter what your opinion is, there are a LOT of people that refer to themselves as African-American because hundreds of years ago someone's ancestor may have been from Africa. Now it is use either because "black" is offensive to someone or because the person can qualify themselves as being better than people calling themselves American.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.6.18 (talk • contribs) Note that this is not a discussion forum. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC) What if Britney Spears called herself African-American? --71.225.111.4 (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC) What is important is what term the sources use. Anyone proposing a change in the terminology used in the article should provide some sources using the proposed terms. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC) It is important to note that Obama is also of Irish descent. I am Irish and live very close to the town where his ancestors are from. Do you suggest that we call him an African-Irish-American and whatever other countries he has descendents from. We must refer to Senator Obama by whatever he would like to be referred to by, thus, we must refer to him as an African-American. Bonzostar (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Well, there is that, and the fact that many other sources call him 'African-American'. Personally I think it would be more accurate to call him 'Kenyan-Irish-American', but who am I to slap terms on people, as I am not a reliable source. It's that simple; the case should be closed.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC) first african-american the article says he's the first african-american to be nominated for president, should be changed to first african-american to be elected president of the united states whenever an admin gets around to it. CNN projects that Sen. Barack Obama has won election as the next president of the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rch2005 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Yes we know. We might want to wait until it is verified that the ballot was valid (as it obviously was) before posting. However, if you want an admin to add it in now, go ahead.WikiReverter How am I doing? 04:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC) He is not the first african american president, he is the first one to win a presidential election, as he hasnt served as president yet. And the source cited doesnt say that he is the first president, rather the first nominee, can somebody change this language? Nableezy (talk) 04:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Hence making him the first African-American Presidential-elect of the United States of America. Upon his swearing in on the 20th of January, 2009, he will be the first African-American President of the United States of America and the 44th President of the United States of America. He is also the first African American to win the nomination of a major party. This is simply the fact of the situation. Wording, however, must be done carely as to not incur any mistakes. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 04:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC) I have updated his BLP. Technically speaking, as of today he is the presumptive president-elect, not yet the president, nor even the president-elect. Anyone remember the U.S. Constitution and it's requirements that the Electoral College vote in Washinton, D.C. in the first week of December to officially make him the president-elect? Newguy34 (talk) 04:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC) To satisfy that objection, I would say that while he is only the presumptive president-elect with reference to the electoral college (because in theory the electoral college could vote otherwise), he is the president-elect with reference to the election of the electors, who are usually party operatives and have traditionally voted the same way as the state voted. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC) I agree. For all intents and purposes, though, I think it is safe to refer to him as the "president-elect". Newguy34 (talk) 05:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Isn't he only half black? RealKG1990 (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Yes, however, taxonomy standards have us refer to him as African-American rather than being African-American / Anglo-Saxon. I personally find taxonomy to be annoying and another form of division but that's besides the point. Barack Obama's heritage is described as being of African-American descent, therefore he is the first African-American presidential-elect of the USA. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 05:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Hugo Chavez is of African descent (partially). Certainly there have been others as well of partial African ancestry. Anyways, the answer is that he is not the first such to be elected. I will have to agree with Evilgohan2 to call Barak Obama only an African American is politically incorrect and does nothing but support the negative affects of the One Drop Rule which has affected most people of African American descent at one level or another. This is the 21st centuary and because Barak has some brown in his complexion people only want to call him black. It needs to end. I'm a very proud American that voted for Barak but I completely disagree with him being called only African American it's misleading and biased.Mcelite (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC) His Father is from Kenya. His mother is American. Barack Obama is undeniably African-American. This title is not a reflection of his skin color. --Trefalcon (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC) His mother isn't African American she Caucasian American his father is Kenyan. Therefore his bloodline consists of two different races. So it so freakin simple that it's biased that his African heritage would override his European bloodline. Neither is more important than the other. Like I said this is a classic example of the One Drop Rule at work. Even I will say it was smart for him to campaign as an African American rather than bi-racial which he is.Mcelite (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Person of African Descent I don't think this is an appropriate term, since all humans are of African descent. He shoud be called the first African American elected President. Cadwaladr (talk) 07:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Your first sentence is silly, it's like saying we're all related because we all descended from Adam and Eve. However, the lead kind of restates itself, so there is some redundancy that could be trimmed. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC) I don't happen to believe in Adam and Eve; I share the opinion of most biologists that humans evolved on the African continent. Cadwaladr (talk) 07:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC) The phrase is awkward and not commonly used (as opposed to African American). I tried a re-word [12] .. cheers, --guyzero | talk 08:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Your comparison is silly because Cadwaladr's point is based on reality, while yours is based on fiction.--Svetovid (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC) African-American Objectively speaking, Obama is of mixed race. I realize that people of mixed race are often / commonly identified as "black" and hence "AA" in the USA. I don't have a problem with the article pointing this out, and quoting some reference showing that Obama self-identifies as AA. The objective statement will still be that he is the first president of mixed race, while any identification of Obama as "AA" will need some qualification and reference. I am sure we can do this. I am not saying he "isn't" AA, I am just calling for a properly referenced statement. I have also been told that, not surprisingly, this has come up before. Well, if ithas, the thnig to do would be to put the best reference that came up into the article. If the point remains completely unreferenced, it will just come up again and again. --dab (𒁳) 08:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC) This might help you understand why the designation African-American is appropriate for Obama. There is a paragraph on him that has three citations as to why this is so. Plus, it's also a matter of self-identification. Softlavender (talk) 08:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC) You are implying that I do not understand the issue. I do, and I have looked at the African-American article. But even if I was completely clueles, this wouldn't make go away the fact that the article lacks a proper reference caregorizing Obama as "AA". So you think this is self-evident to anyone at all familiar with US society? The very paragraph you just pointed me to has In the 1980s, parents of mixed-race children began to organize and lobby for the addition of a more inclusive term of racial designation that would reflect the heritage of their children. This means that, yes, in the 19th century, and even before 1960, Obama would doubtlessly have been considered black. But this is 2008. Try using google. here is a time.com article that makes clear that Obama's race is a matter of debate, and less than obvious. "Black, in our political and social vocabulary, means those descended from West African slaves," wrote Debra Dickerson on the liberal website Salon. -- meaning that it doesn't apply to Obama, who isn't descended from West African slaves, at all "If I'm outside your building trying to catch a cab," [Obama] told Charlie Rose, "they're not saying, 'Oh, there's a mixed race guy.'" -- implying that this would be the correct description, but lingering race prejudice rooted in the "one-drop rule" in the popular mind makes "black" anyone who isn't pale pink. The official US statistics (as of 2006) has Black or African American: 12.4% Two or more races: 2.0% Obama is clearly a member of the 2% multiracial US Americans, and thus not of a member of the 13.4% black US Americans. --dab (𒁳) 08:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC) I have inserted the missing references myself now. As far as I am concerned, this resolves the issue. --dab (𒁳) 09:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Excellent; case closed. Softlavender (talk) 09:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Can we agree that he is not of "Afrcan-American descent"? This keeps showing up in the article, and is clearly misuse of the term African-American, as none of his parents, grandparents, etc were African-American. I searched through the archives, but I couldn't find this issue mentioned.Austin512 (talk) 13:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Actually, I wish I'd caught this earlier. This is a perennial topic here, but we must adhere to WP:BLP, which requires us to use only reliable sources. And the reliable sources almost all refer to Barack Obama as "African-American." The exceptions are articles specifically detailing his lineage, some of which are used as reliable sources lower on the page, where we detail his lineage. It's not up to us to calculate this or that percentage of Obama's African and non-African ancestry. To do so is original research, a big no-no. We simply reiterate what the reliable sources say. --GoodDamon 14:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC) All good points, Good. If the United States Senate considers him African American, that's good enough for me. Softlavender (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC) I understand that USA citizen have a slightly other understanding about "races" than in Europe. The word "race" is not used in my country (about persons), but I have problem to understand how a son of a white women can be "non-white". Wikipedia should be universal, and therefore the "race issue" should be omitted. I think that would be the smartest for everybody and a step forward. Jakro64 (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Non-White Vs Black Hiya all, I don't want to get caught up in any controversy, and I know feelings are running high at the moment, I just thought I might throw my 2 cents in as it were. Recently an editor changed the opening para from "Obama is the first non white American politician to be elected President of the United States" to "Obama is the first black American politician to be elected President of the United States". It's an understandable change, but I just thought there's another side to it. By changing the word to black, the sentence is about Obama. Originally (ie. non white) the sentence is about the history of the presidency. Obama is indeed the first black elected president, but more than that he is also the first non white. Non white covers all other races (Oriental, Indian, Latino etc...), as it makes clear that there were no other non whites in office before Obama. Black only seperates... well, blacks from the history of the presidency. I don't wish to get caught in any racism controversy, and I apologise if any terms I've used are non pc (I appreciate most users on this page might be American whilst I'm from the 51st state, and terminology might be a little different), it just seemed to me that in this instance 'non white' was more descriptive because of the history of the presidency. It does state that Obama is African American in the next line, so it shouldn't cause any confusion. Unless of course there has been another non white president but I didn't believe there was... but I am British! Congratulations on a brilliant article and on the election, regards Psychostevouk (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Agreed. The old language said both, but non-white should be used to mark the historic nature of his win, and black (african american) should be used to narrow in on his precise background.LedRush (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC) The article subject is Barack Obama, not the history of the U.S. Presidency. I realize that technically he is the first non-white president-elect, but we aren't here to make the point about this fact, we are here to retell the information as the vast amount of reliable sourcing presents it, which is that he is black or African American. Stating that he is non-white before stating that he is black is systemic bias, and to be avoided. It would be the same bias if Obama was female, and we wrote "first non-male to be elected". --guyzero | talk 23:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC) To be clear, if it is important to make this point in the lead, then rework the para to add it after we've identified that he is black/African American. Our first identification of his race should not be "non-white". --guyzero | talk 23:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure why you think it is biased to say he's the first non-white elected president. Also, the fact that he is the first non-white makes his (that's Obama, btw) accomplishment more special than saying the first black. Because this article is about Obama, and because the fact is true (verifiable, reliable sources, etc), and because this in no way takes away from people's knowledge of him as an african american (or that the fact is stated clearly everywhere in the article), the existing language should remain.LedRush (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC) I changed the order to make "african american" come first, and "non-white" second. If that really was your only objection, though, you should have done it yourself rather than blindly reverting. Hopefully this compromise is good for all.LedRush (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Guyzero didn't say it's 'biased', sheesh. Learn the difference between that and 'systemic bias'. "First African American" or "First black" is what is being given notability by mainstream sources. In terms of Ghits in 'News', *"first non white" president* gets 52, and *"First African American" president* gets 10,146. *"First black" president* gets 34,133. We should reflect mainstream reliable sources, rather than making it up. ~ priyanath talk 23:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Not sure I follow any of your arguments above where the substituting "African American" with "non-white" is not systemic bias. The notion you present that he is the first non-white president-elect which somehow makes his accomplishment "more special than saying the first black" is your POV. --guyzero | talk 23:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Guyzero did say it was biased...read his edit comments. I don't understand the "making it up" argument, especially seeing as you concede that there is proof of it. I also don't understand the POV argument...we are presenting facts here, people.LedRush (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC) My two cents on ethnicity Now that I've consolidated all of the current (and recently archived) discussions of race and ethnicity in one place I have a few observations: It is probably worth mentioning somewhere in the lead that Obama is the first African American president-elect of the US (or whatever you would call it - see that discussion, and ultimately, the first AA president) However, as his administration progresses, his stature will rise in other ways and people will grow less and less aware of his race. Therefore, I think we should downplay it and conceivably take it out of the first or second sentence of the article. His main notability is that he is the 44th POTUS, not that he is the first African-American POTUS. Almost certainly this will be borne out by the weight of coverage in reliable sources. For every article that refers to him as an AA president, there will be many that simply call him the president. In the path to presidency, he was also the first AA in many other positions - first major party nominee, first EIC of Harvard Law journal, and as president he will be the first in other ways (first leader of african descent to head a white-majority nation, first African American leader to dine in the Kremlin's tea room, etc). Unless we want this to read like trivia we should limit this to the one or two most important firsts and not fill the article up with an account at how he is the first at everything. Likewise, Obama is also mixed race, son of an immigrant, grew up overseas, etc. In each of these respects he is a groundbreaker and first. But also, to avoid this becoming a catalog of racial/ethnic traits, and trivia about each that overshadows the simple fact he is President, we should carefully limit the extent, and consider demoting much of this material to the body of the article or to various child articles. Finally, we refer to Obama's race primarily as "African American". That's not negotiable, and it is inconceivable that any consensus would change. See the FAQ and the talk page archives for the reasoning and the indication of consensus. Why is that non-negotiable? It's INCORRECT. According to official records, he is "multi-racial". Regardless of political rhetoric, he is NOT African-American. Calling oneself so does not make it that way. OFFICIALLY, according to the census, he is multi-racial. Leave personal prejudices outside the article, and make it correct. 52pickup52 (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC) And after this, somebody added to the lead that he was the first nominee and president-elect from Hawaii. Hmmm. We have 50 states and 44 presidents. That should be cleaned up too. Wikidemon (talk) 03:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC) My two cents (on ethnicity) is that Obama is the embodiment of the 1963 dream spoken of by his forebear, the martyred Martin Luther King. VictorC (talk) 04:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Indeed. Countering some of the presumed racism that helped keep some of the red states red, there were exit polls showing that some 30 percent of whites who voted for him said that race was a consideration. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Actually, Obama is not an "African American" at all. The term "African American" is used by a community of people in the United States - specifically those who are decendent of African slaves. They use the term "African American" rather than a "specific country American" because since they are decendents of slaves, they do not know exactly what country in Africa they are decendant from. For example, someone from Italy would say they are Italian, someone from Kenya would say they are Kenyan, but a person decendant from slaves would say African American. So, simply put, Obama can call himself "American" or "Kenyan" or "Kenyan American" but not African American. To make this even easier, if a person from Nigeria moves to the United States - that person would not call themselves "African American" - they would call themselves either "Nigerian" or "Nigerian American". Not all people of color in the United States are African American.71.183.194.112 (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)AR "was the first non-white to be nominated for President" - WHAT? Obama's mother is white. He is AS MUCH white as he is black. "First African American" is the way to say it. Presumably we're not counting Harding, the alleged octaroon. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Obama was neither the first non-caucasian or the first African American to be nominted for US President. Let's not forgot the third parties, folks. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC) It says from a major political party. I think it is important to say "non-white" somewhere because it is both factually accurate (and sourceable) and better describes the measure of his accomplishment.LedRush (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC) What reliable source is calling him "non-white"? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC) First of all the terms Black and White are slang terms, and could be offensive. Second of all, I bet you somwhere in a previous presidents bloodline they have a native american ancestor. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Warren G. Harding, for example. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC) The statement's completely wrong. I believe Eldridge Cleaver came first in 1968 as a non-white US presidential nominee. VictorC (talk) 04:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Update: Clifton DeBerry came before Eldridge, in 1964. He was the first African American candidate for President of any existing party. VictorC (talk) 04:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC) First black candidate for a MAJOR party, y'all. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC) There's no such thing as black or white skin. It's brown or beige. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Yeah right. Have you seen people living in Africa or people living in Greenland. Those people are black and white.162.99.227.208 (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Common usage is otherwise. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Is this when I'm supposed to update the George Washington article to describe him as the first white President of British and German descent? Flatterworld (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Obama's nationality He is of African American decent/ he is half white, if we are going to do this page correct that needs to stop being changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.145.100 (talk) 05:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC) The sources call him African American, and that's what counts in the summary. The details of his mixed-race background are well-covered in the article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC) 69.134.20.90 (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC) the man is not black or white he is mulatto.. look it up in wiki.. anybody with less than 75 percent of one race is considered mulatto so he should be listed as such or change the other articles in wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulatto .... if you just count his skin color that wouldnt be fair to the people who raised him which made him the man he is today and why would anybody want to take away his heritage ..he never know his black father until he was older and that was only a short visit he got his background from indonesia where he attended school til he was 13 and from his totally white grandmother after he returned to hawaii.. african american is not accurate Reliable sources are what matter, not wikipedians' definitions of what they think is "true". The sources say African American, so that's what it is. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC) 69.134.20.90 (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC) so being accurate is less important than displeasing the few who are trying to make a big deal out of it..he has alot of kin folks in kansas that don t like being left out because he was born darker than they were..i dont see the point in neglecting his whole family that raised him just to make a historic thing out of something ...at least be accurate and state that he is bi-racial if the other names not good enough he isnt the first african american president ..he is the first bi-racial president ...it still makes history so everyone should be happy unless they just want to make a african american thing out of it African-American? Why is Barack Obama described as African-American in this article and practically everywhere else when he actually is biracial? 209.247.22.164 (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC) See FAQ, at top of discussion page. This question has been asked numerious times before. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

African-American - is there a valid source for this?

Yes, there is a valid source. Read the article. Every newspaper in the world calls him "African-American". And please, read the FAQ.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Obama is routinely describled as "African-American" in the article, but is there actually any valid source for this, or a self-identification as such by Barack? His mother, I believe, is white and his father is Kenyan. Wouldn't that make him multi-racial? And thus, the first "Multi-Racial" President, apposed to African-American? I'm not American, and I fully supported Barack, I just simply don't see the legitimacy in calling him "African-American" when he really isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.37.78 (talk) 00:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC) These are all great points! Please change this article following everyone's advice immediately before more people are influenced by this incorrect statment. In a moderate way I would say that you can legitimately call Barak Obama "An american of african descent" because his father was, as stated in the article, from Kenya. However, he himself is bi-racial. This IS an encyclopedia, and if you will make reference to his heritage, it should be stated clearly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.128.87.3 (talk) 08:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC) if we can call obama afican american why not mariah carey WHO IS THE SAME MIXED RACE AS HE IS HER DAD IS BLACK NON AMERICAN its really really really racist agianst bi-racial people can wikipedia stop feeding the false info to already ignorant people, people actually read wikipedia for infor belive it or not and THIS IS WHY SO MANY PEOPLE CALL HIM BLACK cause people are idiots its adds to there ignorance if you don't change it people will still keep saying it cause its written ON WIKIPEDIA it makes other mixed people belivie they don't have a group to add them selfs to its already like this on myspace/facebook AND SO MANY PLACES AND ITS WRONG, it making his own mother and grandmother/grandfather who spent most of their life looking after him and watching him grow up not count as anything, his grandmother sadly died a couple of days before he was elected and at least in her respect note her and that side of his family who actually made him who he is today not his dad who wasn't there. Its not like this makes him anyless better you can't say whos gonna run amercia just cause of there skin or its simpler to yours they have to be good at there job (sarah plain springs to mind)and he is, so he doesn't need to use his colour to gain votes most that voted for him was white or of white descent.Veggiegirl (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The proper term should be Mulatto. It's definition does mean parents of black and white races. Calling him "African-American" would mean he immigrated to the US from Africa. Just because the biased and wrong media prints it, does not make it true or accurate. Someone immigrating from Egypt would be "African-American" also! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trentc (talk • contribs) 17:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Question about being "first"

redundant discussion about race
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My "race shouldn't matter"-meter is demanding that not only should he be listed as the first African-American president, but as the eleventh Irish-American president. As a fellow biracial American, surely he would understand the general attitude that both sides of the family makes a contribution to a person... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.26.82 (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Is Obama the first democratically elected national leader of African (i.e. black, please excuse my political incorrectness) descent in the history of western civilization beginning with ancient Greece and Rome? Thank you.--wooddoo ]] [[User_talk:Wooddoo-eng|Eppur si muove (talk) 11:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Seems so. Gaston Monnerville was a heartbeat away from being President of France during his eight year tenure as President of the French Senate (President of Senate becomes interim President according to the Constitution), but that the closest thing I can think of. Hektor (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC) That claim was made on MSNBC and CNN last night (I say without references). With a reference, that deserves mention in the article.LedRush (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC) This is very hard to make any definitive statement on. In a lot of countries no-one applies a "one drop and you are it" rule of ancestry (for example the British actor Peter Davison has said in interviews that one of his grandfathers was black, but I've never seen Davison himself considered as anything other than white) and it's hard to check every single elected leader's ancestry. But also what defines "western civilisation"? The modern state of South Africa was a European creation, for a long time often mentioned in the same breath as Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC) It's hard to cite the absence of something. But in any case, it's easy to see that Nelson Mandela's election was major, and significant. Additionally, though Obama had to overcome many obstacles to his successful candidacy, no one will try to argue that Mandela had an easier time getting elected than Obama. Thirty years as a political prisoner is a big obstacle. I think we might well say that Obama is at least the second African leader of a nuclear power (Mandela preceding him) but again to cite the absence of something (in this case the absence of African presidents) isn't really feasible. Can anyone suggest how to cite that something has never happened? VictorC (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC) What about Jean-Bertrand Aristide and René Garcia Préval in Haiti, is there a valid reason to consider that they do not meet the definition? And there might be others in other caribbean or central american countries. Hugo cantu (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC) There is Michaëlle Jean but she was not elected... ; but if the statement comes back to ancient Rome, I would be extremely surprised if there was no Roman emperor with African ancestry. Hektor (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC) This article cites him as "arguably the first black leader of any white-majority nation in recorded history." The Christian Science Monitor is a pretty reliable source. Important to add.--Gloriamarie (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Michaëlle Jean is proof that such an assertion is not true. -MichiganCharms (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Jean is neither elected nor a leader in any real sense of the word. Also, if reliable, verifiable sources say it, we can include it.LedRush (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC) The article said "arguably the first black leader of any white-majority nation in recorded history." Note the abscence of the term elected. And Jean is a leader of a country, she carries out all the functions of the head of state. I challenge you to provide a second source for your claim. --MichiganCharms (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC) The head of government not the head of state is really the leader in the Westminster system. The Governor General is just a figurehead. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC) It doesn't matter, the source has been challenged and it's up to you to provide another. --MichiganCharms (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC) See Hugo Chavez and there's your answer.XJeanLuc (talk) 03:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC) The quote is "leader of any white-majortiy." By standard racial profiling, "Latino" or similar categories are presented separatly from "Caucasian". Which means that Venezuala doesn't count as white-majority and Hugo Chavez doesn't qualify for this defintion. This also includes Haiti, etc.211.128.87.3 (talk) 10:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)nishanoire

Black

redundant discusion about race
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Surely it is incorrect to describe him as black, rather than mixed race? If you call him black that negates half of his heritage, his white family. If you call him African-American you could argue that acknowledges his African heritage and his American heritage, but that is not the usual use of the term - it is (in my understanding) a term that relates to black people, and he doesn't have the classic African-American background (eg families who have historically been in the US for many years, usually as a direct result of slavery). If you call him mixed race that acknowledges exactly what he is, half white and half black, without negating either side or giving any one side undue prominence. 86.147.160.133 (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC) On this same subject: an interesting essay on Barack Obama by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown here 86.147.160.133 (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Thank you for addressing this as I'm so surprised how inaccurate everyone is being in calling him the first African-American. He is bi-racial, even humorously referring to himself in his first press conference as a "mutt" so he is not simply African-American. As I said below, especially since this is a historical occurrence, it should be recorded accurately according to anthropological science. (nyclovesme) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyclovesme (talk • contribs) 20:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC) It's really a shame when a person who's very simply half white & half-black has to CHOOSE to ally themselves with one side or the other, like it's some military battle; in the US you can't just say, "I'm a mixture" or "I'm half white, half black"---actually the result almost always seems to be that "they're black" -- even the Black Community seems to push for this. This will never end until there is more real cross-community contact, intermarriage, etc. It's so sad.....of course there's a lot of Blacks & Whites living nearby each other in some southern states, and in large cities, but definitely keeping to themselves. - I admire what Bob Marley, the Jamaican singer once said: (quote follows from Wikipedia) "Marley suffered racial prejudice as a youth, because of his mixed racial origins and faced questions about his own racial identity throughout his life. He once reflected: I don't have prejudice against meself. My father was a white and my mother was black. Them call me half-caste or whatever. Me don't dip on nobody's side. Me don't dip on the black man's side nor the white man's side. Me dip on God's side, the one who create me and cause me to come from black and white." But for a mixed-race person who wants to "get ahead" in the US, you can't talk like that. Marley was of course a Rastafarian, pot-smoker -- he didn't CARE what other people thought about him. Years ago a friend, a light-skinned "Black" doctor told me: in America, if you want to "be somebody", you have to take sides. Obama certainly did, changing from Barry back to Barak, marrying Black, and going for years to that racist black church -- it was a big mistake for him not to distance himself from that church earlier. We don't see this insistence on "taking sides" for someone like Keanu Reeves, it is only when Black and White are involved. This is our country's continuing shame and tragedy.Jakob37 (talk) 04:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC) If you saw Obama walikng down the street and he was not famous Jakiob3, you would regard hiom as black at first sight. You would not wonder about his genetic makup in that case, why worry about it now ? Cosand (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC) At the risk of misinterpreting the eccentric writing-style of "Cosand",I ain't worryin' bout nobody's makeup --- and I guess I would think "mixed" if gazing on our next Prez for the first time. Actually, this whole issue of, "Hey, he's not Black, he's mulatto" (is that term politically incorrect now ??) applies not just to Obama, but to millions of "Black Americans". To take it a step further, every single human on this planet is "mixed" -- but we just love to set ourselves up in groups, one against the other. I saw some program on Discovery channel which showed that some woman in Greece shared the same rare genetic marker seen in some guy in an Amerindian tribe ---they must've had some common ancestor (Central Asia?) maybe 50,000 years ago. Now that's interesting to me, not all this very very predictable political yammering.Jakob37 (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

African American 2

The lead sentence describes Obama as the first African American president of the US. I think this is a little bit misleading because Obama is really mixed race, half African and half Caucasian which I believe is called Mulatto. NancyHeise ^talk 19:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed many, many times (including just a couple of sections above). Please refer to the extensive talk page archive if you wish to see why this article says what it says. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to muck anything up, I am not involved in this article my comment was a drive by message - feel free to ignore it. NancyHeise ^talk 19:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

We will. While he is technically a mulatto a lot of people find that word offensive, especially in countries like the US. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That term is right up there with terms like Negro, colored, pickaninny, or jungle bunny. It may have been acceptable 100 years ago, but not now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

pd repeat 4[rt 50 lf 90] <math>hdfh</math>sfdgStrike-through text

Another discussion about race

To clarify: I don't mind refactoring, but outright removal is not warranted. The question is after all valid why we go with all of the sources that are not trying to be strictly, factually correct but simply join in on the theme, especially when everyone knows that African American is not strictly correct. A gazillion proverbial flies eating muck still doesn't make it caviar. I believe it's disturbing that we bow to and join the tabloid level news chorus when there is the simple and valid option to formulate such not-quite-correct claims as, well, claims. Consider e.g.: "In spite of his mixed heritage, he is generally being called the "first African American U.S. president." -- What's wrong with that, I ask? Why assert the fact and not simply the claim, especially when it's clear that it's incorrect, and it's also clear why the oversimplification is iterated by all the news sources? Everyme 20:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what would happen, if Obama self-identified himself as caucasian. Would editors continue to suggest we use bi-racial? IMHO, he should be described as bi-racial. But, it's up to him & only him. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(To Everyme)First off, please see the FAQ above. Second, the person himself refers to himself as an African American. He also allows others to call himself African American. We've got literally millions of RS sources that refer to him as African American. It is not up to us to define him any other way then what he defines himself and what the RS define him. It's kind of like you going out and saying your from the green people even though one of your parents were from the blue people. While you could say you are of mixed primary colors, it is what you identify yourself as that matters the most, not what others identify you as. A lot of the problems come from people of mixed races who have been fighting for a long time to get recognized as mixed races. Now they have a president who is of mixed race and are now screaming to get him labeled and primarily identified as mixed race even though Barack Obama identifies as African American. To these people this seems wrong and an injustice to them and everything they have fought for. So now every so often a new person tries to fight the term African American to try and get it replaced or mixed race added in so they can feel good about themselves. Brothejr (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I have looked at the FAQ above but failed to determine inhowfar it legitimises us throwing a vital part of NPOV, namely WP:ASF overboard. Secondly, do we have a source in the article for the claim that he refers to himself as African American? Also, apparently you do not understand what a reliable source is. A source may be highly reliable for one claim, but not at all reliable (as in: tabloid level reliable) for another claim. Even if each and every newspaper in the world called him African American, it would still be incorrect, and we know it, and thus should formulate it as a claim, following our applicable policy, WP:ASF. I do not at all propose replacing the widely used "first African American president". I do propose supplementing it with a simple statement that it is claim, not fact. As I asked about, I ask again: What is wrong with following our policy on such issues and simply writing "In spite of his mixed heritage, he is generally being called the "first African American U.S. president." ? Or, if need be, even more simply: "He is generally being called the "first African American U.S. president." -- which would still be better than violating NPOV by upholding a media narrative via presenting a claim as if it where a fact. Everyme 21:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to lecture me on what a WP:RS is. While I appreciate you want to argue this out to the nth degree, but as I stated above it is not up to us (wikipedia/editors) to define him and how he calls himself or add other tags because you feel it is NPOV. Also, while you may think that ever RS that calls him African American are wrong, but each of the highly respected RS's that have continually passed the RS test have called him African American. Finally, before you continue, please take some time and look through the archive and see the hundreds of attempts to discuss this. Brothejr (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You are a delight to discuss with. But you do not understand. Actually, in reality, we are defining him as something which he isn't as of right now. Again, I do not propose "defining" him as anything. I do propose formulating claim as claim, not as fact. The news sources calling him African American are suitable and reliable only as primary sources for the claim that he is being widely referred to as the "first African American U.S. president". Also, I haven't found a single user having brought my valid argument before. I'm the first... Everyme 21:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Not true. They are all secondary sources, and they all state as fact that he is African-American. Some of them also delve into the specifics of his ethnicity, which is a good reason for us to delve into those specifics, later in the article. It is NOT up to us to decide that the reliable sources are all wrong. In any event, I'm refactoring the majority of these discussions per your statement. There is no possible way the article will call him anything but "African American" so there's no point in squabbling about it anymore. --GoodDamon 21:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. First, the distinction between primary and secondary source is one of usage, and of appropriate usage at that. Those newspapers and reports can be used as reliable secondary sources for a range of items, but they are not at all authoritative, obviously not even trying to be strictly correct, with regard to the African American narrative theme. They can therefore not be used as reliable secondary sources on that claim, just as primary sources to back the simple assertion that they are referring to Obama as the first African American U.S. president. Please, carefully think it through: You are suggesting that newspapers are authoritative secondary sources on the question whether or not Obama is African American. That is, frankly speaking, ludicrous. Moreover, the claim is not being specifically discussed in any of the media outlets, AFAIK. We should at the very least cite sources that discuss the specific question as to whether or not Obama is African American. They can state as fact anything they want all day long, but they are still not (i) discussing the specific question, and (ii) not authoritative as regards such a question. Everyme 21:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth. Zero or few reliable sources call him a mulatto or half-white/black. Are you proposing we deviated from what the vast number reliable sources say with the contention that they aren't really considering the question or being accurate? --guyzero | talk 21:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the "few sources" include himself. Everyme 22:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This discussion isn't going anywhere. I suggest we acknowledge longstanding consensus that this article's primary identification of Obama (following RS and other policies) is African American. If you guys want to argue over it a short while longer that's fine but at some point we need to realize that it is not going to result in a change in the article, so this talk page is not the best place for ongoing discussion on matters of race that go well beyond what we could address in a single Wikipedia article. Assuming that's clear, it's best to add this to the long list of other discussions above on race. Wikidemon (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Longstanding consensus? What with the many differing voices on this talk page? Seems a bit awkward to refer to a longstanding consensus in a section that was started in an effort to remove all the input from people who don't agree... Also, fwiw, Obama just referred to himself as a "mutt" ... Delicious. There goes the argument that he sees himself as only African American. Where's your longstanding consensus now? Oh, out the window? Everyme 22:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup, longstanding consensus. Obama does identify as AA, and virtually all the reliable sources back that up. I don't see that changing in the near future. Good catch though - you and I just edit-conflicted when I was about to add the new section, below.Wikidemon (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Another longstanding consensus was that an African American American of partly African heritage couldn't become president. Everyme 22:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• See also this AN thread. Everyme 22:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) That's rhetorical grandstanding. There was never such an editorial consensus on Wikipedia, and even if there had been such a situation would fall under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I've already participated in a dozen or more discussions about Obama being AA, avoided perhaps a hundred others, and don't care to fire up again for one at this time - if I joined in each I would have to spend an hour a day discussing race on this one article. So I'm just suggesting that others are welcome but my position has not changed. It is exceedingly unlikely that people would agree to a change here. You would have to change how America talks and thinks about race first, starting with Obama himself, and Wikipedia is not really the place where change starts.Wikidemon (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You effectively just said you didn't read the news today, that's all.[13][14] Everyme 22:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

How exactly does Obama joking that he is a "mutt" while discussing dog adoption have any weight in comparison to all of the primary[15] and secondary sources that refer to him at the first black President or first AA president? --guyzero | talk 22:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And yes, I did read the news today - and in my comments above and below say so explicitly.Wikidemon (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Race Smace; as Joy Behar would say, "who cares". Let's close. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm considering an RfC on the issue to gain wider community input, not just the status quo defenders filibustering valid arguments into oblivion. Everyme 01:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It's silly just to call him African-American, because this is only one of the two main ideas of what constitutes race. The first is self-identification, and this is fine for him to do so. But it doesn't take away from the biological truth of his racial heritage, which is something else. So a simple, effective description could be "Barack Obama is considered to be the first African-American elected president by x percentage of the population. In strict biological terms, he is the first elected president with mixed racial heritage, that being 50% caucasian and 50% african.--y2rusty (talk) 11:18, 10 November 2008 (Melbourne Australia time)

We go by reliable sources, not by our personal opinions about what's "right" or what's "silly" or whatever. The sources say African American, and they also make it perfectly clear he has a mixed-race background. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I want to add another angle to our understanding of the term 'African American'. Obama's father is from Kenya. His mother is from the US. If one completely disregards whatever racial connotations are attached to the 'official' PC term of the moment in the US, it is still perfectly accurate to describe him as an African American, on the basis of his origins alone.--Trefalcon (talk) 02:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

A nice, gentle discussion about race

Perhaps events have interceded. As some may have noticed, in the process of adopting a dog for his daughters, Obama made a comment that "Most shelter dogs are mutts like me". That is being picked up worldwide, and may be a gentle way to allude to his (now) self-described multiracial status if we can work it into the "personal life" section of the article somehow.[16] |}

African American section

Closed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For those of you that are not aware of the previous thread here is my concerns. A number of sources identify Obama as bi-racial, hundreds say he has a white mother and black father. I think a more neutral lead would be "Obama is of a bi-racial background and is largely considered the first African American president. He is obviously 50/50 regarding race so my thoughts are picking one is not neutral. Landon1980 (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC) All of this has been answered already, you all just don't like the answers. Continually asking the same questions, after they've been answered, constitutes trolling. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC) The section is here so others can comment. You did not even give the other editors time to comment. The section is always restarted because of it being removed continually. I have legitimate concerns and they deserve a chance to be addressed. One of our core policies is to conform to NPOV and my suggestion is without a doubt more neutral. Like I said before, it only takes one source to cause something to be written neutral. There are several that describe him as bi-racial. Landon1980 (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC) One source or a handful of sources do not trump the predominant sources. That's undue weight. And his being bi-racial is already fully covered in the article. You're trolling, which is against the rules. You said you were leaving. Show us some good faith, and do what you said you would do. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Because it's been commented on again and again for the past 3 months. Did you not bother looking at the numerous sections above that say the exact same damn thing? Grsz11 →Review! 03:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC) The fact that the issue is raised again and again should say enough. I'm not trying to trump anything. Removing the thread will just cause others to ask the same questions. I just want it to stay here for a few days and give others time to comment. On other articles even if 3 or 4 reliable sources can be cited the article is written in a neutral manner. Why should it be different here? Landon1980 (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC) And Baseball Bugs, please stop attacking me personally by calling me a troll. I am being civil can you please just try and assume good faith? You have made some uncivil comments as well. Landon1980 (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC) No, the ability to assume good faith with you was lost when you went on your tirade of attacks and offensive edit summaries. Grsz11 →Review! 03:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Yes, he forfeited good faith already. He might get it back - by keeping his word, and leaving this page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Langdon: This has been discussed far past the limits of ad nauseum. You are welcome to try to gain consensus for changes to the article, but when it becomes obvious that your proposal is not going to be adopted, drop the issue. This discussion is now closed. J.delanoygabsadds 03:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

African American

Sure isn't very encyclopedic to call him the first African American president when in fact he is only half African American. He's actually the first bi-racial president, not African American. Doesn't matter what he self indentifies as, the fact he is bi-racial is a well known fact that can be cited with dozens upon dozens of refs. I've heard Obama self identify as being half white and half black several times and I'm positive I can find a reliable source for it. Landon1980 (talk) 06:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

FAQ Q2. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Please suspend your common sense, this is Wikipedia. We don't care for accuracy, we care only for endlessly parotted media narratives, no matter how inaccurate they are. IF you continue arguing for common sense and accuracy, you may end up getting indef blocked. Nevermind that we could simply (and accurately!) say that the media are using the term "first African American" instead of declaring it to be fact. Nevermind that we even have a policy in place that recommends exactly that. The majority says so, therefore it is so. Nevermind that my valid point about adhering to WP:ASF has never been responded to by anyone. Everyme 13:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Since he identifies himself as a "mutt," [17] should we not use that term, to be accurate? Huh? Seriously. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

For wiki-policy wonks, here are some reliable sources. Consensus can change. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I am rolling on the floor, laughing out loud. Seriously though, WP:ASF. By all means, use the term and accurately state that he is near-universally called the "first African American". But do not state as fact that he is "the first African American". How people working on an encyclopedic project don't immediately recognise the categorical difference (in fact: ignore it even when told) and continue arguing that the mainstream are reliable sources for the claim that Obama is African American is beyond my grasp. But it tells us quite a lot about the influence of hyperrealism in these strange days. Everyme 13:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

A joke at a press conference is that, nothing more. As for the wider issue, at the end of the day a lot of terminology in this area is determined by popular usage and self-identification, not scientific determination. "Irish American" is a term used on numerous articles for people for whom their strongest connection is that their great-great-great-great-great-great-great-etc...-grandparent was Irish but that is the term used for and by such a group to describe and self-identify. I don't see that term being disputed up and down Wikipedia and surely "African American" is no different. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You completely ignored my valid argumentation above. Was there a reason for that? Everyme 16:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not ignore the valid points in it. The issue is not about Obama it is about the definition of the term "African American". And that term is used in such a way that those with mixed race ancestry are considered African American. The meaning of a term is how it is used, not some "common sense and accuracy" or "hyperrealism" that is arguing against the tide of use. I note that nobody has any problem with the men listed as the first African Americans to serve in the Senate, become a state governor, run for Veep or dine at the White House, all of whom had some white ancestry. If they were the first African Americans to reach those, then so is Obama the first. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

ok, I have been looking into this, and the FAQ needs updating. The relevant article section is Multiracial_American#African_Americans. Obama in Dreams from My Father explains how he in his youth struggled with his multiracial heritage, and came to identify as African American. This was before the 1990s. Since the 1990s, and especially in the 2000s, the Multiracial American identity has developed, and is now of course experiencing a boost due to Obama himself.[18] Obama never ceased to self-identify as African American, of course, but he wisely put the question aside during his election campaign. Now he is elected, he is again free to self-describe without fear of damaging his poll, and lo and behold, the first opportunity he gets, he self-describes as mutt in an admirable show of self-deprecating humour. It is perfectly fair to state that Obama is a Multiracial American as well as an African American, especially since the two categories overlap significantly due to the historical US practice of hypodescent. It is also fair to note that a slight majority of Americans classify him as "biracial" rather than "black", 55% of White Americans, 61% of Hispanics and 44% of African Americans, amounting to a total of 54% of US population.[19] I am not saying the "African American" reference needs to be replaced, but it needs to be augmented by a "biracial" reference. Yes, this is important. The "mutts" comment is going to go down in history. --dab (𒁳) 14:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Tell me, should we demand a DNA test on all Black public figures, to determine the amount of European blood there is to be found in their inherited Gene pool ? You would find varying levels of European origin, but needless to say, such a query is ridiculous, as is this non issue of Black vs. mixed race Cosand (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

What you choose to consider ridiculous is irrelevant to Wikipedia. The study you suggest has been carried out, see Race_in_the_United_States#Multiracial_Americans_and_admixture. Yes, it was found that about 20% of African Americans have >25% European admixture, which would mean Obama is one of about 8 million Americans who identify as "African American" but who at the same time can be classified as "biracial". Please avoid shooting down strawmen, both my comment and the articles referenced are perfectly aware that "African American" remains a matter of self-designation, not genetics. --dab (𒁳) 15:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, dab, and fully agree. However, in addition to your proposed addition, I still firmly believe that the "first African American" assertion should be carefully formulated to adhere to WP:ASF, for improved factual correctness. Everyme 16:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear god! I'm actually agreeing with dab on something! I guess America really has changed, lol. Scott Free (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

nice :) yes, I fully support the "first African American" bit staying in, it should just be joined by a phrase on "multiracial background" or similar. --dab (𒁳) 16:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

He is definitely African American even if he did not identify as such, any claim to the contrary is clearly flawed original research. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

So a few years from now if someone is elected that is as far as they know 100% African American what will we call them? The second African American, the first actual African American, etc.? Everyone knows he is not the first African American president, he is the first bi-racial president. Calling him anything else is an opinion. So what if reliable sources call him African American, we know for certain that they are picking one term over the other. Calling him white is just as accurate as calling him black. And no, we aren't going to require all African Americans to undergo DNA testing to prove they are African American, this will only be an issue when we know for certain they are only half African American. This is an encyclopedia, this isn't the mainstream media. We should represent the facts. There is nothing wrong with saying the media is calling him the first African American president because that too is a fact, but the term itself should not be presented as fact. The lead could say "with a bi-racial background he is deemed the first African American President..." then go on and explain the issue. Landon1980 (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at List of African-American firsts I see a lot of first who had mixed white and black ancestry. Sticking predominantly to the political field, there's Hiram Rhodes Revels, the first Senator who had a white mother and mixed race father. Or P. B. S. Pinchback, the first governor, who had a white father. So did Frederick Douglass, the first Veep candidate. Or Booker T. Washington, the first African American to dine at the White House. (And in his concession speech McCain explicitly cited this as how far things have come - did anyone object on the grounds that Washington "wasn't African American"?) But the talk page (at the time of writing) shows no sign of anyone raising the objections we're getting here. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. And Homer Plessy had (famously) only 1/8th black ancestry but that didn't put him on the white side of the "separate but equal" upheld by Plessy v. Ferguson. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

A few years from now? we are not a crystal ball. Your assertion he is not African American is original research, Americans choose the one drop (of black blood) theory and who are we to dispute this? Nothing of explanations please, he is African American because he has sub-saharan African blood and is a US citizen. There is nothing else to say. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well he will be the first African American President, as well as the first Biracial one. Look at the article African American, where it says, "African Americans or Black Americans are citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa. In the United States, the term is generally used for Americans with at least partial Sub-Saharan African ancestry." At least partial! To me that sounds like biracial is allowed. They even use his picture in the topmost illustration on that page. Besides, his father was African and his mother was American, ergo he was African American. We should say he will be the first African American and biracial President. 163.1.146.17 (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Squeak box, I assumed everyone would know that "in a few years" wasn't meant to be taken literal. If my assertion he is not African American is OR than yours that he is African American is OR. I can also say he is white because is mother is white. Do you honestly not understand that? Your argument is seriously flawed, substitute African American with white and you will understand how. You calling a man that is half white and half black African American is original research, calling him white is OR as well. Calling him anything other than bi-racial is OR. You only made my argument stronger. Landon1980 (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Not my assertion, and one drop for instance is an assertion I am not terribly comfortable with, but the assertion of the American people. I came here having edited African American and being interested in race issues I am not an American, but I understand the issues. I don't endorse any of this but my opinion as me doesn't matter, as an editor we must go with what is rather than what we believe in. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Squeakbox, the if in the "a few years from now if" statement should have been a clue to I meant if. I am aware that we are no crystal ball, that is where the if came into play. Landon1980 (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC) The lead as of now presents the statement as factual. Unless the rules have changed we are supposed to write articles from a NPOV. So I suppose using the current logic the lead should read "he is the first African American president and the 44th white president." We could always do something really crazy and off the wall like acknowledge the media is calling him the first African AMerican president while stating the facts at the same time. Landon1980 (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Calling Obama "African-American" is not original research because about eleventy-billion reliable sources refer to him as such. When it comes to biographies of living persons, reliable sources are of paramount importance. Additionally, Obama self-identifies as African-American. Now this is a subject that has been discussed on this talk page dozens of times, and the result is always the same - we must say what the reliable sources say. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well then neither is calling him white. We know for 100% certain that they are picking one term over another. Calling him white is just as accurate as calling him black. The fact he is bi-racial can be sourced as well. We can say what the reliable sources say, we can also present the facts. There are conflicting sources here, everyone knows that he is half white and half black. Picking one term over the other is original research no matter how you spin it. The only neutral term is bi-racial. It is unfair to pick one term over the other. There is nothing wrong with stating what the media says while at the same time reporting the facts. Remember, we can report the facts, opinions about the facts, but not the opinions themselves. This conversation being brought up multiple times is proof enough that the current state of the article is not neutral. You say we must report what reliable sources do and I agree with that. However, The problem is they report him both as African American and as bi-racial. Him being of mixed race has been blasted into every home across the world, everyone knows that. When sources report two different things and both are as correct as the other the only right thing to do is find common ground. The common ground and neutral way of doing this would be bi-racial, the term does not choose sides and it is accurate. Landon1980 (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Show me a reliable source that calls Obama "white" and we'll consider that here. Otherwise, this is a pointless discussion that is becoming tendentious. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you denying that he is half white? The sources say he is half white, half black. In the future read my comments before you respond to them. It is not your decision which discussions can or cannot take place here. If sources both call him African American and half white half black AKA b-racial how do you justify picking one term over the other? Calling him black orcalling him white is OR of the worst kind. So much for articles being neutral, policy flies out the window in this case I suppose. The only neutral way of doing this is saying he is bi-racial and stating that the media largely chooses to call him African American. Landon1980 (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not denying anything. I am simply saying that reliable sources should be our guide, and in the event of a great number of sources (in this case, probably thousands) we use the predominant term. You appear to be advocating that we include terminology not generally supported by the many available reliable sources, which is obviously not acceptable. Also, your claims of "OR of the worst kind" demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of the policy. Please re-read WP:OR to avoid misrepresenting it in the future. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not misrepresenting OR and I am more than familiar with the policy. Why must everything be taken so literal? Regardless of what you say the facts are different. The fact is he is of mixed race, half black half white. Picking one term over the other is unacceptable when the sources report both. The man is half white half black and you cannot dispute that. It is very misleading in it's current state. What exactly would be the problem with saying he is bi-racial and that he is largely considered the first African American president? Can you give me a good reason why neutrality should not apply in this case? Landon1980 (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:IDHT to you Squeakbox, I just laid out the case in front of you, including references, and you act as if the material just wasn't here. --dab (𒁳) 18:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

dab, the study suffers seriously from systematic-bias because "More than half (55 percent) of whites classified Obama as biracial after being told that Obama's mother is white and his Kenyan father is black.". Even if the respondents already knew his background, the instruction was self-serving. Its unclear if the poll even gave the respondents the option of classifying Obama as being both black and biracial. In any case, if multiple reliable sources explicitly say his biracial heritage is important enough to be saying "first biracial XYZ", then I support its inclusion. However, ...the melting pot of biracialism is somewhat a nonstarter in that in equality we are all mutts. Modocc (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"we are all mutts" too funny! I agree that the term "bi-racial" should replace "first African American president" I think it is very factually incorrect to omit the fact that he is of mixed race 50/50. I find it amazingly interesting that his race mirrors a voting phenomenon in our country where people of all races voted for him. It just seems so blatantly biased to describe him in the lead as African American instead of "bi-racial". He is what he is and not something else. NancyHeise ^talk 19:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Per NPOV and RS, "first African American" must be kept in the lede. Modocc (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This is laughable, care to explain how picking African American over white, or African American over bi-racial is adhering to NPOV. The man is half black/half white, as such the only possible neutral ground is bi-racial. As for RS, dozens upon dozens of sources say that he is half white and half black. You had to be joking by saying AA must be kept due to NPOV, that same logic would apply to we must keep white because that term is just as correct. Landon1980 (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

We can say "first biracial and African American" [only] if a significant fraction of reliable sources do so. [Which they don't.] Modocc (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, a large number of sources say that his father was African and his mother was white. I find it amazing that in an encyclopedia where NPOV is pushed as much as anything that picking one racial term over the other is even being entertained, let alone supported by the majority. Not one person has given me a good reason why neutrality should not apply in this case. If a few years from now someone with both parents being African American is elected what will this person be called? If one drop of African American blood automatically makes you African American I'd be willing to bet that Obama is not the first. Five former presidents have been said to have African in their blood. According to The Virginia Magazine of History Volume 29 Andrew Jackson was the son of a White woman from Ireland who had intermarried with an African American. Landon1980 (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose making any change to the present use of "African American" as the primary identifier in the lead, and also oppose any laundry lists of firsts beyond a few key ones, per what I take to be the weight of the reliable sources. When another African American is elected President, he or she will be the second. However, having participated in dozens of such discussions in the past few weeks I do not care to fire up for another one at this point, particularly one defending the encyclopedia yet again against claims of racial insensitivity, POV violations, etc. Those advocating for a change might do well to read the FAQ and if interested some of the past discussions. Wikidemon (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, there are conflicting sources. Someone please tell me why neutrality does not apply here. If Barrack Obama is the first African American president he is also the 44th white president. What exactly is the criteria for deciding which half outweighs the other? I am offened by the lead completely ignoring the fact he is bi-racial. Come on people he is half and half, one term is just as correct as the other. Here, for example, CNN describes him as the first bi-racial candidate. I find it hard to believe that on a subject as sensitive as race that it is ok to pick one term and completely ignore the other. Can you imagine what would be said if the lead sentence called him white and completely ignored the fact he is half African American. And yes, it is the exact same thing. Landon1980 (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Lecturing people that they are ridiculous is not going to help. I have reviewed this discussion and remain unconvinced. The strong majority of sources, along with Obama himself, consider him African American. It is true that he is biracial (another term that looks subjective under scrutiny). Many things are true, but that does not mean we highlight them all in the top of the lead lead of the article. The subject is adequately treated in the article as a whole and in other related articles. We follow the writing of others in deciding what to emphasize. If you have a problem with that, it seems that you may object to the current conception of race and ethnicity in America, which is a perfectly reasonable point, but a Wikipedia article is not suited to taking the lead in changing the language about race in America.Wikidemon (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That's right (left?); it does help reduce the uninitiated naivety though. :-) Modocc (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"it seems that you may object to the current conception of race and ethnicity in America" Could you provide a couple reliable sources that say that is how America thinks as a whole? Answer my question, why does neutrality not apply in this situation? What is the criteria for deciding which half is dominant among people of mixed race? Obama himself identifies as mixed, he even recently self identified as a mutt. The man is half white and half black, that is what he is and you cannot change that. The fact he is bi-racial can be sourced with hundreds of reliable sources. I repeat, what is the criteria for deciding which race to pick in cases such as these. Would you be ok with the lead saying he is white and not mentioning he is half African American. Let's change the lead to "He is the 44th white president..." and see what kind of response we get. One term is just as correct as the other so why not if one is to be decided upon? Landon1980 (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Will you also point to where I lectured someone on how ridiculous they are? The idea of picking one term over the other being OK is what is ridiculous. I am attacking the content, not the contributor. Landon1980 (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

5 paragraphs up - "that is ridiculous". Neutrality applies and taken into account. The primary criterion is the weight of the sources, checked against self-identification and being not obviously untrue. It seems that a biracial individual of (roughly) 50% African heritage and 50% white European heritage can reasonably be described as African-American. I won't delve here into why such a person is not usually described as white. That's a discussion for another day and another place. Tens of thousands of sourcs are here.[20] You can find them for yourself. Contrast with "biracial" here.[21] - Wikidemon (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see it, all I can find is where I said "this is ridiculous," meaning the idea of one term being picked over another. You still cannot give me a good reason why the lead should not be neutral. Calling him white is no different than calling him black. Why can't we list him as white in the lead sentence and ignore the fact he is half African American? I have yet to see a reliable source that supports ignoring the fact he is half white. The man's mother was white, his father was black. This is sad, and a poor excuse for encyclopedic content. I would be blocked on site if I kept saying he was white in the lead, yet doing the exact opposite is acceptable why? Please give me ONE good reason why the lead cannot be neutral, just one. Multiple editors have had concerns regarding this and every single time they are bullied into giving up. I'm not shutting up until someone explains to me why the lead simply cannot be neutral and must pick a side. According to policy if there are conflicting sources both sides should be given due weight. Multiple sources describe him as bi-racial. The fact he is of mixed race is undisputed. It is sickening that this article is being used to promote racism. I am extremely offended by the double standard here, and I'm certain I'm not the only person that has a problem with it. Landon1980 (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, "ridiculous" was enough. I've already pointed to the sources and wont respond to incitement like "sad", "poor excuse", "bullied", "not shutting up", "double standard", and "promote racism". The article is neutral at this point, and my opposition to adding "biracial" to the lead, which I take to be the long term consensus here, stands. I do not care to discuss this further.Wikidemon (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing that prohibits me from saying content in itself is ridiculous. All of those who object to the lead being neutral should avoid the discussion, because of a clear bias in the matter. I still fail to see how picking black over white is neutral. Seriously, how is that neutral? We all know he is half black and half white. One term is just as correct as the other. The only possible neutral ground is bi-racial. Again, if you truly object to the article being written from a NPOV you should avoid editing the article all together including the talk page. Landon1980 (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

As repeatedly pointed out the way these terms are used is not the way you are assuming. Race is a far more complicated affair than mere genetics, as some of the assertions in this discussion assume. It is as much about how a group of people both identify themselves and are identified by others, as well as what the historic trend is. There is a very long history of African Americans with white ancestry being at the forefront of African American history - Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington and Homer Plessey to name but three. The first two had white fathers but did that stop them from being seen as important black leaders in their day, whilst Plessey's status as black when he had 7/8ths white ancestry was upheld by the Supreme Court of the day. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Do some editors not understand that most "African Americans" are biracial? If an African moved to the US and became a citizen he would be a one-race "African American." Or multiracial? We follow the subject's self-description and the terminology used by reliable sources. African American is the most common term. Black is commonly used. Multi-racial is accurate. Edison (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon, before continuing this conversation please read over WP:NPOV in particular WP:ASF. NPOV is one of our core policies and we must adhere to it. It doesn't matter how many sources support which side, the fact is reliable sources can be found in number for both. Landon1980 (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)By my calculation, about four percent. Four percent of the sources probably should not be given fifty percent weight in the lede. Its undue (unless that improbability thingy gets pushed again, the tea is tossed out with the shoes, oh my aching head). Modocc (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of repeating myself while fighting for the article to conform to NPOV. Those of you that claim the lead is neutral I'd like to ask you how "the 44th white President" sits with you upon reading it. Yes, it is the exact opposite of the current state. I do believe 50% plus 50% in fact equals 100%. Therefore one term is just as correct as the other. Since either one of them is neutral I suggest we alternate between the two of them. So we can leave it as is for a month, week, or whatever. Then next month we use "44th white president." Landon1980 (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Or, here's a radical idea: Go with what the sources say. I've got a hunch that going with what the sources say, vs. going with the personal opinions of wikipedia editors, might actually conform to policy. And keep in mind that our country traditionally embraced the "even one drop" rule, such that any "black blood" rendered someone as a "negro". So 50 percent certainly qualifies. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Try reading the discussion next time before commenting. A large number of sources also say he is bi-racial. That whole one drop theory is a bunch of bull shit and is original research. Obama being bi-racial is not my opinion. If 50% is enough, then like I said, he is definitely just as white as he is black so we will save that for next month. Talk about opinions, calling him black is an opinion and so is calling him white. We all know that one is as correct as the other, and the fact is he's bi-racial.Landon1980 (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, so much for NPOV. Looks like if enough people have a biased view then that bias is accepted. Who gives a big flying fuck about the article being neutral. I guess just me, it is sickening and racist to act like black cancels out white. Most of our readers will have enough common sense to know that the lead is incorrect and misleading. I would LOVE to see how all of you would react to "44th white president." All of you keep harping about self-indentification, the ironic part is Obama has said on numerous occasions that he is black and half white and will not disown either. There is a pool of biased editors owning this article and that is sad. Those of you that object to the article being neutral seriously should consider not editing the article. Landon1980 (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The article makes it perfectly clear that he's bi-racial. And the article also makes it clear that he's 50 percent African (specifically Kenyan), and 50 percent parts of English, Irish, and German. So he's more African American than he is anything-else American. And the sources say he's African American. And the public regards him as African American. So as far as wikipedia is concerned, that's what he is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand NPOV, it is about presenting the commonly held views. Your aspersions that the American people are sickening racists is not acceptable here. If I saw 44th white president I would revert a simple of vandalism. We all know he is half white and half black and that makes him black and an African American and to contradict that with fringe personal views is not NPOV. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah well you misunderstand a lot of things. 44TH presidend is not vandalism if the current state is not. Say what you will but that is racist to say calling him white is vandalism when he is half white. Landon1980 (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If nothing else, we can all agree that this issue keeps being raised. Did any of you ever stop to think there may a reason for that? Reason being it isn't neutral? I don't wish to have first African American removed, I realize that is true. However, 44th white president is just as true because he is undeniably as much white as black. A NPOV would be something along the lines of

"He is of a bi-racial background and is largely considered the first African American president." What would be so bad about the lead being neutral? What I suggested is accurate, that is exactly the case. Even though he is only half black he is largely considered African American. Almost all of you are clearly biased regarding this for whatever reason. You all should ask yourself what the real reason you oppose the lead being neutral is. I have looked through the past discussion and a number of editors have raised the same point. Read over WP:NPOV what I suggested is exactly what it suggests we do. Landon1980 (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"As much white as black" is a matter of personal opinion, hence it's original research, unless you can find a reliable source that can say definitively that his skin pigmentation is half the normal amount for a "typical" black person. The reliable sources predominantly call him African American, so to call him that is perfectly in line with neutral point of view; to try to state otherwise in the summary is nothing more than trying to make a point of some kind, which is against the rules. Also, see if you can find a reliable source that calls him the 44th white President. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Another point: You say "this issue keeps being raised." Raised by a few wikipedia editors maybe... but can you find any reliable sources raising it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL as much white as black is not an opinion. The man has a white mother and black father. Simple genetics and mathematics will tell you he is 50/50. Every point you have raised is seriously flawed. All you must do is substitute black with white to see how. This article is in bad need of intervention. It would appear it is owned by a group of Obama supporters which group together to keep out anything that doesn't sit right with them. It's so ironic that you say calling him anything other than African American is OR when it is a well known fact that he is of mixed race. The double standard that has suddenly become ok makes me sick at my stomach. No one can tell me why the lead should not be neutral, or how picking black over white is neutral. You can't deny that the lead I suggested is not neutral and accurate at the same time. Landon1980 (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

HAHAHAH So if you don't agree with consensus you are put on article probation. Thanks for the formal notification, I was way too stupid to see that at the top of the page. That did put some fear in me though and I'll go ahead and quit while I'm ahead. Score one for the Obamites and 0 for the NPOV warrior. Landon1980 (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The article fully explains his ethnic background. No information is being hidden. There is no double standard and no violation of point-of-view rules. The rule is that reliable sources must be followed. The reliable sources say African American in their summaries, without some wordy qualification, so that's what it is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm done here anyways, but no, that clearly is not what we do. Several reliable sources describe him as bi-racial, hundreds explain how he is half and half. And yes, according to policy neutral wording would be the lead I suggested. There are clearly way too many biased editors for me to continue, I'm fighting a losing battle. Sadly, on wikipedia there is nothing from keeping biased editors from pooling together and gaming the system. That is exactly what is taking place, you all are gaming the system and you know it. On any other article facts would be reported, opinions about the facts, but not the opinions themselves. Everyone of you know that it is wrong to ignore NPOV, yet you try telling yourself picking and choosing while ignoring significant facts is neutral. Seriously I'm done though, you don't even have to respond. Hopefully some of you will stop letting your personal views get in the way of editing and will step back in the future when you know you are bias. Landon1980 (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, parting personal attacks. The time-honored last resort. Dayewalker (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The sources predominantly say African American, and that's what dictates how to word it, not wikipedia editors' personal opinions. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Those saying that the one drop theory is rubbish should go to a forum or start a blog. We at wikipedia will not be held to ransom by politically motivated editors. Landon's claim that those opposing his original research are expressing personal views is highly offensive to those of us who are not letting our personal views get in the way. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

And your sickening racist comments aren't any better. If I said the things you did about half white making you white and calling someone saying black vandalism I'd be blocked for racist comments. By the way, Bugs, WP:NPOV is not my personal opinion as you suggest, it is a core policy. Landon1980 (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Look at my user page before acting like a dick and accusing me of rascism. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"Reliable sources" is a core policy, and they say African American in their summaries. There is no POV problem here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The one-drop theory is "rubbish," it's nothing more than your personal opinion. Show me a reliable source that says one drop of AA blood cancels out an indefinite amount of white blood. It is like you don't even read others comments. This needs response from a wider community, consensus cannot be properly formed among a pool of biased editors. Landon1980 (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You need to read about attempts to keep Warren G. Harding from becoming President due to allegedly being an octaroon - in short, due to allegedly being "black". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of the controversy regarding Harding and his presidency. I think four maybe 5 previous presidents have been said to have ties to the African race. I think Andrew Jackson's father has been said to have been black. I listed a source above that said he was black. There goes the theory of Obama being the first using the current logic applied to the article. Landon1980 (talk) 01:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No reliable source states that anyone besides Obama had any African American ancestry. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Where does the personal opinion come into play, Bugs? Nothing I have said is my opinion, absolutely nothing. The lead I suggested is far more factual than the current, and is neutral. You act as if Obama being bi-racial is my opinion. Landon1980 (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Because you want it to read contrary to what the predominant sources say. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You really, really should read over wp NPOV. All I want is it to be neutral, dozens upon dozens of reliable sources say he is bi-racial. What would be wrong with saying he is bi-racial and is largely considered the first African American president? Everything in that lead sentence is verifiable, and can be sourced properly. Landon1980 (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The article already states he's biracial. The summary reports what the dominant sources report in their summaries, i.e. African American. "What would be wrong" is imposing your view contrary to the way the sources word things. P.S. You said you were leaving. What's up? Is the train running late? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll be gone shortly, does it really matter, does it Doc?

Gr8. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No point continuing this. Modocc (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Following what a newspaper calls him would be stupid honestly. What if the person that wrote it is biased?? I would have to agree with that. I'm completely against the article stating him as the first African American president elect that's only half true even though I'm thrilled that he's going to be the next president. The article should not take a follow the leader role. It's doing nothing but supporting the ignorance that was created to keep races seperate in the United States hence the One Drop Rule. I truly believe that it should state the first bi-racial president of African American descent. It makes everyone happy doesn't leave out a part of his heritage and is completely clear. It's the 21st Centuary not the Jim Crow Law days that help corrupt America's society even further by making it hard for anyone that was more than one race to claim only black blood. It's time to end this biased behavior or better yet but favortism towards him being only called African American.

Native American

There should be a section on Obama being adopted by the Crow tribe. Also included in this should be a thing about his very own blood descent from the Saponi tribe and connection to the Melungeons of Newman's ridhe Tennessee.

Barack Obama claims "Cherokee" ancestry through his mother's matrilineal line, and recently was adopted by the Crow tribe. In reality Obama's matrilineal line goes back to the Bunch family of Louisa County, VA (the same Bunch family reported by experts to be of Saponi/Catawba ancestry and ancestors of the same Bunch families that appear in the "Melungeons" of Tennessee, the "Scotts" of Blountstown, Florida, and the "Red Bones" of Louisiana and Texas). Barack's line goes like this: Barack's mother : Ann Dunham, her mother was: Madelyn Payne, her mother was: Leona McMurry, her mother was: Margaret Bellewright, her mother was: Frances Allred, her mother was: Anna Bunch. Anna Bunch was born March 27, 1814 in Overton County, Tennessee; married Samuel T. Allred and moved to Osage Township, Carroll County, Arkansas by 1880. Ann was the daughter of Nathaniel Bunch and Sarah Wade Ray. (Note: this means that Barack Obama's 4th Great Grandparent on his "white" mother's side was among the Indians of Louisa Co. VA who were recorded as "Free Persons of Color" and that Obama shares ancestry with the Virginia Tribes who are currently requesting recognition from Congress!) Nathaniel Bunch was born 1793 in Overton Co. Tenn. the son of Charles Bunch and Mary Bellamy. Charles Bunch was born 1765 in Louisa County, Virginia and married Mary Bellamy in 1792. Charles Bunch was the son of John and Rebecca Bunch, also of Louisa Co. VA Mary Bellamy (born 1769 Louisa Co. VA) was the daughter of John Bellamy and Susan "Roe". Susan was the sister of James Rowe who married the sister of Gideon Gibson (the Indian "Man of Color" who moved to South Carolina circa 1750's).”

Since Obama has a HUGE interest in his Native background and a interest in all the natives of America, then there should be a section on this. I do not know how to type it up so it would have to be someone who can put it in a professional and wikipedia quality standard.

For migration patterns on the Bunch and Gibson families visit: http://www.angelfire.com/wv2/dillon1944/old_thomas_collins_of_flatt_river.htm

The Bunch families earliest records are in Bertie county, NC as they was living next to the Collins family and marrying into the Collins family, about the same time the Saponi had a village in Bertie county, NC....as the Saponi moved back into VA some of the Bunch and Collins family moved with them after negotiations of Lt. gov Spotswood.

LAND OF THE MALUNGEONS The Nashville Daily American Written for the Sunday American By Will Allen Dromgoole August 31, 1890

THE MELUNGEON TREE AND IT'S FOUR BRANCHES By Will Allen Dromgoole The Arena ; v. 3 (May, 1891), p. 749-751.

There is litterally thousands of other documents on these Native american families and their native american history. Louisa county, Va was the ancestrial home of the Saponi tribe.

You may also contact the "Manahoac Saponi Mattamuskeet Nation" for many many resources for these families. Their website is www.geocities.com/manahoac_Saponi 67.166.239.150 (talk) 08:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

See the article Family of Barack Obama. This is interesting (maybe Barack and I are related somehow, for General Robert E. Lee is my 5th cousin), but this particular distant relation is more suitable for that article. Would it be OK to move this request to the Family of Barack Obama talkpage? Modocc (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement

Please see the FAQ, the talk page archive, and other discussions here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Correction: Barack Obama will be the first bi-racial President of the United States, not the first African-American given his mother is White and his father is Black. Since history will have been made, the records should reflect his accurate heritage. (nyclovesme) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyclovesme (talk • contribs) 20:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC) This has been dealt with ad nauseum. Please read the FAQ section. S.D.D.J.Jameson 20:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Newspapers have called Obama "African-American" and "black." We follow their lead, not the reasoning of Wikipedia editors. Edison (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

International 'experience'

Just an interesting thought that the added text "Obama is the first U.S. President born outside the Continental United States." brought to mind. What other president's have spent any considerable part of their life outside the USA? If I read correctly Obama spent 3-4 years in Indonesia? I would think that would be an important formative experience. And perhaps, a very crucial experience in what is and is not 'America'. Did I miss his campaign mentioning this, his unusual qualifications? I can think of several of my friends who would have more respect for an American president that knows what's beyond the borders. What's the word, parochial? Shenme (talk) 08:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Surprisingly little have been made of Obama's unique experience, growing up in Indonesia and with most of his living relatives in Kenya. It was even mocked when Obama mentioned it. Americans don't really care if their president grew up in another country. To them, flying a warplane and bombing another country is more experience than actually living in one. 202.40.139.164 (talk) 11:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Not counting military service: Herbert Hoover lived and worked in Australia and China for a couple of decades -- they were trapped in Tianjin during the Boxer Rebellion. William Howard Taft was governor-general of the Philippines (and stayed on in that role even after being offered a Supreme Court seat.) That's all I could find for 20th Century presidents. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't TR the Governor of Cuba? --harej 22:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope; the Battle of San Juan Hill was July 1, 1898, and TR became Governor of New York on January 1, 1899, the same day the government of Cuba was handed over to the US by the departing Spanish. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 09:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

What languages, other than English, are spoken/understood by Obama?

I believe the main infoBox should contain an item listing the languages spoken/understood by Obama. The items in such a listing should provide an approximate indication of his level of fluency in the given language. Perhaps such a listing could be in the form of a table. For example:

Language	Speaks	Reads	Writes
Spanish	good	yes	working
French	fluent	yes	yes
Arabic	understands	some	little
Indonesian	schoolboy	little	little

Indeed I believe that a 'languages' section should be introduced to ALL public-figure-related infoBoxes. In many parts of the world today English is almost certainly no longer the alternative language of choice. Indeed it probably never was. We just tend see that more clearly today.

Chris Scott 201.4.98.1 (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That information is best expressed in the article, generally. People's level of fluency is often only self-reported (read: unreliable), and infoboxes are generally best for unquestionably true facts like length of term, family, and successor. More generally, it's kind of extraneous for many people, and for those it is relevant for, it should be in the article anyway where it can be discussed in more detail.

Secondly, and moderately off-topic, um, what are you talking about as far as English not being the alternative language of choice? That's totally false, it's by far the most popular second language in the world. Heck, just recently, the WaPo ran an article on Rwanda drops French, adopts English as its official language. Which is not to say that other languages aren't important, but English is still the top dog. SnowFire (talk) 02:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

English is absolutely the worlds most spoken second-language, and its use in this context is growing. --Trefalcon (talk) 01:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

None of this goes in without reliable sourcing, however, of course. We can make an exception on that for English. Tvoz/talk 22:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

pronunciation of "Barack"

I wonder if our president-elect's first name used to be something more like "bah-rack", but then got "changed" by a bunch of outsiders who didn't know any better (like the way Los Angeles "angles" got changed to "anjeles" by all the new people who moved there). From what I have found, the actual Arabic word is بارك )baarak meaning "he who is blessed" or simply "blessed", and is pronounced (in Arabic) roughly like the above-mentioned " 'bah-rack" (this "pronunciation" being of course an Anglicisation, "bah" as in "bah humbug", "rack" as in "check out her rack".

But it sounds like everybody's saying "buh-rock". Let's say it sounds a little too foreign to say "bah-rack" --- it's hard to give it an English-sounding stress pattern. So, if we decide to make it sound less foreign by just stressing the second syllable, then if we want it to rhyme with "attack", "pack" etc. it should be spelled Barack; if we want people to say (as they all seem to do anyway) "buh-rock", why not spell it "Barock" ? Since it has "ck", not just "k", it's obviously trying to look like an English word; in which case, why not follow the general rules about how things are spelled in English? Otherwise, just recognise that it's a foreign word (like Obama), spell it Barak, and say the "a" is pronounced just like the "a" in other foreign-derived words like drama, pasta etc. Jakob37 (talk) 11:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC) p.s. I know it's totally futile to complain about mismatches between spelling and pronunciation, but if Shaw could occasionally vent his spleen, so can I.

I'm not sure what your point is. Nearly all English names come from foreign names. Obama had a Kenyan father and an American mother, who were living in Hawaii at the time. Their son's name and its spelling is whatever they decided to put on the birth certificate. You would have to ask them what they were thinking, and since they are not available it is all speculation. Both the word Barak, and the name, entered many languages. It appears in the bible hundreds of times, for example - the Hebrew and Arabic versions are nearly identical. Obama will be the 15th president with a Semitic first name.[22] The three Jameses' names (Madison, Polk, and Monroe) come from the Hebrew Ya'aqov, or in turn Ya`qub in Arabic. Because neither Hebrew nor Arabic use the Roman alphabet it is all transliteration anyway. As for pronunciation, how people pronounce their own names, and how they allow others to pronounce them, is quite a subject. I doubt that anyone knows in Obama's case, but likely it is how his parents taught him.Wikidemon (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

My "point" was simply to express my consternation that an Anglicized spelling in -ack is being pronounced as if it were -ock.Jakob37 (talk) 05:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

So how does he pronounce it himself? That would be our guide. I've heard (on the UK media) both Bar-rack, with the stress on the first syllable as in "army barrack", and Ba-rack, with the stress on the second; both with short syllable sounds. Incidentally, UK commentators don't use any 'u' or 'o' sounds when they try to say his name, or say Bah-rark, with long vowel sounds. All very confusing86.147.160.133 (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

UK announcers tend to mangle foreign names, including American ones. I don't know how/where we verified the pronunciation guide at the beginning of the article. Wikidemon (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL - I was going to say the same thing about Americans - frequently mispronouncing foreign, especially French and Spanish names and words, usually by stretching the vowels - (Ramon is Ra-moan, Moulin Rouge became Mou-lon Rouge; premier (as in film) is prem-eer; pasta is paah-sta; gamelan is game-laan and so on! 86.147.160.133 (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If anybody wants to contact CTV & CBC, please do. The newspeople on those stations, rarely (if ever) pronounce Barack Obama correctly. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

re:"So how does he pronounce it himself? That would be our guide." In an ideal world, that would be the case, but in this world, the majority rules, or the media rules. I have a friend here in Taiwan. As a boy, almost everyone mispronounced his (Chinese)surname, and he would correct them, tell them to check the dictionary, etc. All to no avail, so now he just grins and bears it.Jakob37 (talk) 05:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This page on the Internet Archive has open source audio of his campaign announcement and other audio related to him that should help. In the introduction of Obama in the campaign announcement speech, it is pronounced "Bah-rock", though that is by the introducer, not Obama. Probably the easiest place to get him saying his own name is in political advertisements on TV, where he says "I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message". --Kickstart70TC 17:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I doubt they're running those on TV now, but I would bet Youtube has some of them captured. If all else fails, we'll get to hear him say his name on January 20th. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This one, for example. [23] There's no better source than the guy himself. He says "burrOCK ohBAHmuh". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

to be fixed

In the Early life section delete, or at least fix the misspelling in the sentence: "It was during this time that he learned about equaliy [sic] and unity and became involved in Scouting." I read the source article and the source doesn't support this broad claim: only says that one random person on the streets of indonesia who claims to have known him as a kid sees these concepts in his speeches as they were taught in his school. It doesn't seem to me to be a point worth making in this wiki article. 72.86.40.219 (talk) 13:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, since we're not counting the NE-2 electoral vote yet: para. 4 of the intro: "he won 53% of the popular vote and 364 electoral college votes" Also, what is the standard you guys are using for calling states on this thing, because NBC News has called Missouri for McCain. 67.241.18.181 (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Date of birth is Aug. 4, 1961, 7:24 pm, in Hawaii (Honolulu?). This article is locked or I'd have fixed it already. The D.O.B. is relevant to and useful; please add this. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.41.99.118 (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I second that idea. I also found it a little sketchy that a quote like this was included as fact based only on a passer-by. Potterc7 (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and take this out. The scouting bit might be fine if it can be sourced, but the "equality and unity" business is pure propaganda.0nullbinary0 (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: infobox. I recommend replacing "Taking office" with "Term begins"

As this is such a sensitive and important article, we need to be more "official" when editing this page. "Taking office January 20, 2009" sounds too presumptuous. I recommend replacing this with "Term begins January 20, 2009". With President-elect Obama having already won the election, the next four-year term of office belongs to him, obviously. But only that much is certain.

The reason for this is, in the unforeseen event of his resignation, disqualification, or (God forbid) incapacitation or death as President-elect, obviously then the next eligible person in the line of succession (which is currently Vice President-elect Joe Biden) would have to serve out Obama's entire four-year term as president (though the term of office would still technically be Obama's, not his successor's).

(Note here that I use the term "disqualification" rather than "impeachment" or "removal", as the latter two terms would not be applicable to a president-elect who has yet to assume the office) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean 2015 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"Taking office" or "assuming office" are not presumptuous, they are normal terminology. Obviously, "term begins" also conveys the same information. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Biden is not currently the next in line, because despite all the discussion above, deciding to call them president elect and vice president elect doesn't make them that. They are not yet anything-elect, and if anything should happen to Obama between now and 15-Dec the DNC would have to pick a new candidate, who might very well not be Biden. Then they'd have to convince all the D electors to obey their choice, which might not be a simple task. And this is why getting that "-elect" term right is so important — once Biden is VP-elect, which happens on 15-Dec, the constitution explicitly guarantees that come 20-Jan, if for any reason Obama is not ready to take office, Biden will take his place. Until 15-Dec the constitution makes no such guarantee, because he's not yet VP-elect. -- Zsero (talk) 08:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You apparently overlooked the revelation that federal law defines the term "President-elect" to include the "apparent" winner of the election. So there is no dispute that Obama and Biden are, at this moment, the President-elect and Vice President-elect. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

A law funding the transition says that the money can be released and the transition start as soon as the result is apparent, without waiting for the formal election. For convenience, it says that it will use the term "president elect" of the person who's clearly going to be elected, even before he actually is elected. It says nothing about the proper use of the term. In any case, the question here was who is next in line, and it is clear that right now Biden is not next in line, because no matter what the newspapers say, or even what any Act of Congress says, he is in fact not vice president elect. If he were vice president elect, as he will be after 15-Dec, then he would be automatically next in line, and nobody could change that. -- Zsero (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless something happens to Obama, who's "next in line" is a moot issue, and Biden is the Vice President-elect. They will "officially" become the PE and the VPE, not on December 15th, but on January 6th when the electors' votes are certified by the joint session. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Barack HUSSEIN Obama

How come every other president's full name is listed in the infobox but "Hussein" is left out of this individual's? That should most definately STAY. It is the man's name, like it or not, that is what his given name is.

Tvfan623 (talk) 02:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Read ALL and compare ALL before posting a wrong statement. Saves yourself and others time. Also please stop edit warring over it. Thanks.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It also saves them from looking like an idiot. But too late for that. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 02:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It is stupid to make such a baseless claim without absolute certainty of the facts. Xnemesis (talk) 07:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Check the section farther down, for an answer to the original question. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You know, being insulting and snarky to people doesn't help things and are highly inappropriate. A simple link to the other section (maybe a note on the user's talk page) and a quick archive will keep this talk page under control. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Written Words: scholarly articles from Harvard?

Regarding the section "written works": didn't President-elect Obama author scholarly articles that would warrant inclusion in the "written works" section? Maybe someone can look these up. --71.237.93.206 (talk) 04:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Not only the first African American US President

Obama also is the first African American and first biracial in history to run on a major party ticket.[24] Would be great if it could be incorporated into the lead. --77.185.74.21 (talk) 04:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

How about a section on speeches?

Admirers and detractors of his positions agree that Obama is an unusually effective oratorr. I see that one entire article is devoted to just one of his speeches. This seems to err on the generous side, but it was a very significant speech and I'm not knocking the article. (Surely it's at least as significant as "Deadheads for Obama.") Particularly in view of that article, what surprises me is that there seems to be no quick account of his set of speeches. If there's not enough for an independent article, I'd have thought that a section of this article could deal with them. (I'm not volunteering to do this as I don't know enough--I'm just posting this suggestion as a would-be reader.) Or have I missed something? Morenoodles (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"Middle" life image

I would like to see an image of him either in his 20's/30's, or at least in his earlier political career. I think it just jumps too much in the body from a childhood image to his political image. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Criticism sections

I have noticed that there is no criticism section as there usually is for politicians or political organizations. That indicates POV pushing to me, as a criticsim section would probably be quickly deleted by an Obamaphile. Maybe someone should add one in for the sake of neutrality and fairness. 3bman92 (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have a specific criticism in mind that is supported and verified by reliable sources, let's discuss it here. Then we can determine whether such a section is needed or whether that criticism would fit better somewhere else. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The MoS says we should avoid criticism sections where possible in ALL articles, putting any criticism of the person in more appropriately titled sections. This keeps each section (and not just the page overall) neutral. 163.1.146.17 (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Even so, it should be brought here first for review, rather than trying to ram it into the article and triggering an edit war. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It is POV if a criticism section is included, much as if a praise section was included. The issue of a criticism section has been addressed in the FAQs section located at the top of this talk page, and it states that criticisms should be blended into the article, rather than having its own area. OpenSeven (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

PRAISE SECTION

He's a good guy.

CRITICISM SECTION

He's a bad guy.

Now, does that pretty well cover it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

His comments about the coal industry? or about how his tax plan could ruin the country the same way Jimmy Catert did? I dunno just a suggestion 140.198.129.59 (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Infobox format

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes) "The top text line should be bold and contain the full (official) name of the item. This does not need to match the article's Wikipedia title.".

Given that all former U.S. Presidents have their full name presented (i.e Bill Clinton, George W. Bush,Ronald Reagan etc). How is the removal of this standard here acceptable? Glen Twenty (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. And also fixed the wording cited. Persons are not "items", they are the "subject" of the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Then you should change John McCain's to John Sidney McCain III and do the same with Sarah Palin, and Harry Reid and Pelosi and blah blah blah. It's more than clear that this is just an attempt for the anti-Obama people to smirk at his middle name. Either all politicans/people should have their full official names, or they should match the article title. Which is it then? Tim010987 (talk)

Changing all the other Presidents is out of line. I intend to use ROLLBACK to roll them back quickly, unless I hear some objections from someone (other than Tim, obviously). Also, he won the election, despite efforts of the Limbaugh crowd to make something of his middle name, as if he had any choice in the matter. It's a non-issue now, and there's nothing shameful about the name Hussein. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I am in full agreement with Baseball Bugs. It was inappropriate to remove the middle names from all the presidents who had them simply to not include "Hussein". Hussein is his middle name and he should not be treated differently because there may be negative conotations surrounding it. It is his full name and it is required by the MOS. I have undone all the edits. --Happyme22 (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree up to a certain point. First of all, it HAS to be changed at all BLP's not only the "recent" ones. Second, there is a longstanding consensus about the way it was (and nobody, including me, objected to include the birth name in the info box as there is [or was?] a spot reserved for it). Was there a new consensus build in that short time? I don't think so and even so I wouldn't oppose this change It needs a general discussion for consensus to change. Was there one? Did I just miss it? Please point me to any if there is one (as on the McCain page where I was getting aware of this was no mention about it at all). Otherwise I'm not willing to go with it "blindly". Thanks, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

And I'm also conform with the new (but previously discussed statement that the "old" consensus was build on) below.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)The guideline presented above is for the general infobox. For people, the guideline is to use the "name" parameter for the "Common name of person" and use "birth_nam" ..."if different from name". — see Template:Infobox Person. In the case of Obama, the common usage is "Barack Obama". — ERcheck (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Now he tells us. OK, I'm done screwing around with these infoboxes. The rest of you can slug it out now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why this is such a big issue. His middle name is Hussein -- there is absolutely nothing wrong with that! It's his name and we can't change it. But to go around and change the names of every other president with a middle name in the infobox because some do not want to place "Hussein" here is not right. It has been consistent thusfar, and the easiest way to keep it consistent is to place his middle name of "Hussein" in the infobox. --Happyme22 (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Would it not be better to use Barack H. Obama II? Afterall, imagine using George Herbert Walker Bush? GoodDay (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops, they do use George Herbert Walker Bush. GoodDay (talk) 02:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, but only after this recent edit made while the discussion is going on. Seems like Wiki gaming and fooling editors to me. Can we please settle this first before changes are made? That would be more helpfull to the cause.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It keeps bouncing around, because there are 2 different MOS template styles being used as "proof" of the way it should read. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The full name is used in the opening of the article, and it is also in the birth name field of the infobox. The guideline for people is for the common name in the name field of the infobox; so, id is dependent on the person whether or not the middle name, etc. is used. For example, Jimmy Carter is the common usage, not James Earl Carter; end so forth. — ERcheck (talk) 02:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Right. Gosh, his full name "Barack Hussein Obama appeared in the info box under birth name and for month in the lead, right at the top. If you search for Barack Hussein or Hussein Obama guess what? It is there too. This is how it was handled for month at this page, at McCain's page and Hillary Rodham Clinton's page [note, that "Rodham" is not her middle name but her maiden name and she is referred by "Hillary Rodham Clinton"--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me respond to the George H. W. Bush thing above -- as a primary editor of that page, I can say with all certainty that the infobox read "George Herbert Walker Bush" for a very very long time, until User:Tim010987 changed it as he changed all the presidential articles. I promptly reverted those, so that is why it may seem that Bush's full name was added today when in reality it was not. This is the only article that is screwing everything up because of some silly reasons.

I'm hearing two different things: one is saying full name at the top of the infobox, the other is saying common name, and both are said to be from the MOS (?!?). Just for the record, the first ladies all use their full names (and have been doing so even before User:Tim010987 went through them earlier). Happyme22 (talk) 08:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Update: I checked into the matter and it seems that the full name is what is required per WP:IBX, section "Design and Usage", number four (4). In this case, the subject of the article is Barack Obama, just as the subjects of all the other presidential articles would be those presidents. This is a Wikipedia guideline, and editors should follow it. Happyme22 (talk) 08:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the "standard" is for other Presidential bios, the same should be used here. --Tom 15:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Bugs had changed, in good faith, the guideline, substituting "subject" for the original "items". That won't work unless lots of BLPs get warped-drive into odd names, so I updated to the guideline to differentiate between items and people. I'm sure some would like to make their subject more important with fullnames, but I personally think the hyper-naming that is advocated here is inappropriate and unnecessary with all BLPs. There is a world loaded with all sorts of egos. Modocc (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Again, whatever the "standard" is for other Presidential bio info boxes, it should be used here unless there is a good reason not to. --Tom 19:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

But one issue to consider here is that no previous president (that I can think of offhand) has been faced with his full name being used as a pejorative smear by ideological opponents, thus making its usage in such a prominent location a potential WP:BLP issue. Tarc (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• The infobox should contain Barack Hussein Obama II. Period. Everyme 22:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This will probably be my last post on this matter. This is in response to User:Modocc above:

Thank you for alerting me to that, but I do have a few questions: why did you link to Template:Infobox person as the guideline to follow rather than that of WP:IBX? True, IBX originally said "items", and Baseball Bugs, in good faith, changed it to subjects, but what makes it right to point to a completely different policy from that one without, at least, discussing it on the talk page of that template?

Also, this article, as well as every other article on a president, does not use Infobox person; it uses Template:Infobox Officeholder, which includes persondata at the bottom. Template:Infobox Officeholder does not give an answer of whether to put the common name or full name in the "name" field.

So it seems that we are back to the beginning with no policy or guideline one way or the other. And while I applaud you, Modocc, for alerting me to this, I disagree with your characterization of "hyper-naming" and people with egos. I frankly don't care either way, but I don't think that we should change every other article on a president so that Hussein does not go above his picture.

There is just another thing I would like to bring attention to. Someone brought up in a discussion below this one that not every article on an American president contains his middle name in the infobox. The reason why this happens is because we do not have his middle name, as is evident by the first words in the article. If he had a middle name, and if we knew about it, it would have been included in the first bolded words of the article (as is done in this very article). These include Theodore Roosevelt, William McKinley, Benjamin Harrison, Andrew Johnson, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Pierce, Zachary Taylor, etc. etc. do the same.

So there are a couple things we can do: a.) simply insert his middle name and "II" following his last name to conform with that of other presidents; b.) start a discussion at Template talk:Infobox Officeholder to get other views and reach a guideline to conform by. I am going to leave my comments at this, but I hope that a solution can be reached and not a partisan one -- it's just their names after all! But it has surely been interesting. My best as always, Happyme22 (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand change can sometimes be difficult to accommodate, but if we are to have consistency here, all the presidents/prime misters/popes/kings/queens/and pop singers too should have their most recognizable identity listed in accordance with the MoS naming convention and major templates should conform. If we cannot agree on this, then sure we need more opinions. Don't know if a template talk page is the place, I'd say the MoS style guideline talk page is the proper place. Modocc (talk) 03:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"So it seems that we are back to the beginning with no policy or guideline one way or the other."

That is incorrect. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Identity. MoS is the guide. Modocc (talk) 06:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Presidents of the United States Template

This Template should be removed, as George W. Bush is the President. Let's wait until January 20th, 2009 before adding the Template. GoodDay (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No reason to remove it. It says President elect, which is correct. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Not the Infobox, the Template (near the bottom of the article). GoodDay (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I see. I don't think it's a big deal. It's not like predicting the outcome of the November 4th election on November 3rd. But others might think differently. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah come on. The template (with or without Obama's name) is correctly shown at Cheney & his predessors' articles. GoodDay (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

As someone said on the Biden page, people are going to mess with it for the next 2 months anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

Does anybody mind if I speed up Misza? This page is getting many more (albeit lame) edits. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 03:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Gopher it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, consolidating discussions on the same topic (race, president-elect designation, name, etc) into the same top level heading seems to create a bottleneck. The bot sees that the topic heading has had some activity so it does not archive any of the old discussions. There are a couple ways around this. One is to divide the section into "old" and "new" top level headings so the bot will archive all the old ones. The other is to archive by hand. I hope that makes sense. Wikidemon (talk) 06:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It makes sense to archive manually but I must confess that I almost don't have a clue about archiving. But as long as those files are accessible as the "usual" are for easy searching, just go ahead. If by the way someone has time and the courtesy to post a link to the easiest way to build an archive for my talk page or even better, explain it to me like I'm a 4year old I would be very very appreciated.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 06:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, ummmm.....one editor -- i forget who -- removed all the section headings and replaced them with bold markup (i.e. ''' instead of ===) in order to keep the size of the table of content within bounds. Unfortunately, that messes up the bot that creates archive indexes by subject keyword. Ah, C'est la vie. We're in uncharted territory regarding how to deal with talk pages as busy as this one. Nothing on Wikipedia ever really goes away, it just becomes more accessible or less so. Anyway, when the archive bot grabs a section that has been closed by the "hat" or "discussiontop" template, it still goes into the archive....I don't know if the closure templates are preserved or not. It would make sense to remove them when archiving though - collapsing discussions is a convenience for people trying to contribute to the current active talk page, not an attempt to bury the discussion permanently. Wikidemon (talk) 07:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Its official.Supreme Court tells obama to produce certificate of live birth by dec 1

No reliable source has treated this as a serious matter, and the discussion here violates WP:FORUM.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
this needs to be included. No. 08-570 http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm http://www.obamacrimes.com/ http://therightperspective.com/wordpress/?p=311 this is big and needs to be included. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.103.242 (talk • contribs) If it were (and I'm not saying it should), I think it would be more appropriate on the election article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC) WP:FRINGE. Tvoz/talk 08:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC) These are all clearly biased websites. CTJF83Talk 08:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC) I don't think anything calling itself "obamacrimes" can be considered a reliable source. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 08:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC) “I can see a unanimous Court (en banc) decertifying the election if Obama refuses to produce his birth certificate,” says attorney and writer Raymond S. Kraft. Can we all start laughing now? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 08:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Oh how I love wacky right wing crack pot theories. Can we say, "Sore losers!"? CTJF83Talk 08:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC) No, these aren't "sore losers" -- just, as you say, crackpots. Berg is particularly amusing. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 09:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Um, no. The Court did not order him to do anything by Dec 1, it just told him that if by some chance he plans to respond to this lawsuit, Dec 2 will be too late. If I were Obama I'd ignore the whole thing, and trust the Court to dismiss it sua sponte as frivolous. Preferably with sanctions. As near as I can tell from a brief wade through this swamp, there's nothing like a case to be made. It's all pure speculation, plus some arguments (such as the Indonesian-citizen claim) that don't even hold up under their own terms. And I say this as someone who'd do nearly anything to reverse last Tuesday's result. -- Zsero (talk) 09:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC) If there were anything to this story, Limbaugh would have been all over it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC) My God, the least that the original poster and the crappy blogs he or she got this stuff from could do is ask someone with a minimal amount of education in the law before trying to call this farce 'big.' I also have to disagree with the poster two spots up. No, the court isn't asking Obama to respond. December 1 is the due date for the court's response for certiorari. A writ of certiorari is a writ that must be filed for when one wishes to have his or her case appealed to the Supreme Court of any given state (to be technical, not all states call their highest court Supreme Court) or the U.S. Supreme Court. I'm not sure if this case started out in the state or federal system, but Berg is trying to appeal the lower court's ruling to the Supreme Court. Both of the lower courts ruled that Berg doesn't have standing to challenge Obama's citizenship. This is important because NO ISSUES OF SUBSTANCE HAVE BEEN RULED ON. The only thing at issue, at this point, is whether or not Berg has standing on this issue. He doesn't, he clearly doesn't, it's a point that is patently obvious to anyone who understands what 'standing' means. Berg's protected rights or interests are not at issue here and no, being a citizen doesn't mean one's rights or interests are at issue when challenging a presidential candidate's location of birth. The most conservative court in the history of this country, take nine judges who make Scalia look like a bleeding heart liberal, would not rule that Berg has standing. It's a basic issue that has been ruled on again and again and again (such a 'lawsuit' is in no way unique, in fact McCain had one filed against him this year as well). Every court has always ruled that such an individual doesn't have standing. End of story, case over, doesn't matter if you show me some documents or say 'but what about...' no standing, it's a non issue period. The only one who would have the right to bring this suit is John McCain. To return to an earlier point, the whole reason that I keep harping on the issue of standing, I repeat that the merits of the suit itself have never been heard. While there clearly is no merit to the claim, the point is Obama, or his attorney, haven't had to respond to anything. He hasn't be hauled into court yet. The court has to at least determine the base entry level issue of standing first. So no, the Dec. 1 date has absolutely nothing to do with Obama whatsoever. The court is due to give their response to the writ on Dec. 1. Just so you know, the U.S. Supreme Court receives thousands of writs of certiorari every year, and accepts very few. You don't have the right to have your case heard before the Supreme Court, you only have the right to have your case heard on the trial court and first appellate rung level. A Supreme Court gets to pick and choose which cases they want to hear, and as I just pointed out they are very selective especially with the federal Supreme Court. There is a NEAR CERTAINTY that the Supreme Court will deny this writ. It isn't a case that would interest them. They tend to stick to cases where there's some debate between jurisdictions or where an issue is particularly complex or where state courts or federal circuit courts deviate radically from binding precedents in a holding. This is not such a case. There is no debate between jurisdictions, the issue is incredibly simple and the circuit court gave a holding that every other court has held on this issue. The U.S. Supreme Court is far too busy to waste their time with a case this trivial. The point is that this so called lawsuit doesn't even reach the threshold of recentism, it's more like...well nothing at all. Not only is the original poster incredibly ignorant for calling this 'big,' it's not even little, it is absolutely nothing but an illustration of why our courts are clogged up and how much of our judicial resources get wasted on people who either have nothing better to do than file suit or lawyers who are too stupid to know what makes a valid suit. Berg might be either, I don't know. If he doesn't know that he doesn't have standing or that his case doesn't have merit then he is a colossal moron. Either way, let me sum up why all of this is irrelevant and nowhere near important enough to mention in the election article let alone Obama's bio: Berg hasn't even satisfied the standing issue to even begin the actual lawsuit process itself, the Supreme Court will not waste their time and on or before Dec. 1 they will deny the writ of certiorari and even if they did there is no doubt what way they will rule. The decision would be unanimous. Even if, somehow, all nine members of the court got drunk on the same day, forgot the law and decided to give Berg standing, Obama's attorney would file a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim which would be granted. The point is Berg will never get the merits of this case heard by anyone. This whole 'issue' is stupid. Don't make claims about legal issues and make a case out to be big if you aren't even educated enough to already know everything I said in my rant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlund (talk • contribs) 16:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Wow, that's a lot of words for a little subject. I have no idea what you're disagreeing with. The Court did give Obama until 1-Dec to respond; i.e. if for some reason he chooses to respond, that's when it has to be in by. What the nuts have misunderstood is that this doesn't mean he has to respond at all, and I'd be surprised if he did. There's absolutely no reason why he should, and it would only give the nuts credibility that they don't deserve. -- Zsero (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Sorry for the rant, but I'll keep this one shorter. Again, you are wrong. Obama is not even at issue yet, therefore there is nothing for him to respond to. The issue is standing. The lower courts held, as all courts have held for similar cases, that Berg can't even bring the suit at all regardless of merit. Obama hasn't been dragged into court, Obama's lawyer has not had to respond to anything. Basically the way it works is this: Berg tries to file suit, but in order for that suit to be heard by anyone, he has to meet a certain constitutional threshhold laid out in article III. To summarize, Berg, before a suit can even be filed and heard, has to sufficiently establish a claim which involves his legally protected interests, that there is a causal relationship between the injury and Obama's conduct and that there be some relief for the injury which the court could redress. Obama has not been served with anything. The claim has yet to even pass the very bare minimum to even exist as a valid suit. If you don't have legal standing, essentially there is no suit. So no, Obama does not have to respond to anything, he is not a party to this appeal. Read the docket again. The appellant is the Department of Justice represented by the Solicitor General. The DoJ is the appellant here, not Obama. The DoJ is not representing Obama. The DoJ is the appellant because Berg is essentially making a claim against the court itself, not for issuing a holding or ruling in favor of Obama, but for denying him access to the court, not allowing his claim to be heard at all. This process has nothing to do with a defendant whatsoever, there is no defendant, there is no suit, because for there to be a valid suit and a defendant being sued, there has to be someone with legal standing to bring a suit in the first place. Sure Obama's on the case heading, but don't let that fool you, he's not a party to this appeal. Why would he be asked to respond to an appeal to which he is not a party? Again the response date is solely about the Supreme Court responding to the writ of certiorari and has absolutely nothing to do with Obama whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.166.222.236 (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC) s/appellant/respondent/g. Berg is the petitioner, or appellant. The SG is the respondent. But Obama is the original defendant; I don't know, but I imagine that the SG is included in the "et al". In any case, if Obama were really concerned about this case it would make sense for him to respond by giving the Court an argument against granting cert. However since the suit is frivolous, he'd be stupid to dignify it with a response. I don't even think the SG should respond; let the Court deny it on its own (lack of) merits. -- Zsero (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC) Both change.gov and barackobama.com state he was born in Hawaii, USA.88.114.210.44 (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Well, of course they do. That doesn't prove it's true. I mean it almost certainly is, and there's no reason to suspect it isn't, but those sites would say it even if it weren't. -- Zsero (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC) If the Supreme Court made such demands on the President-elect? CNN hasn't mentioned it; it would've been Breaking News. In otherwords, don't include. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Uh, excuse my apparent naivete (not to mention that this comment is a bit WP:FORUMy), but wouldn't it be a moot point anyway?!? --Jaysweet (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC) No. There's definitely something fishy about that image and its provenance. I think there's a reasonable case that Obama is covering up something; I don't know what, but Occam's razor says it's a whole lot less spectacular than what these nuts think it is. I suspect it's something mildly embarrassing, but not even politically damaging, let alone legally. Another possibility is that he's not really covering anything up, he's just been messing with the nutcases' minds, to keep their attention away from his real flaws. -- Zsero (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC) The supreme court link shows application was denied, whatever that means. 88.114.210.44 (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC) It's their polite way of saying "buzz off, morons". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC) No, Berg's application for an injunction was denied. The cert petition is still in, and won't be denied until after 1-Dec. Because the defendant needs to be given time to respond, just in case he wants to, even though in this case everyone knows he won't. Once the deadline passes and no response from Obama is received, the Court will consider the petition, and deny it. -- Zsero (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC) I'm sorry, I just read the section heading because the discussion is too long. Is there really some question as to whether or not Barack Obama was born alive? --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC) No, it's just poorly worded. There is an argument (albeit small) that Obama was not actually born in Hawaii but in Kenya which would not make him a "natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States" (per Article II) of the US constitution. Even if born in Kenya, I think he could be a Citizen of the US but IF his mother had been over 18 years and remained her for the ten years (which she hadn't). He would be a naturalized citizen (aka California's Governator) and thus ineligible. Obama team's main argument in response has been that the plaintiff doesn't have the right to sue (since he is asking him to be disqualified and that the electors cannot vote for him), which is a procedural argument (but a legitimate one to avoid the real question). Obama has produced the short form certificate but I think they want the long form. John McCain interestingly enough, being born in the Panama Canal, was an issue too but the Senate passed a resolution saying "he's a citizen, let's forget this." It's dumb but procedurally the Court is doing its job. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC) They're not alleging he wasn't born alive, they're demanding that he produce his actual birth certificate (Certificate of Live Birth) to prove that he was born in Hawaii, and not, say, in Kenya or on the Moon. For a long time he produced nothing, and then he let his friends at the Annenberg Political Fact Check see a photoshopped image of an "extract". If he wanted to settle this, he could have authorised the Hawaii Dept of Health to release his full birth certificate to anyone who asked. But he didn't, which implies that he had some reason not to want people seeing it; either there's something he's covering up, or he just likes playing mind games with the paranoid types. This Berg guy is a real nut job, a troofer, and if something looks in the least suspicious he jumps to the most unlikely explanation he can think of. And he thinks he has standing to sue presidential candidates for ineligibility; the precedents say he doesn't. He's exactly the kind of person who's capable of thinking that when the Court set a deadline for any response Obama might like to make, it was actually ordering Obama to respond by that date. -- Zsero (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC) There are no reliable sources which characterize the short-form birth certificate provided to factcheck.org as "photoshopped". The only people who've claimed that it looked photoshopped are fringe Internet types. Hawaii state law says that the original birth certificate can be released only to people who have a "tangible interest" in the matter; however, the Hawaii Registrar of Vital Statistics and Department of Health Director have both viewed and verified the original, long-form birth certificate. [25] I think it more likely that he realizes that only a handful of people care about this birth certificate business, and he's too busy focusing on things like selecting a cabinet and solving the financial crisis to worry about satisfying the curiosity of a few bloggers. More important, this discussion is not likely to affect the article, since no reliable source is treating this matter seriously. I'm going to close the discussion, per WP:FORUM. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

President

Shouldn't the saying that a Luo could become president of the US before Kenya be included? see BBC News 70.55.84.27 (talk) 11:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama is not a Luo - his father was, but the designation is not "passed on" to children unless they live in region and speak a language of the Luo. The President-elect was not born there, never lived there, and is not (and has never been) part of their society. That being said, I know the Luo people are enormously proud that one of their descendants (as it were) will become POTUS. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

44th President-elect

The infobox is inaccurate. While Obama will be the 44th President of the U.S., he will not be the 44th President-elect. Gerald Ford, Andrew Johnson and Chester Arthur were never a President-elect. Also, LBJ was already president when he was first elected, so he was not president-elect either. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This is true. On the other hand a quick Google brings up numerous references to him being the 44th president-elect. Being English I've no idea whether this is the normal convention or not, i.e. to use his "presidential" number regardless of how many presidents-elect there have actually been. If in doubt perhaps the number should be removed until he is sworn in. MFlet1 (talk) 13:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep. That's what I did. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Correct move. John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester Arthur & Gerald Ford were never President-elect. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue is dependent on whether you read (44th president)-elect or 44th (president-elect). The former is true; the latter is not.--Appraiser (talk) 17:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You're onto it. He is the "44th President"-elect. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It should just be President-elect. Something could happen where Cheney becomes the 44th, then Obama the 45th. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 18:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

We're sticking with President-elect (and Vice President-elect at Biden page); so it's a moot point. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Religion!

United Church of Christ is not a religious belief! It is a church, it would be more suitable if change to Protestant Christian (UCC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.14.77 (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It's customary to use that slot for denomination. McCain, for example, has Southern Baptist; and Dubya has United Methodist. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Barry Soetoro

I have read several articles referencing the name "Barry Soetoro" as one that belonged to Mr Obama. Should that name redirect here? I would just create the page but I have noticed that it has been deleted several times. Can anyone provide reason for why it was deleted? Plhofmei (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe because no reliable source has anything about it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I personally conside We The People Foundation to be a reliable source Plhofmei (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Good for you. Does Rush Limbaugh use them as a source? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

They are an anti-government website and political group. They have a page here too: We the People Foundation. They seem to have a highly pejorative perspective, it would seem to violate WP:NPOV to use them as a sole source. The group's main focus is trying to convince the US government to stop collecting income taxes. This firmly puts them into the fringe status. VictorC (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. It's obvious they are not a reliable source for anything other than laughter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Barry Soetoro seems like a straightforward enough redirect to this article. His childhood use of this name is discussed in the body. While I doubt anyone would be seeking that name first, a redirect is cheap and harmless. LotLE×talk 20:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence in the article that he ever went by this name. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

First actions proposed as president

It is notable to mention Obama's first proposals to act, stopping oil drilling and stem cell research, both executive orders by Bush. The oil drilling is notable because Obama was against it, then for it (probably to gain votes), then has gone back to his original stance. This might be noted in his political positions. These are fact, reported in Yahoo News, and are not anti-Obama. 74.174.46.41 (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you cite any reliable sources for that? 'Cause I thought he was going to outlaw all guns and cede Alaska to the Ruskies first. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No, those are all speculation. Until it's a done deal WP can't include them, even if there are RS speculating on what he might do. It's kind of like "who might he appoint to the Supreme Court." Until it happens, it is a Crystal Ball.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not the news. Attempting to incorporate material like this will lead to an extremely unstable article. Unless the permanent importance of something is immediately obvious (such as winning the election), it's better to let the dust settle before adding material to the article. looie496 (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It can probably be sourced, and stated neutrally, that Obama [or certain aides] stated on xxxx that his first act as President will be to reverse 200(?) executive orders enacted in the previous administration, including X, Y, and Z. Technically that is not a WP:CRYSTAL because it goes to stated intentions rather than future acts, and it is not a NEWS issue because it is a significant act with long-lasting results. However, the stability argument is interesting. Once he takes office and (presumably) makes good on the statement, the fact that he broadcast it in advance will be moot so the article will have to be edited so as to come current. Wikidemon (talk) 17:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Miscellaneous new content

Nancy Reagan comment

This new section,[26] though seemingly true, neutral, and sourced, is a bit of a weight problem. It's already been reverted. From what I can tell a careless offhand comment about Nancy Reagan is just the news of the day, and not even very prominent in the daily news cycle. So my 2 cents is that it's too trivial by far to mention in this article. Wikidemon (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, to give this little story any attention would make us look more like a blog than an encyclopedia. It is a good example of undue weight. Sunray (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I agree too. Tvoz/talk 22:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Secret service code name

I personally think that his secret service codname, "renegade",[27] is also too unimportant for his bio. It would make a nice addition to an article about secret service code names, if there is one.Wikidemon (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama and race

I am creating this thread in response to the recent dispute on WP:ANI. Please not prematurely archive it.

Currently the article page says that Obama is an African American. There has been an objection raised that Obama is in-fact biracial or multiracial. The purpose of this discussion is to determine a workable solution to the conflict. Some notes:

• There are citations in the reference section that support that Obama is:Black, African American, biracial, and multi-racial.
• Term African American can refer to persons of predominately or only partially African slave descended: "in the United States, the term is generally used for Americans with at least partial Sub-Saharan African ancestry.
• comment on the edits, not the editors
• Breaches of civility are unacceptable.
• Please don't appeal to previous discussions or previous consensus, try to find one that works now.

Figure it out.--Tznkai (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Insanity is generally defined as trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. We're all "mutts" of some form or another, but the majority of sources describe Obama simply as African-American. This is what the consensus opinion of editors around here have come to, and while consensus can change, it certainly does not appear to be doing so on this topic. The only real "workable solution" here is for you to come to terms with the fact that your point of view here is in the minority. Tarc (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I am open to pretty much anything that incorporates bi-racial into the lead. I still do have a problem with the neutrality of the lead section. My proposal remains stating he is b-racial and that he is largely considered the first African American president, or just add bi-racial and leave out "largely considered" because more sources refer to him as African American than anything else. I feel that adding bi-racial would stop most of the complaints and fail to see how that would harm anything. Dozens of sources can be found as a reference. Landon1980 (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly reject the entire premise of this thread. There comes a point when these continuous discussions become disruptive because they will never achieve anything useful while preventing discussions on more useful topics. The preponderance of reliable sources, numbering in the tens of thousands now, refer to Barack Obama as "African America," so there is no need to change the line in the intro to anything else. This will not change no matter how many times we talk about it. Nor will the requirement in WP:BLP that we use only the most trusted and reliable sources. There is literally no point in dragging this on any further. And may I point out that when this thread reaches its inevitable conclusion -- that the line should not be changed -- it will eventually be archived ... and then someone else will start a new thread on the same topic again. --GoodDamon 19:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Whatever disruption there is in having multiple discussions they pale in comparison to the disruption seen on ANI. One of you could try something creative by the way and cut the Gordian knot by offering a compromise or simply treating your fellow editors with respect, instead of the escalating tendentiousness--Tznkai (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no reasonable way to compromise on this. WP:BLP is set-in-stone policy, and it requires us to use proper weighting and reliable sources. Asking for compromise on this is like asking for compromise between one person saying 2+2=4 and one person saying 2+2=5. There is no compromise; one is performing addition correctly, and one is not. Whatever is happening at ANI is moot. --GoodDamon 19:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It certainly isn't moot, and that is a very negative approach to take. Figure this out, please, and consider that the "other side" might actually have some valid points to make. Hear them out! AGK 20:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Obama is African-American, and he is also biracial. He is also from Hawaii, of English descent, a Chicago resident, and any of many dozens of other facts about his background, race, ethnicity, ancestry, etc. We have room for some of them in the bio article, but not for everything. Because this is a biography we try to include the most important, relevant, telling facts, and where that is not clear we can look to reliable secondary sources for an indication of how much weight the world outside of Wikipedia gives to things. It might matter a great deal to some people, for example, that he is left handed, or a basketball player. But not to others. These things get mentioned sometimes by the press so they might be worth a passing mention in the article. In many of these cases he is the first - the first President-elect to be born outside of the continental United States. Probably the first left-handed basketball playing president elect too. A substantial number of sources say he is biracial, but they are a tiny minority compared to the sources that point out he is African-American. From this it is fair to deduce that the most salient first is that he is the first African American president-elect. That is what gets the most coverage, not that he is biracial. That could change, and perhaps it should, as America becomes more aware of and comfortable with the fact that so many people are multi-ethnic. But it's not really our place to jump out ahead of where the rest of the world is as far as awareness of social issues. We're a compendium of existing knowledge and thought, not an agent for changing it. So given the world as it stands, we should definitely mention near the top of the lead that he is the first African American president elect, but be judicious on other ethnic designations or other firsts. It is already clear from the article that he has a black father and a white mother. There is nothing wrong with a statement that this makes him biracial. That statement could go somewhere in the lead where it is not his primary ethnic identification (because it is not, in people's eyes), or else somewhere in the body of the article. (btw, I sympathize with GoodDamon, above - I have participated in this discussion a few dozen times already, and don't think this will be the last one either) Wikidemon (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Any chance you could give a concrete example of the biracial identifier in addition to the African American sentence?--Tznkai (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

(inserted out of sequence). Sure. Ignoring the timing issue, and taking a very rough stab at the language we could say somewhere in the lead "Obama is the first African American president of the United States.... the son of a white (European-American?) American-born mother and a black (or mention tribe or ethnicity) father from Kenya, Obama is considered [[biracial]]". Or we could condense it and play around with it - "The son of a Kenyan father and a white American mother, Obama is generally considered the first African American president". This would all take a bit of work to get right without offending any sensibilities, but I think we can accurately describe his background while also accurately conveying that the big deal for most people is that he's the first ever African-American president. Wikidemon (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I keep getting edit conflicted. The thing is just in the last month over a 100+ editors have expressed concerns about this. The bot wipes out the thread and it's always different people being compared against same frequent editors and you all claim consensus based on this short period. How would adding bi-racial to the lead sentence be harful if you leave African American? Having the elad say "He is of a bi-racial background and is the first African American president." That lead could be cited with hundreds of sources. Landon1980 (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is important to distinguish "African-American" from "black". Many of the objectors to the existing terminology object on the basis that Obama is multiracial; not "white" or "black", but "white" and "black". While true, this is actually nothing to do with him being an "African-American", which means something slightly different. Most (though not all) of the gazillions of reliable sources that write about the "historic" aspect of Obama's achievement are referring to his "African-Americanism", rather than his skin color. I believe this subtle difference is a uniquely American thing borne out of the civil rights struggles in the 20th century. There have been lots of "black" presidents in world history, but there has never been an "African-American" president. With this in mind, the current terminology - describing him as "African-American" - is correct. Descriptions concerning his ethnicity and/or skin color are actually a separate issue that may or may not need addressing. That's how I see it, anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec, response to Landon1980) There is no harm per se, and it might do some good for the world. But it does not match the sources. The vast majority of news articles call him African-American and do not call him biracial. In particular, the sources that say he is the "first" nearly all do that with respect to his being African-American, not being biracial, or the first person of color, the first person from Hawaii, the first born in the 1960s, etc. If we gave equal prominence to the fact of his being biracial we are making a statement that it is equally notable, which just isn't the case. We would stick out next to the other sources in the world, and readers would (correctly perhaps) assume we have a nonstandard POV and are promoting some kind of agenda.Wikidemon (talk)

I'm not suggesting African American be removed; Im suggesting that bi-racial be incorporated into the lead sentence. I think that would solve everything, I spent hours last night looking back through the talk history and him being b-racial is what most say, not that he isn't African American. He is without a doubt African American, he is certainly white too. Would bi-racial be harmful to the lead? If yes how? Landon1980 (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Harmful to Wikipedia but good for the world. Each in a small measure, which is why I can't get as excited about this question as some other people. It would favor the POV that his being a biracial president is just as groundbreaking and important as his being an African American president. That's a good POV to have, and the world would be better off if people had a more subtle appreciation for race, but it does not align with the majority of what people actually think, as evidenced by the weight of the sources. So as I said it would make it look like we have an agenda. People would think us quirky, and give the article less credence as a result.Wikidemon (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment There is something to be said for allowing this discussion. Consensus can change and it is always worth allowing newer users to see how the wiki-discussion process works. What I would personally like to bring to the discussion is the principle of verifiability. That is to say, we include information in Wikipedia, not because we believe (or want) it to be true, but because it has been published by reliable sources, which readers can verify for themselves. In the case of Obama's ethnic background, I suspect that a quick straw poll of available sources would produce fairly strong support for one viewpoint, although worded differently depending on origin: most US sources will refer to him as African American, and most sources from outside the US, as black. Since he's a US citizen, then, it seems that "African American" is the best term to use. Since this is his biography, of course, we can document his parents' ethnic backgrounds too, and readers come to their own conclusions about his ethnicity. What we must not do, in my opinion, is engage in original research, that is, using unpublished information that we personally know - perhaps in combination with a quick look at a dictionary and a bit of logical deduction - to arrive at a different conclusion to our sources. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There are dozens of reliable sources that say he is bi-racial. Again, I have to keep saying this over and over. I'm not suggesting African American be removed, I'm asking for bi-racial to be incorporated into the lead. Dozens say bi-racial and hundreds upon hundreds say he is from a white mother and black father, bi-racial is not OR it's a fact. Landon1980 (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

And there are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of reliable sources that say he is African American. I know you're not saying African American should be removed, but please consider how much weight we should give each description. --GoodDamon 19:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there are plenty of sources documenting his heritage. But when talking about what should go into the first sentence, we are by definition looking for the most succinct, brief, terse, accurate summary of the man - according, of course, to the sources. In other words, we're looking for good headline material. Now, I've never seen a headline saying he was multi-racial, or bi-racial, or of mixed descent. The only headlines I've seen that mention his ethnicity describe his as black or African American. I appreciate that for Landon1980, this aspect of Obama is very important, but for the majority of sources, it simply doesn't seem to be. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking through past discussions on this, and it seems like this one is heading down the same road. No one is questioning the sources that say Obama is bi-racial. He even joked about it himself the other day with the "mutt" comment. The issue here is what do the majority of sources, popular media and reporting outlets and so on refer to him as? "The first African-American such-and-such..." has been talked to death by the media, and thus is what he is most recognized as being. As much as it is a fact that he is bi-racial, it just doesn't cut very far into the general Obama chatter. Tarc (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes it has, and it is in the lead sentence. Bi-racial is a verifiable fact and if would stop all this drama why not. Not a single policy prohibits bi-racialbeing incorporated into the lead, not the first one. If this is settled it would be beneficial to the project. As of now hundreds of people are complaining. Landon1980 (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Reject -- Verifiability, not "truth". The overwhelmingly vast majority of RS's say simply that he is African American. The press appears to be applying the label correctly (from the perspective of the US Government), see here: African_American#Who_is_African_American.3F. We accurately describe Obama's heritage and parents in the appropriate section -- it is inappropriate to try to discuss "how african american is he?" in the lead per WP:BLP. If reliable sources shift to generally calling him bi-racial, then we can revisit this. --guyzero | talk 20:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this going anywhere, an RFC is more appropriate. This will be closed prematurely, cut out by the bot. A staggering number of people have suggested bi-racial be incorporated somehow. Bi-racial is a very important aspect of Obama. All you need is one reliable source and there are hundreds. It is a very small addition and takes up hardly no room at all, it does not pick sides it is very neutral, as it should be. If all the editors that did a drive by comment regarding thios were copmpared against the regulars consenses would likely be different. Landon1980 (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not the size of the addition ("very small") that matters, but the weight. Reliable sources agree that the "African-American" aspect is vastly more significant than the bi-racial aspect. Even the "very small" mention you seek would elevate its importance beyond what can be considered reasonable. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you or someone else please clarify your position on the undue weight problem? That is, is it a mention anywhere in the article, anwhere in the lead, or in the same sentence as "African American" that causes the weight problem?--Tznkai (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. Relatively speaking, few reliable sources give prominence to Obama's bi-racial status. In contrast, an enormous number discuss the significance of him being an African-American. As such, it would seem that directly mentioning the bi-racial aspect in the lead (whether or not it is in conjunction with "African-American") would give it undue weight. The bi-racial component can already be inferred from the information about Obama's parents in the body of the article, and I believe this already ascribes appropriate weight to this aspect. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Reject as not fitting the sources, there would need to be a tremendous stress on his bi-racialism outside of wikipedia to even consider this. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If I have time today I'll gather all the names of editors that have had concerns about this just to get an idea of where consensus is. No one has exactly pointed out how incorporating the small word bi-racial into the lead would be harmful, it is verifiable has nothing to do with the truth. It only takes one source for something to be added. Addind the word bi-racial would benefit the article in the long run because it would help everyone move forward and stop some of the complaints. African American would still be dominant in the lead and be given due weight. I realize that more sorces support AA and that's why it doesn't say first bi-racial president. Landon1980 (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

When determining consensus, it is necessary to consider not just the number of editors supporting any particular position, but also the strength of their arguments in relation to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Having said that, this discussion seems to have gone the way of many others, in that it seems to be resolving into a disagreement about what constitutes due weight for a particular viewpoint. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

(EC) There are tons of sources, verifiable and reliable, that talk about Obama being bi-racial. There are many, many more that talk about him as either "black" or "african american". The problem with much of the discussion above is that people don't seem to recognize that the terms are not mutually exclusive. Having said that, I don't have a big problem with the article as it is now, but I wouldn't mind seeing the fact (from reliable, verifiable sources) that he is bi-racial mentioned in the lead. This could be done in numerous ways and, quite honestly, I don't see the big deal as long as we don't succumb to the odd contingent of people who want to delete "african american" all together.LedRush (talk) 20:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, African American most certainly does not need removed for tons of reasons. Landon1980 (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I would totally agree with he being mentioned as bi-racial in the lead. It's clear, the truth, and non-biased as you can get. In addition, LedRush is correct there are so many reliable sources that state bi-racial it would not be a problem. There is clear favortism to just calling him African American which is wrong it would be no different than only wanting Tiger Woods, Halle Berry, Alicia Keys, Ne-yo, and so many others only African American when they are not.Mcelite (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the lead could say something like "Although Obama is from a multiracial background, the majority of press coverage describes him as African-American." Maybe? I've watched this debate from the sidelines and I hope there can be some agreement. LovesMacs (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like original research, LovesMacs, and definitely should not be included. I strongly disagree that calling him bi-racial in the lead is NPOV, I would describe it as strongly POV. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe saying that the media refers to him as "african american" is original reserch. It can be well cited as well. However, my problem with the above formulation is that it implies that he's not african american, but that the media calls him that. He clearly is african american, just as clearly as he is bi-racial. As I said above, the terms aren't mutually exclusive.LedRush (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my concern as well: how could you prove that the majority of press coverage describes him that way? You couldn't. Oh well. I tried. I don't have strong feelings about the issue anyway. LovesMacs (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If you can get a source that the majority of the media we can include that but nowhere near the opening. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I would leave the beginning of the lead alone, and add something like this in the later section (most of this already appears):

"On February 10, 2007, he announced his candidacy for President of the United States, and on June 3, 2008, he was named the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party after a 17-month-long primary campaign, becoming the first bi-racial candidate nominated for the presidency from a major political party."

We could also do it in the president-elect stage, saying

"On November 4, 2008, Barack Obama defeated John McCain and became the first African American, and the first bi-racial candidate, to be elected President of the United States."LedRush (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

As long as we can source that he is considered bi-racial then including this in the bulk of the article is perfectly acceptable. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That is why I said not to say "considered African American" by the press because he is African American, and he is white, and he is bi-racial. Obama being bi-racial has gotten tons and tons of media coverage, they may call him the first African American President, but at the same time most of the same sources have referred to him as bi-racial. The lead sentence should be "with a bi-racial background he is the first African American Presiedent" or something similar. That sentence is as unbiased as you could possibly get, it doesn't pick sides, it is verifiable, and would very likely stop a lot of the fuss about the race issue. Landon1980 (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Where is this "tons and tons of media coverage"? --guyzero | talk 21:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I totally dig that you are looking for a compromise, but the problem with this idea is that very few (in comparison) sources refer to him as "bi-racial" anything. AA is 100% accurate and the term used by the vast majority (99%+) of reliable sources to describe him, his nomination and candidacy, his president-elect status, etc. His heritage is accurately described in the Early Life section. --guyzero | talk 21:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Well here are 10 pages of them, and hundreds more describe him as having an African father and a white American mother. Landon1980 (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Landon1980 says: "he is African American, and he is white, and he is bi-racial."

Do you have any reliable sources that refer to him as "white"? You have stated this several times, so I am curious. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the kind of comment that bothers me. Are you suggesting that African blood cancels out white? I can give you few hundred sources that say he was born to a white woman if you'd like. Half African makes him African, half black makes him black, but white is cancelled out by everything I guess. It is obviously the weakest blood there is. The man is 50% white, I could give you a genetics lesson that would even further strengthen my point. Landon1980 (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have a problem, then let me help out and restate what Scjessy asked. While there are lots of RS that says he's half white, please list a couple RS that calls him something completely other then African American and Bi-Racial. Brothejr (talk) 21:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The one drop theory does precisely do what you say, Landon, one drop of black blood makes for not being white whereas one drop of white blood certainyl does not make for not being black. If you have issues with this and thinkl it is wrong you need to go to a forum or start a blog etc, but we at wikipedia need to concentrate on building an article based on reliable sources. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, provide a reliable source backing your theory please. It is a shame that it is ok for you to say that to me. I'm going to try and ignore you so just drop it please. Landon1980 (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

We cover this at One-drop rule, its not something I agree with but it does still apply in practice in any ways. I doubt if there are many truly African heritage people living in the US or Latin America/the Caribbean but people will a significant African heritage are still called black. My wiofe has white ancestors but nobody would call her white. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Problems with "bi-racial"

While I am also sympathetic politically with the "bi-racial" label, it really isn't workable to include in this article. The main issue, as many editors have mentioned, is that we need to rely on what the bulk of reliable sources say. Yes, hundred of sources have mentioned "bi-racial", but hundreds of thousands of sources mention "African American".

As well, "bi-racial" is too slippery. How many races are there exactly? Why does Obama have two of them, but not three or seven of them? For example, there is a semi-verifiable claim about him having Native American ancestors. Would he then be tri-racial. Or there is what might be just rumor, but might be true, of Arab ancestors also. Quad-racial?! Is Arab a "race"? As with anyone, if you dig a bit deeper into genealogy, you'll find other groups too, after all. Just about anyone alive now has some Mongols in their "heritage", for example (big empire, that). Are all Europeans one "race" (they certainly weren't so 150 years ago)? Are all Africans so? Too much of a quagmire here. LotLE×talk 21:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Solving that would be as simple as explaining briefly how he is bi-racial. Landon1980 (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

What part of "born ... to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a Luo from Nyang’oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya, and Ann Dunham, a white American from Wichita, Kansas" doesn't indicate bi-racial?? Grsz^{11 →Review!} 21:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Plus it is covered in the early life section and child article.Brothejr (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

A related matter which I find even more interesting is that Obama's father was not an American citizen. I have a hunch that Obama may not be the first President of whom that was true, but it has definitely been a very long while since we had one with a non-American parent. Of course, how much significant I assign to that (relative) novelty doesn't count for anything in this article. That said, we do and should mention that his non-American parent happened to be Kenyan (and that his American parent happened to be European/white-American). LotLE×talk 21:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand. Also, Obama is known as of having two because it is a well known fact that he had a white mother and a black father. We are all most likely mixed up somewhere down the lines, but his mother identified as white and father as African. Landon1980 (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) One thing that has been completely and purposely ignored by those pushing for bi-racial is what Obama thinks of himself. While he has acknowledged his bi-racial background and has occasionally joked at being a mutt, for the majority of his life (with millions of RS backing it up) he has considered himself African American. Let me say that again, he self identifies as African American. Wikipedia is not in the business to purposely go out and identify someone other then what they themselves identify as, as long as it is verifiable and accurate. Calling him African American is accurate and in line with what Barack Obama thinks of himself. If you doubt that, then read some of his books and read the millions of RS that cover him as African American. Plus also, we must consider that this is only about the lead. While the term African American is used in the lead, his bi-racial background is fully covered both in the early life section and the child article. So it would be in line with WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and just about any other policy to use the term Obama self identifies as (I.E. African American) in the lead. Brothejr (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Preach on, Brothejr man. --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

To be incredibly snarky for a moment, George Washington was the first president not to be born of an American citizen.--Tznkai (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Wilson's mother was Scottish, though I would assume she eventually was a US citizen. And there was the argument that Chester A. Arthur was born in Canada. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 21:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this is any consolation here but over at Roman Catholic Church article, we had a long drawn out argument just like this one over the use of the word "official" in the lead sentence (conversation recently archived). We finally solved it by holding a vote between two different sentences and it revealed overwhelming consensus for one sentence over the other. NancyHeise ^talk 21:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• To describe President Elect Obama, as "African American" is misleading, as we understand the phrase to be. He is half black and half white.

To be more specific he is black African/White American. That is not the term I or most others (?) would understand from the term "African American" for his mother was white Irish English. He is an American of both black and white descent ?

(These terms are used to polarize the issues...we have the same problem in Canada...)

So we need a better term, we are generalizing by calling him what we are.

This is an important distinction, because already we have some who are calling him a 'Black President'...

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources that say "African American" or "black" are misleading terms? If not, it's going to be difficult to justify changing the article content based on that assertion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

So nice to see that consensus is once again going to be decided in a coiple hour time frame, discussion closed and a prohibited topic of discussion. The dozens upon dozens, and hundred s a month of editors can be sent to the FAQ's as always. Landon1980 (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Who says the discussion's gong to be closed quickly, other than you? Why not just try to discuss it constructively, with reference to wikipedia policies and guidelines? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The best predictor of the future is the past. The vote below supports everyone picking African American, of course they will pick that out of anything else. Leaving consensus as is will solve absolutely nothing. The fact is that this is a major issue that should be addresses properly. Speaking of policy, does a policy prohibit what I have proposed. I don't see why no one on this side of things are willing to budge. According to NPOV neutral ground should be found, especially something as sensitive as race. Saying he comes from a bi-racial background says only that. My proposal clearly calls him African American in the very first sentence. Due weight is being given to AA but not bi-racial. I can't find anywhere that says if a 1000 sources say African American and only 500 say bi-racial that bi-racial must be excluded. Hundreds upon hundreds of sources say he is half and half. It is not neutral to exclude bi-racial from the lead and a lot of people are offended by it. Landon1980 (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll

Nancy brings up an excellent suggestion. Yes, we all know that voting is evil, and is not a substitute for discussion, but endless discussion is getting us no where. So let's see what everyone thinks:

What words should be used to describe Obama's ethnicity in the lead sentences?

(If you vote for more than one, please indicate which is your first choice, second, etc.

African-American

1. Definitely. Every time I have seen Obama's ethnic background mentioned in the news, he has been referred to as African-American at least once, and he himself refers to himself as African American. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
2. Definitely per overwhelming number of RS who label him as AA. --guyzero | talk 22:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
3. As I've said above, this and "black" - the two non-mixed-race options - are used by the majority of sources. Some sources go into more detail about ethnicity - and so can we - but this is what reliable sources choose to use for headline material. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
4. My evil deed of the day. AA, until "mutt" gets more traction. --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
5. “I’m here because somebody marched. I’m here because you all sacrificed for me. I stand on the shoulders of giants.” — Barack Obama, 2007 Selma Voting Rights March Commemoration. It is quite clear that the man self-identifies primarily as African-American or black, and the preponderance of reliable sources follow suit. This really seems like much ado about nothing. Tarc (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
6. I'm going with African American baised on what I said below and in the past. He self identifies as African American. Brothejr (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
7. Whatever I might personally feel about how we ought to describe ethnicities, the overwhelming majority of reliable source use AA, and only a small fraction use other terms. LotLE×talk 22:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
8. African American, of course. I don't even think this is an issue really, but some people are trying to make it into one. MFlet1 (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
9. I'm irate that it's come to this. This is pathetic. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 23:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
10. Ah, semantics. If I practice a naive form of semantics, and only parse the term as the mere compound of two words, I might say Obama is more of an "African-American" than most people who self-identify that way, since he actually is only one generation removed from a real honest-to-gosh African. However, when the term was coined, African-American was mostly meant to denote a distinct cultural/ethnic group descended from American slaves, which does not really describe Obama's heritage. But then, as phrases do, it evolved. But wait -- today, I think "African-American" is clearly meant to describe any American whom most people would consider to be "black", and for unfortunate and despicable historical reasons, the vast majority of people would consider Obama to be "black". Hence, in a very messy roundabout way, it winds up being an accurate term, at least in the way most people understand it. Hmmm, maybe someday, my children's children's children will find this entire discussion rather quaint and puzzling. One can only hope... --Jaysweet (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
11. Yes, but lose the hyphen please. There was a discussion about that too. I'm not terribly averse to a more prominent mention that he is biracial, but want to make sure that his main "first" and his primary racial/ethnic identity, based on his self-identification and the sources as they exist today, is AA. That could all change in a few years. Wikidemon (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
12. Absolutely, defined as such by self and other, self evident from African American. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
13. Yes. In the lead, go with what the predominant sources say. The body of the article explains his ethnic background in full detail. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
14. Absolutely. This is the most common term used, this is the term used by the man himself and the use of the term is consistent with the use of other "Fooian American" terms (e.g. "Irish Americans" who have only a small portion of Irish ancestry). And crucially this is also the term used for the first senator, the first governor, the first Vice Presidential candidate and the first person to be invited to dine at the White House from this grouping when they all had white ancestry. "African American" is not a scientific biological term, it is a cultural term describing a group of people with various social, cultural, historical and physical characteristics in common. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
15. Although technically bi-racial, virtually every source cites him as "African-american" or "Black". Bearian (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
16. Of course. This is the only term that is used overwhelmingly in sources and the media to describe him. When he was elected, the Chicago Tribune and New York Times, to name a couple prominent ones, hailed him as the first black or African-American president-elect.[28][29]. That is what we must go on, not "The Truth". Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
17. Definitely. The lead should remain as it is. As I alluded to earlier, most reliable sources refer to the historical significance of an African American becoming POTUS, rather than anything else. Black presidents are common around the world, but there has never been an African American president before. The multi-racial aspect receives plenty of attention in the body of the article, and in child articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
18. Absolutely. This is beginning to look like overwhelming consensus. --GoodDamon 00:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

African-American, but adhere to WP:ASF

1. WP:ASF, for the n-th time now. Yes yes, keep African American as the most widely used term, but don't assert it as fact. As to anything else, I'm largely indifferent. See here for how it should be done.Everyme 22:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Other/some combination of various terms (please explain)

1. Obviously He is obviously african american. He is obviously bi-racial. Hundreds of thousands sources back both statements (admittedly many more for the former) and there is no reason that Wiipedia shouldn't make an article as accurate as possible, while avoiding misleading statements. The language could be clear, short, simple, and non-controversial and would end this discussion forever.LedRush (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
2. I vote for African-American instead of Black-American. Black was the term coined by White-Americans to group all people taken from Africa as slaves despite them sharing many different ethnicities. Barack Obama on the other hand lays claim to a specific African ancestry (the Luo of Kenya). That being said, I think African-American is more accurate. The term African-American is also applied to Black-Americans, the group with which Obama seems to identify with most (look who he married). As far as him being bi-racial, that should definately be mentioned (but maybe not in the lead since he is not the first bi-racial president).
3. The current introduction is fine, but I don't think it would hurt to mention in passing Obama's mixed heritage (not the best way to put it but that's all I can think of right now). Like LedRush, I don't see multiracial and African American as being mutually exclusive. The first description I think of when thinking of Obama in racial terms is African-American, even though I know that is a simplification. In one sense, all racial labels are simplifications. Perhaps the first paragraph could say something like "The ethnically diverse Obama is the first African American to be elected President of the United States." That may be putting too much emphasis on Obama as multiracial; I don't know. I don't have very strong feelings on how Obama should be described, and I just wish the arguing would stop. LovesMacs (talk) 10:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
4. this straw-poll is silly. It's a non-issue. Obama self-identifies as African-American, hence he is an African American. Obama also has a black father and a white mother, hence he de facto is of bi-racial ancestry. Mention both facts and be done. Background info: Multiracial_American#African_Americans. For the lead, it is enough to state he is the first non-white president, which is what is truly notable here. Bickering over which shade of color we are looking at can go to the article body. Of course, in time, we will have a full-blown Barack Obama and race article. --dab (𒁳) 15:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

More discussion

Hopefully, this will get us somewhere, because looking at the entire discussion, I honestly do not know what the opinions of several users are. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I share your thoughts, but I would like to leave no possible doubts. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The question should be who objects to a more neutral sentence such as "from a bi-racial background he is the first African American president." Not one single policy prohibits that, this discussion is brought up on a daily basis. Leaving it as is solves nothing. The issue was raised in 20 different threads this week alone. African American is given due weight, but so should bi-racial, hundreds of sources verify it. Landon1980 (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the question being debated is exactly what I wrote. This is not a binding poll. The impression I am getting is that you are largely the only person who objects to the current wording. But I was not sure, which is why I created the poll. You are welcome to add your vote or not; as I said, this poll is not binding. It is merely to try to objectively gauge who has which opinion. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If you are under the impression that I'm the only person that thinks bi-racial should be added then you should take the time to look through the history. The issue was raised in more than 20 threads in five days alone. The first time I addressed the issue was yesterday. Depending on how far you wish to go back I can flood the page with hundreds of people who think the lead should and could while still conforming to policies be more neutral. Landon1980 (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It isn't an issue to you, go back through the history, hundreds of people have said different. Leaving it as is solves nothing, multiple threads will be started weekly. Everyone is conveniently ignoring that he could be called African American in the lead while at the same time saying he comes from a bi-racial background. Landon1980 (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Ethnically diverse African-American. That sounds pretty good to me. In reality though, he's probably a "black American", or "African American". However, that's only because "we" make reality. Not logic, not reason, not science, but people. Unfortunately, even though black+white=black doesn't make sense mathematically, a universal biased notion of race is present in not just our culture, but humanity as a whole, that can't be overcome just yet. Perhaps once enlightenment has taken full effect on humanity, we can update the article appropriately, until then, +1 for African American. Digital^Ninja 23:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

don't be boxed in to believing the terms are mutually exclusive. Race is a fuzzy concept to begin with, and people with mixed backgrounds are even fuzzier. Falling into the trap of believing the terms are exclusive is inventing clarity where it doesn't exist.LedRush (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please tell me the down side to using a combination of terms?

Please don't rely on the common Wikipedia fallacy of selective google hits (surely there are many, many more hits for Obama as an african american, but there are hundreds of thousands of hits for (Obama and "white mother"....not just hundreds for one way to phrase the term)). I feel that this argument is important, but it doesn't even come close to outweighing the other factors (accuracy, not misleading, the role of an encyclopdia) so I am wondering about other reasons that a short, non-controversial, and accurate use of "bi-racial" can't be used with a more prominent use of "african american".LedRush (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)#

One potential problem

TIME magazine: Is Obama black enough?

It seems that attempts to use Obama's racial heritage against him are not new. (This article is from 2007). Wikipedia is not a battleground but it seems that this issue may be one on which multiple editors do feel the need to battle. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Note the "Obama is biracial" in the article. What exactly are the negative effects of using a combination of terms with African American as the dominant one? If soemthing doesn't change the issue will only be raised again and again and again. Landon1980 (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the "battle" concept. Before the election people would try to argue that he wasn't african american as a way of attacking him, but no one is suggesting that here. People are suggesting that accuracy and truth, when properly cited by hundreds of thousands of sources, is better than a misleading truth which leaves out some of the story. Quite honestly, I haven't heard one good argument against a combination of terms...I feel it's a hold over from the pre-election attacks on this article. But, there could be something I'm missing...LedRush (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a question of positivity or negativity. Please stop arguing against points that no one is making, and please don't make assertions that you'll just keep trying til you get your way (i.e. "the issue will only be raised again and again "). It is a question of what Obama is commonly referred to as; a "bi-racial African-American president" or simply an "African-American president". I believe the evidence lies squarely on the latter. Tarc (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you've become so hostile, but just above SheffieldSteel cited the WP is not a Battlegroud idea. I responded and asked if someone could make an argument for non-inclusion (the only I've seen is unconvincing to me and based on a false premise, IMHO). I suggested that perhaps the opinion is a hold over from when people would attack Obama by arguing he wasn't black (a stupid argument that rightly lost). I don't know why you've ignored the substance of my statements, misstated what I said, and then attacking a straw man with vitriol. I hope you can calm down and try to engage in this discussion constructively.LedRush (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, I am anything but hostile. But I do take mischaracterized arguments rather seriously. There's alot of emotions and eDrama getting introduced here, when it is really just a simple matter of consensus and sourcing. The description of Barack Obama as a "biracial African-American" simply doesn't carry water, as it is not a term or phrasing in common usage either by the name himself or by reliable sources. It simply is not that important to note. Tarc (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You were indeed hostile. Also, it is you who has mischaracterized my arguments, at least twice now (including above). At least you have been polite while completely ignoring my points this time. For that, I thank you.LedRush (talk) 03:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Repeating a lie will not make it magically come true. I'm quite in touch with my own emotional state; you are not. So when I say "I am not feeling X", then that's all there is to it. What I have pointed out is that we have some fairly straightforward policy here, and it is clearly against your position. Tarc (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe evidence lies squarely on the former. Digital^Ninja 23:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice job on actually reading what I said. I'm referring to the issue being raised again and again like it has been for years. I first spoke on the matter yesterday. I never said I was going to raise it again. It would appear that in the past month more people question the neutrality than are against a combination of terms. My point is the issue will be raised very frequently. Landon1980 (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I know what you said, it's a valid argument and I was acknowledging it. We need to fix it right the first time. I just hope we fix it in the most accurate manner... Digital^Ninja 01:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding my point, but that comment was not intended for you, DigitalNinja. Landon1980 (talk) 01:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I hate trying to follow conversation on this take page ;-D Digital^Ninja 01:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Why can't we just say that Obama is a dark skinned American of origins which include but not limited to Africa, The United States, Native Americans, Bard Pitt, Madonna, Silvester Stallone, and Worf from the Romulan Empire. This product may contain milk or soy and has been processed on machines that process tree nuts. This way everyone is happy :-D Digital^Ninja 23:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The policy argument against a combination of terms in the lead is here: WP:DUE. The consensus is currently that "African American" is the best term to use in the lead sentence. No one (as far as I know) is arguing that the terms "bi-racial" and "mixed race" cannot be included in the article. One editor has made the point that, per WP:NPOV#A simple formulation, we should not describe Obama as African American, but report that sources have described him as such. Does that sum it up so far? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that "sources have described him" is a text book example of Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words#Examples. Digital^Ninja 01:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a problem I had with the straw poll...we didn't include an option to just put the biracial language later, like I suggested above.LedRush (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that would be fine with me. Due weight does not prohibit biracial from being in the lead. Due weight is given by merely saying he is from a bi-racial background, your not saying he is "bi-racial x or y, but his background is. If we were to just stop the discussion and look for a remedy in policies neutral ground would be found. There are conflicting sources, sources for both can be found in great number. Incorporating bi-racial into the lead would benefit the encyclopedia in the long run by ending the never ending discussion. Saying he is the first African American President only tells half the story. Due weight should be given to bi-racial, African American could still be the primary defining term in the lead. Most of are acting like we must pick between the two and leave out the other. I've yet to see a compelling argument of why a combination could not be used. Landon1980 (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

From above: We could also do it in the president-elect stage, saying "On November 4, 2008, Barack Obama defeated John McCain and became the first African American, and the first bi-racial candidate, to be elected President of the United States."LedRush (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Those of you already claiming overwhelming consensus should give others time to comment. The problem every time is for the most part the consensus is from people that frequent this article and have it watchlisted. You are not even considering the respose we are getting from our readers. A lot of the questions about his race are from new and anon users. It is impossible to say consensus is either way as of now. I could dig up 30, 40 people that have said different in just the past week. Landon1980 (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I also want everyone to ask themselves if Obama self-identified as Caucasian, and the majority of sources called him white, but dozens upon dozens of reliable sources could be found saying he was bi-racial would the consensus be the same as the current one? Landon1980 (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Good question, but I don't even accept the premise. Obama self identifies both as African American and as someone of a mixed-race background. People are using the argument against removing "african american" from the article against a proposal that wants no such thing.LedRush (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather spend time on the situation at hand rather than imaginary "what-ifs", honestly. Tarc (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So stop answering hypos and start answering what we say.LedRush (talk) 03:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah well I already know the answer. By the way, no one ever suggested he be called a "biracial African American" you conveniently twist it around to make a mockery of it. This article sees a lot of firsts and policies are largely ignored and as highly prasied as Obama is right now that isn't a good thing. For one, don't all the other Presidents articles list their full name in the infobox? I'm not calling anyone biased but everyone should ask themselves what the true reason they oppose the lead even entertaining the spirit of WP:NPOV is. Landon1980 (talk) 02:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If Landon and Led would actually read what my poll was for, it would greatly aid everything. I wanted to know what people thought that FIRST FEW SENTENCES SHOULD SAY. I did not mention any of the rest of the article, or even the rest of the lead. Jesus, if you would stop assuming what I am saying and actually READ it, none of this last 20 or 30 KB of text would have been necessary. Also, I did not intend for the poll to end at any specific time. I was kind of thinking something like 72 hours, but I am not averse to keeping open for longer or closing it early. I also note that you inexplicably refuse to voice your opinion in the straw poll, instead continuing on and on with your random babbling. This issue has utterly nothing to do with NPOV, because 1) the present version of the article is not referring to Obama by a term that he himself does not use and 2) the present version is backed up by thousands, perhaps millions of sources, while "bi-racial" is used far, far, far less frequently. Regardless of all that, I made an attempt to objectively prove to you that your opinion is in the minority, and you do not even bother to "officially" state your own views and you have the audacity to say that there are plenty of people who support your view. Simple question: Where are they? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please try and engage in the discussion with honesty and not with anger. You have dramatically misrepresented my position and ignored my points. If you don't want to constructively engage in discussion, I guess there's nothing I can do. As I've stated many times above: 1. I don't think the article is bad as is; 2. it could be better with the addition of some mention of his status as biracial (or another such description) EITHER in the lead OR in the main article (as suggested many other places); 3. no one wants to replace the term african american...no one; 4. Obama identifies both as an African american and as a person of mixed descent; 5. being biracial and african american are not mutually exclusive.

If you'd like to respond to these points, I will treat you and your arguments with the respect everyone deserves. If not, there is still nothing I can do...I can't force my opinions on others, but I won't allow my positions to be misrepresented without presenting my side.LedRush (talk) 04:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You sure have a short temper for an administrator. You could at least be civil, would that be that hard to do? Since self-identification keeps being mentioned you should know that Obama identifies as both. Does it really matter what he self-identifies as anyways? We know that he is technically bi-racial and a large number of sources can be found that verifies just that. Hundreds if not thgousands say that his father is African and mother a white American. I read your proposal J, and I apologize for my babbling as you consider my comments. You have no idea what my position would be if the straw poll turned out different. I will not resort to return the favor of screaming in all caps and bold as I find it harmful to the discussion. You could at least be civil in expressing your issues with me. Landon1980 (talk) 04:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh please Landon, the "I'm the victim" ploy is bullshit. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 04:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't aware I was playing victim and thank you for informing me. I really don't think asking an administrator to remain civil is too much to ask. This discussion is becoming increasingly directed at me instead of the real issue here. Landon1980 (talk) 04:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You are damn right I have a short temper. Especially when, at midnight, in the middle of trying to do three assignments for college, I am dealing with people who can't see their nose in front of their faces. For crying out loud. How many times, and in how may ways do we have to tell you that your opinion is just that: your opinion, and that it is overwhelmingly obvious that the majority of editors do not agree with you? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

And don't give me the whole "remain civil" crap. According to Merriam-Webster's online dictionary: "civil often suggests little more than the avoidance of overt rudeness <owed the questioner a civil reply>". Please. If I was really uncivil, believe me, you would know it. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't guess it really matters if you are civil or not. I apologize for inconveniencing you late at night. I had no intention of causing you or anyone else to have such a poor perception of me as an individual, and mental abilities. Contrary to your assertion, I am not the only person that shares my opinion. You really should take the time to look at the history. Landon1980 (talk) 04:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should just say he's an American with a tan. --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Or you could say what Archie Bunker once said about Harry Belafonte: "He ain't black, he's a good-lookin' white guy dipped in caramel." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we not incorporate both African-American and Bi racial at the same time? In the starting column a more reasonable way would be to simply say he is a President with both African and American 'origins'? It would clearly indicate there is two "race" which maks Barack Obama rather than the actual term "African American" which surely applies more naturalisation? Surely you can see reason with that Landon. Cant compromise work in this situation?!CorrectlyContentious (talk) 07:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

1. WP:NPOV "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This most certainly is not being done. The word bi-racial is not even in the article once, it appears once in the notes. Also, everyone points out NPOV does not apply because Obama self-identifies as African American. I can't find anything in this policy or BLP that says article's must be centered around the wishes of the subject. Even so, Obama identifies as both. This is an encyclopedia, this is not about what Obama wants. Our job is to say what reliable sources do and a larg number of without a doubt reliable sources can be found for the single term bi-racial, hundreds for "Obama white mother" several more from multi-racial, and so on. I realize that AA must be given due weight, but so should bi-racial. I know everyone despises me on this talk page and could care less. All of you know in your hearts that I'm making valid points. Everyone chooses to ignore policy when writing this article. You people actually grasps at straws trying your best to come up with why/how policy prohibits bi-racial from being in the lead sentence. When in fact it does no such thing, AA can be given due weight while still incorporating bi-racial into the lead. The terms do not have to be side by side. All of you are too worried about what Obama wants to actually care about the neutrality of the article. A lot of you seem to think that I am the only reason this issue will not go away. In the last couple years, even months, this issue has been raised hundreds and hundreds of times. I think it is mostly the readers and new users that complain but does that matter? I hope all of you that aren't willing to compromise are willing to be back here when someone wants to discuss this again. This can't be something that is erased from the talk page when two dozen threads in 5 days are started on the issue. If I gathered the names and IP's that have mentioned this just in the last month it would tower over the straw poll. Landon1980 (talk) 13:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't speculate about the motivation of other editors, and please don't accuse other editors of ignoring policy. Other editors aren't ignoring policy, but interpreting it differently to you. If anything, it is the "hundreds and hundreds" of "names and IPS" that are ignoring policy. They, while undoubtedly well-meaning, tend to make arguments based on The Truth, not on verifiability, neutrality, or due weight. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Landon, all is fair in what you say but surely it wouldve been changed by now should the evidence be outstanding for bi-racial to be included. I also understand that you must not tolerate to refer to Obama as simply what he describes himself(A very valid point as this is not politics nor distortion of facts). Yet again why cant we just say of origins of both race as i mentioned above, as its pretty much the same as bi-racial yet is clearly highlighting the background from a neutral point of view! Oh dear Landon, CorrectlyContentious (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems this discussion has gone straight down the toilet. For what it's worth, I still think we should just refer to him as an African American since that is what everyone else, including himself, does. On a side note, not only does Santa know when your asleep or awake, but he also knows what you post on Wikipedia. So, unless you have an efficient pellet burning stove that accepts coal as well, chill. Digital^Ninja 18:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Change Obama is the first African American to be elected President of the United States to News media widely refer to Obama as the first African American to be elected President of the United States Let the lead sentence use the term "African American" since that is a factual and neutral statement of the viewpoint held by most of the reliable sources (strictly speaking, the form of the viewpoint that's politically correct in the US), and since consensus supports this term. Later in the body of the article, include the terms bi-racial and/or mixed race, depending on the available sources and consensus (discussion to follow).

Of course, this isn't going to stop hordes of editors starting new threads asking why the first sentence describes Obama the same way that the majority of our sources do. That should be an opportunity to explain our cornerstone policies WP:V and WP:NPOV - not circumvent them. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Agree A good compromise.LedRush (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• oppose The lead should not use weasel words...everyone knows Obama is african american. The new proposal is not a good compromise and has no chance of convincing a consensus. I wish we'd stick to proposals with a moderate change of approval.LedRush (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Weasel words?? Please re-read WP:WEASEL and explain how exactly it's weaselly to state the obvious and relevant in a concise way. Everyme 12:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support Oppose in favour of actually adhering to WP:ASF and WP:V: News media widely refer to Obama, who is of mixed heritage, as the first African American to be elected President of the United States. Everyme 16:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

How about: Obama, who is of mixed heritage, is widely recognized as the first African American to be elected President of the United States. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me as well. Everyme 16:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean you change your vote above to agree?LedRush (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Which exact wording are we talking about? News media widely refer to Obama as the first African American to be elected President of the United States. ? Everyme 19:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I personally prefer the original suggestion in this sub-thread above. (Isn't that the way it is now?) But, as SheffieldSteel points out, "this isn't going to stop hordes of editors starting new threads asking why the first sentence describes Obama the same way that the majority of our sources do." Or the constant changes back and forth. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Evb-wiki's suggestion reminds me of my own suggestion from earlier, which seems to have been lost in all the text: "The ethnically diverse Obama is the first African American to be elected President of the United States." LovesMacs (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I like that even better. Although the inclusion of "widely recognized as" may, by acknowleging the dispute/question/issue, help deter "clarifying" edits. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the proposal. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind repeating your proposed wording here, just for convenience and clarity? Everyme 19:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose SheffieldSteel's proposal. With respect, I don't think so. There are some instances where a compromise like that would be proper but this ain't one of them.Feel free to add more details (besides "News media widely refer to Obama as the first African American") in the mainbody of the article but not in the first paragraph of the lead. "Later in the body of the article, include the terms bi-racial and/or mixed race..." is what I think is suitable and non-challenged.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So the News media refer to part is wrong inhowfar? Everyme 12:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

However, just stating African American in the lead is not neutral it shows favortism especially for those whom only want Barak Obama to only be described as an African American. That's wrong and it seems to hard just to get that simple point of view across. It's the 21st centuary Obama is bi-racial let's upgrade and have bi-racial in the lead or say he is of African American descent (I would settle for that).Mcelite (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't show "favoritism" but your comment shows "favoritism" and disregard on the opposite side (even to African Americans view) as you state "especially for those whom only want Barack Obama to only be described as an African American". We don't want to describe him "only" [what does that actually imply?] as African American. Just at the main parts of the article such as the lead. Do you actually realize, as much good as you want to do, that you're demising African Americans and possibly might hurt their pride?

I'm sure you're intentions are in good faith but their effect might me quite the opposite.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm implying that this is the exact results caused by the One Drop Rule. I do mean very good faith. From what you're implying The Magnificent Clean-keeper you are African American or at least part and you're saying it would hurt people's feelings if African American isn't said. Why not first bi-racial president of African American descent?? It's the full truth nobody is being left out, and it goes against the negativity of the one drop rule which is definately what's fulling this whole situation. There are so many other people whom are part African American and something else: Aaliyah, Halley Berry, Oprah, Alicia Keys, Chilli and T-Boz from TLC, Beyonce Knowles, Lena Horne, Chris Tucker, Amil, LL Cool J, Jimi Hendrix and so many others. I believe if they had won the presidency this same issue would be a big mess like it is now.Mcelite (talk) 02:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Please forget the silly damn"one drop rule". It doesn't really exist if you don't count "hardcore extremists" like we also don't back such things up by "neo-Nazis" and similar. And no, I'm not African American. Do I have to be one to be allowed to talk about their issues? Guess not. But of course that is "only" my opinion.

"not first bi-racial president of African American descent??"

And why not "first African American" and then as it is already stated by his heritage being bi-racial?

Can I ask you an honest question which you of course don't have to answer: Are you an African American and/or US citizen? I'm asking you this so I have the possibility to understand your stance better.

I might go to bed anytime soon but will respond at some point. Thanks,--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I'm a proud American and I'm part African American proudly. And yes you do have full rights to talk about another groups issues.Mcelite (talk) 03:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Not that that this is really relevant to the discussion, but if people are born in the U.S. (especially those that their families have been here for generations) shouldn't they just be Americans? I mean, if they are 'African Americans' then I am a 'European American' and no one has ever called me that in my life. Landon1980 (talk) 05:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that is something that we cannot and should not determine. That's a completely different, unrelated issue. Not to mention most people find that train of thought offensive. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 05:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It is laughable that so many have said that African American is neutral. I keep asking but no one can tell me how it is neutral, just that it is. According to NPOV both sides that can be verified through reliable sources are to be representes evenly. Having African American alone shows an extreme bias. No doubt it should be there but so should bi-racial, maybe even to a lesser extent, but it should be there. This article has a big problem with consensus being formed by big time Obama fans, most make it no secret. They all only care about what he calls himself, while ignoring the fact sources say both. Obama also identifies as both, like that matters. An RFC is our only hope of getting our core policies enforced on this article. Landon1980 (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously claiming that calling someone an "African American" is not neutral? So... When are you going to make the same argument on the hundreds of other Wikipedia pages in which American individuals of partial or complete African descent are entirely uncontroversially referred to as "African American?" If it's not a neutral term, would you describe it as a positive term or a negative term? And if it is a positive term, what would you propose its opposite is? This is silly. He is an African American. I don't see the point in dragging this out any further. --GoodDamon 00:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for misrepresenting my view, you did make a nice straw man though. Sources can be found in large numbers for the term b-racial alone, several more fore mult--racial, thousands for Obama white mother, etc. Please read over WP:NPOV. Everyone in the world knows (if not eveyone an extremely large number) that Obama is bi-racial. We know this because news media have reported this thousands if not millions of times. If they don't come out and say bi-racial (and many many do) they describe him as bi-racial. We are an encyclopedia, a world encyclopedia, and the article must be neutral. It isn't our job to determine what Obama calls himself, but to report verifiable facts. Landon1980 (talk) 00:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Look... For every news article that describes Obama as "multi-racial" or a variant thereof, there are a hundred that refer to him as "African American." He usually refers to himself that way. A part of WP:NPOV is WP:WEIGHT: How much weight we should give individual pieces of information. "African American" is weighted properly, appearing in the lead. Details about Obama's diverse ethnic background are also weighted properly, appearing in the body of the main article about him. Both are fully verifiable facts, so both appear in the article. And both are properly weighed. I don't see any need to change that for NPOV as you're arguing. --GoodDamon 00:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

GoodDamon it's people like you that make it hard for anyone with African American heritage and another to comfortably say they are bi or multiracial and proudly fit in with the ethnic groups that comprise their heritage. Is Barak Obama African American yes, but he is not soley African Ameican. That's what is wrong with just stating African American in the lead. It's not the whole truth and it's irrespondsible to just follow the leader on an important issue. I'm thrilled he will be the next president of the United States but let's get this clear he will be the first b-racial and first person of African American descent to be president. Not African American. There are not that many full blooded African Americans as there as that are multigenerationally mixed. So the lead should clearly state bi-racial. In addition, it causes less confusion for readers that have no clue who Barak Obama is in this world.Mcelite (talk) 00:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

GoodDamon, no one is saying he isn't African American, but he is bi-racial too. He is half African American, half do you not understand that? This is an entirely different situation than you described. One of our core policies is to represent the facts evenly and without bias to either side. The difference here is thousands of sources are out their verifing his mixed heritage. This attitude are why people with mixed race are forced into picking a side. Landon1980 (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - African American doesn't assume anything about a percentage. African American is a term used for Americans of African descent. Wikipedia is not responsible with creating a technical definition of a race. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 00:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the proposal is to put the following in the lead: News media widely refer to Obama as the first African American to be elected President of the United States. Everyme 12:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

A clear and easy to understand point. Still, I doubt it will bring this (in my opinion useless) discussion to a halt as I'm already proofed right.Sigh.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone offered Google's opinion: Barack Obama African American 5 million+ Barack Obama bi-racial 200,000+. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 01:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right it isn't, but Wikipedia's job is to represent both sides in a neutral manner. Everyone builds a straw man every time I ask this question. If reliable sources call him bi-racial, African American, mixed heritage, etc. how is simply calling him African American in the lead neutral? There are hundreds of thousands of sources that go into detail of his mixed heritage. The more I see "he self-identifies as" the more obvious is an RFC is appropriate. I may be wrong, but is there a policy that suggest we follow the wishes of the living person. I've read over BLP multiple times and I can't find it in there. The funny part though is he keeps it no secret he is bi-racial, he's wrote books about it even. He has talked about it on many many occasions. Landon1980 (talk) 01:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

So maybe we should put it this way (NPOV pure as a virgin): "a human who won the highest position in a country called USA was also the first [censored] to achieve this in history...". Of course I'm being sarcastic, no questions ask.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm really isn't helpful to the discussion and isn't needed. Landon1980 (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh please, it was obviously a joke. A light tone is needed when these things drag on and on. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 04:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

How about something similar to the compromise reached for Lewis Hamilton - 'Coming from a mixed race background, with a white mother and black father, Obama is frequently identified as the first African-American president of the United States'? Over-emphasising his blackness is an insult to his mother and his late grandmother who raised him after his dad deserted him --MartinUK (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree and would be fine with your suggestion. Landon1980 (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Gosh. Now you want him to declare himself the first African American President? Can you cite this (reliable)?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - per Grsz11's rationale above. It doesn't get much clearer than this; Barack Obama is widely described as the first African-American president. This is not a polemic. This is not a slight on bi-racial peoples. It is simply reflecting what the vast preponderance of reliable sources categorize and describe Obama as. If people have an issue with media over-simplification or compartmentalizing in their reporting, the Wikipedia project is not a vehicle to address such matters. Tarc (talk) 05:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the proposal is to put the following in the lead: News media widely refer to Obama as the first African American to be elected President of the United States. Everyme 12:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I really don't support weasel-worded "Some people say" options, either. Tarc (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Support IT First of all not all media is reported at the politically correct level. You are much more likely to have a comentator that's an old man call Obama black or African American than a young man. It's a generational thing. Second some editors are biased and if they had it their way they would have completely scraped Obama's family history (basically not ever mentioning that his mother is Caucasian). I know this for a fact. My older cousin is an editor for Fox News and they have a list of editors which they double check their work because they will not mention that a person is bi or multiracial if they have any African American blood. That includes excluding any family members that are a different race. An article on Beyonce Knowles is the best I can think of right now but one of the editors wanted to change it mentioning that her mother is Creole and just put that her mother was black hence Creoles are a mixture of African American, Native American, and French. That's why I'm against just going by what the media wants to say. I'm ok with saying he's the first bi-racial president of African American descent I'm totally against it only mentioning African American that's only one side of the story. Clear as day.Mcelite (talk) 06:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Try not to make wikipedia look stupid and weaselly - or "we know better than the public" elitist. Every source that matters calls him African American. The "neutrality" argument is bogus. It gives undue weight to a small minority. The article's body already makes it clear that he's multi-racial. Calling him "white", as Landon sarcastically proposes, misses the point entirely - color trumps lack of color. And this is the flip side of the "one drop" rule. Instead of the old "passing as white" kind of thing (which Obama couldn't in any case), his color is considered a positive - reversing racism. 30 percent of whites who voted for Obama said that race was a factor in their decision to vote for him. And try telling Jesse Jackson and the countless other people of color that he's not African American. After all that we whites have put black people through in this country, this attempt at denial of "African American" is just another form of anti-black racism. That's all emotional stuff. But what really matters in wikipedia is the predominant sources, and they say "African American", and that's what he is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:ASF is the answer you're looking for. It renders all of your "points" irrelevant. And the current proposal, which you apparently missed, is to reword the sentence to "News media widely refer to Obama as the first African American to be elected President of the United States." Nobody's arguing to substitute African American anymore. You're arguing against a strawman -- with strawman arguments. Everyme 14:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Because it is not just the news media who "refer to" him as such, the proposal is flawed. Try:

(1) "Obama is widely recognized as the first African American to be elected President of the United States." Or

(2) "The ethnically diverse Obama is widely recognized as the first African American to be elected President of the United States."

--Evb-wiki (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Too wordy, defying predominant sources, wikipedia imposing its pedantry on the reader. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, you have no idea about assessing sources, it seems. Everyme 14:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Or how about an even simpler sentence that dose not contain any weasel words: "Obama is the first African American to be elected President of the United States." It is simple, it recognizes what everyone is saying, it also recognizes what Obama self-identifies as. Brothejr (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Reread WP:WEASEL and drop that silly strawman. Everyme 14:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

[ec] Which is - like - maintaining the status quo, dude. Okay:

(3) "Obama is the first African American to be elected President of the United States."

--Evb-wiki (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"Widely recognised" won't do the trick. To actually adhere to NPOV, some sort of acknowledgement is necessary of the simple and (hopefully at this point) uncontested fact that the enormous weight assigned to his heritage (sufficient weight to form the second sentence of the lead!) stems solely from the fact that he is being widely referred to as [...]. Everyme 14:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Ok. Yesterday you said my similar proposal, with that phrase in it, was fine by you. With these shifting sand, I do not anticipate consensus. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

... I've thought about it more in-depth and refined my reasoning. Is that not allowed? The point is that "widely recognized" goes in the right direction, but will at all probability be shot down with some silly strawman arguments. It misses the mark just by a few inches, but it does. If we were talking just about the options of leaving it like it is or inserting "widely recognized", I'd be all for it. But "widely referred to as" is even better, and I came up with that precise wording for a good reason. Everyme 15:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

[ec] That's fine. But "widely refered to" is so non-committal. It make me think, "Okay, what is he really? They may refer to him as such, but what's the truth?" I don't think it hits the mark at all. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's why I proposed "News media widely refer to Obama, who is of mixed heritage, as the first African American to be elected President of the United States" above. But you didn't appear to like it. Could we settle on "Obama, who is of mixed heritage, is widely referred to as the first African American to be elected President of the United States" ? Everyme 15:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I prefer "recognized." Disingenuous was the term I was looking for; The phrase seems disingenous. But at least we're not laying it all on the dreaded news media. I'm not going to fight against it. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(Takes Everyme's strawman and lights it on fire) While I prefer the status quo statement because it reflects Obama's self identity I want to throw this statement out as a compromise: (4) "Obama is the first person of African descent to be elected President of the United States." It reflects the heritage he identifies as and also contains a connotation that he also descends from other heritages/races. Brothejr (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for a strawman proposal! It's clear by now that we are going to stick with "African American", and rightly so. The only relevant question that remains is whether or not we formulate the sentence correctly. Please focus on the discussion at hand, and don't try to distract from the relevant points. Everyme 15:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

If everyone on this talk page keeps demanding the lead sentence not be neutral then we will just have to seek wider input from the community. The truth is it is obvious that a lot of you are biased about this. There are more than enough reliable sources to have something about his mixed heritage in the lead sentence. I'd bet that nearly everyone in the world knows that he is of mixed heritage. The very first sentence ignoring this looks like an extreme bias on our part. Most of you will not be happy with anything unless the lead sentence completely ignores the fact that he is of mixed heritage. Core policies should trump consensus of 18 talk page regulars. WP:NPOV and ASF are both being completely ignored. All of you keep talking about what Obama self-identifies as, and I keep asking where the policy is that suggests we take that into consideration. The sad part is he identifies as both, and is very close to his mother's side of the family. An extremely large number of without a doubt reliable sources are out there to verify his mixed heritage. If the lead is to be even a little tiny bit neutral it must mention something about his mixed heritage. Is an RFC the only way to get unbiased people that will fairly consider both sides to comment or is there another process. With policies being ignored I'm thinking about formal mediation, or what is the criteria for the arbitration committe? This issue pertains to how our core policies are being interpreted/ignored and something must be done. A very very large amount of readers and editors have expressed concerns about this. This is one of the busiest, if not 'the' busiest article there is and the very first sentence being biased is not a good thing. Landon1980 (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Again with the "you're all stupid if you don't share my opinion" point of argument? Haven't you learned by now that this simply isn't going to work here? Despite the voluminous arguments of a small few here, it isn't going to change the reality that AA is more widely recognized and used than this "bi-racial" tag. Tarc (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for putting words in my mouth Tarc. If not biracial, the fact he is of mixed heritage needs to be incorporated into the lead in some way. Policy should trump consensus anyways. Far more than 18 people have said this, far far more. I urge you to go back just one month and count the number of threads started regarding this. I would argue that there are just as many sources out there speaking of his mixed heritage than there are for African American. They may not all say bi-racial, but they get the point across one way or the other. There is really no need for us to go back and forth with this. You have made it clear that the only thing you'd be happy with is ignoring the fact he is of mixed heritage altogether, if that isn't biased then what is. We all have our own POV's and biases, how we handle them is what matters. Asking for it to only tell one side of the story is bias, and at the same time unacceptable. Landon1980 (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, ignoring valid arguments just doesn't fly. We will get you to listen to and either repond to or concede the valid points. It's just a matter of time. And you guys, that much needs to be said in all fairness, are waisting a lot of our time with what amounts to one big WP:IDHT clusterf*ck. What with all the responding to made-up strawmen and the quick-archiving away "difficult" postings. It's ridiculous, and Landon is right that we may have to seek wider community input unless a bunch of admins are willing to step in and put and end to this mess. Everyme 16:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Just because you feel they are valid points does not mean others feel the same, or that they are wrong for not feeling the same as you. If any admins are to step in, I certainly hope that these clear indications of intentional disruptive editing ("It's just a matter of time") will be looked into. Y'know, sometimes you just don't get your way. Tarc (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Just because you don't realise that they are valid doesn't render them invalid. The problem is not with the arguments provided to you, as evidenced by your overall reaction, or rather: non-reaction. Everyme 16:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It isn't just a 3 or 4 people that have asked the lead to be neutral, Tarc. Strawmen are the only way you will respond to our valid points. Like I said, a core policy certainly should trump the consensus of 18 page watchers. If we were to compare the numbers on each side in the last month it would be far greater than 18. One of our core policies cannot be ignored on the most active artricle we have, it is really that simple. I've spent several hours the last couple days seeing just who says what and how often. When you compare bi-racial with African American there are far more for African American. However, when you compare AA with sources that go into detail describing his mixed heritage it comes out very close to the same. Looks like a lead sentence that adheres to all the policies in question could be "With an African father and white American mother he is widely described as the first African American President" That is just a very rough idea, just something along those lines, wording could be different. Such as being more specific about his mother and father's ethnicity. Landon1980 (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

My God! How is using African American POV?! You're twisting everything to your messed up opinion. We use reliable source and, as I added to the article last night, they say African American. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 17:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary policy break

Let's look again at those core policies. WP:V says that the material we add must have been published in reliable sources. WP:OR says essentially the same thing: we must not include material that hasn't been published. WP:NPOV says several things: first, we should document all significant viewpoints fairly and without bias; second, we should not give undue weight to minority viewpoints; third, we should not state opinions as facts.

I think that all of these policies are compatible with the lead saying that he has been described as the first African American to be elected president of the US and with the body of the article talking about his mixed heritage. Coverage is fair and neutral, it's fully verifiable (meaning that it can all be cited to reliable sources) and it gives due weight to the different viewpoints (i.e. African American is more prominently documented because that is the predominant viewpoint).

Consensus seems to support this approach, although there is still some question about how best to word the sentence in the lead (should it be "widely referred to as..." or "media describe him as..." or something else?) Productive discussion, I think, is best focussed towards this latter question.

Okay, enough about productive discussions. Please resume your interminable wrangling now. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Obama, who is of mixed heritage, is widely referred to as the first African American to be elected President of the United States. — Out of the lot of more or less workable compromise, this is the best I can currently think of. It accounts for the fact that Obama is indeed African American, according not only to self-identification but also to the commonplace definition (whence the link to Multiracial American#African Americans). It also lends some explanation to why we (more or less rightly) assign so much weight to this statement as to make it the second sentence of the lead, namely that apart from the fact that Obama is African American (which by itself is a tidbit of minor relevance in the greater shape of things), he is also and importantly widely being referred to as [...]. Everyme 16:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Hi Sheffield, with respect, I don't think consensus yet supports adding "widely referred to.." "media describe him.." into the lead. He's African American, self identifies as such, the overwhelmingly vast majority of RS's identify him as such (not just media, but academia, U.S. Gov't, etc.) We're talking about labels here and the fact of the matter is that the label applied to him 99%+ of the time is African American, including by the RS's that discuss his white mother and black father. There is no controversy or 'increased accuracy' that we need to account for in the lead. Plainly saying that he is the first AA President-elect in the lead, without any weasel words that may suggest otherwise is the most policy (NPOV, RS, BLP) compliant. The details of his parents are succinctly documented in the first paragraph the follows the lead. --guyzero | talk 16:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You keep mentioning self-identification, he self-identifies as both. Do you mind pointing to which policy and where it says we should take into consideration what he self-identifies as? Everyone keeps comparing bi-racial with AA, try comparing AA with sources that either say bi-racial, multi-racial, and the ones that go into detail describing it saying he has a black African father and white American mother, it comes out to about the same. Only putting African American in the lead is not neutral in any form or fashion. As far as ASF, does it really matter how many editors support that when one of our core policies in fact does say we do that? Landon1980 (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The ASF argument hinges on the notion that basically everyone (with very few exceptions) is of the opinion that he is African American. Trying to insert these types of weasel words into the lead is like saying that "Scientists widely report that the earth is round." --guyzero | talk 17:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah well the Earth isn't half flat and half round, with sources choosing to call it flat when it is only half flat. If African American is fact than so is white, and so is bi-racial. No one is saying he is not African American, both bi-racial, white and AA are true. Do you not understand that he is half African American and half white? Landon1980 (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Do we have any reliable and verifiable sources that call Obama (not his mom, him) white? I know that we have them for AA and bi-racial.LedRush (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) - See there you are again, suggesting that Obama can be regarded as "white". Are there any sources, anywhere that make this claim? All this "half this half that" stuff in unscientific nonsense, frankly. The undeniable, reliably-sourced fact is that he is an African American by blood and choice. It is this fact that is historically significant, and it is this fact that should feature prominently in the introduction. The multi-racial stuff (which is interesting, but less notable in this context) is perfectly adequately covered in the main body of the article. Your continuous disagreement in the face of overwhelming consensus against you is become extremely tendentious, and too much effort is being wasted on this minor matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

My point is that if being half African American can make you completely African American the same argument can be made for white. If half black makes you just black, then half white can make you just white. The truth is he is half white and half black? That is a simple point that you seem to not understand. Where is the scientific data that suggests otherwise? Can you point me to a study that suggests that African blood will cancel out white blood and make you completely black? The "multi-racial stuff" as you call it is not less notable, and if you would take the time to look you would know that. Try comparing sources that say AA to the ones that either say bi-racial, multi-racial, or go into detail about him having a white mother and black father. I am very offended by you acting like he can be anything but white when he has just as much white blood as anything else, and I would appreciate if you would stop saying that to me. Landon1980 (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Landon, I hear you and understand your point. However, we need reliable, verifiable sources to include anything on Wikipedia. Do you know of any that call Obama (and not his mom) white? Otherwise, inclusion of this opinion will violate policy on synthesis and original research.LedRush (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(after ec again, sigh) - The problem here is that you are focusing on his color (which sort of makes a mockery of your previous, inappropriate comment). As I have repeatedly stated before, there are black presidents everywhere, but there has never been an African American POTUS. This is the historically-significant aspect that the majority of reliable sources talk about. They refer to US civil rights history, and individuals like Parks and King, when talking about Obama's achievement. The multi-racial aspect is covered in the article body with appropriate weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

How about an international reaction section??

The BBC was reporting on the evening news broadcast a few nights ago that "Barack" and "Michelle" are becoming the most popular names for new-born babies in Kenya...

• Kenya declares holiday for Obama - Wednesday, 5 November 2008
• Obama name craze for Kenya babies - Thursday, 6 November 2008

In the Caribbean there's been substantial celebration regarding the Obama win.

• Jubilation, ecstasy grip Caribbean Community with Obama's victory
• Congratulations pour in from the Caribbean to US president-elect Obama - November 6, 2008
• CARICOM looking for early talks with US president-elect - November 05, 2008

• The Barbados Prime Minister puts out official congratulations statement to Obama
• Barbados government officially invites Obama's Family for a post-elections vacation - September 01 2008

• The Government in Antigua and Barbuda wants to name a mountain in the nation after Barack Obama.
• Antigua wants to rename highest peak 'Mount Obama' - Thursday, November 6th, 2008 7:35 pm ET
• Antigua plans to rename highest peak after Barack Obama - Nov 7, 2008

CaribDigita (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

See International reaction to the United States presidential election, 2008. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 23:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Digital^Ninja 23:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this would be a good addition to the article in that it is unprecedented and historic, and unexpected. No other US presidential election in historic memory has elicited this kind of world reaction. Additionally, the fact that his election came on the heels of a world-wide, dismally unpopular president makes it even more surprising and more noteworthy. I have to call this historical, noteworthy, and to omit at least some documentation of this world-wide reaction would be irresponsible. No US president-elect in historical memory has ever had mountains named after him and holidays set aside for him. VictorC (talk) 02:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not appropriate material for this article. It would provide little of encyclopedic value about Obama's life, and frankly would just be cheer-leading for him. In fact, I can't really see the "international reaction" article as particularly encyclopedic, and would support its deletion. --GoodDamon 02:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

More fitting for the article about the campaign. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV surely stops this being a section? It would have to be balanced with McCain supporters naming toilets after Obama or something ..... CorrectlyContentious (talk) 07:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm all for it with pro's and con's since the world is watching almost as much as we where in this exceptional election with an (initially) unpredicted outcome. I guess both "sides" agree on the latter one.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama As an IT Savvy

How about having a section about his love of internet and technology ? We all know about his victory propelled by using Information Techonology !(one of this is a special software designed for his iphone to keep contact with his campaign). The latest news is, he establish a new website Change.gov to allow him to receive ideas from mass population about Change. I would love to add this bit of information on the article, but just don't want to take any risk as still am a "newish" !. Would appreciate any constructive comments.--minervauk (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This is only tangentially biographical. While it is certainly interesting, it is probably suitable material for a child article, assuming reliable sources can be found to reference the information. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Or as part of the discussion about the campaign, as it contrasts withg McCain's almost prideful ignorance of high-tech. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? What "almost prideful ignorance"? He can't use a keyboard for the same reason he can't tie his shoes, and the ad attacking him for it was utterly dishonourable. Even Biden said so until his handlers sat on him. -- Zsero (talk) 06:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about his ability to type or not, I'm talking about his ignorance of the internet. I guarantee you, the next GOP candidate will not have that problem. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Barack Hussein Obama II

"Barack Hussein Obama II"??? --Kitfox.it (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the man's name. What's your question? AmiDaniel (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As I noted in an earlier section, conservative critics have unfortunately made Obama's middle name into a pejorative slur, as they attempted to tie him to Isalmofascism. So the simple "we should make the infobox just like the ones of other presidents" matter is not really a simple matter as it appears. Also, I question the "II". Has Obama ever used the suffix to identify himself, outside of mention on the birth certificate? Do reliable sources commonly note a "II" ? Seems to be touching on the same issues as the biracial debate. Tarc (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Americans tried to turn his middle name into a slur (and that some overseas are delighted with his middle name) does not change the fact that it is his middle name. It would be more POV -- and frankly, would give a victory intolerance -- to break with our convention just to spare him from the smear. The election is over. He won. He's not a vulnerable guy right now. He can take it. I believe that plenty of reliable sources identify his formal birth name as "II", and that here too there is a convention to use the exact birth name in the very beginning of the lead. I don't know much about the infobox conventions though - that is an edit war / dispute I really do not want to touch. Wikidemon (talk) 02:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So it must be different than other article's because conservatives may use it as a pejorative? Well what about those that want it out because of the exact opposite reason?? That is the kind of thing I'm talking about. If that is his name it should be treated like similar articles. The reader could form their own opinion, after all it is his name Landon1980 (talk) 02:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So now you've perked my curiosity. Is there an established convention for the use of a full name in an infobox? It seems that a full, birth name is almost always used (or at least indicated) in the lead sentence to an article, but this seems to be quite inconsistent in infoboxes. A quick glance through our most recent presidents shows that George Walker Bush, William Jefferson Clinton, George Herbert Walker Bush, etc., have their full names in the infobox, while earlier presidents--Abraham Lincoln, Calvin Coolidge, Woodrow Wilson, Zachary Taylor, George Washington--do not. Similarly, Michelle Obama's infobox does not read "Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama", and Malcolm X's infobox reads "Malcolm X". My personal interpretation of the established convention is that an infobox identifies the topic of the article using his common name (that is, his most widely recognized name), rather than his proper name. That said, I personally am completely indifferent on what name is used in the infobox; I just hope that the reasons for selecting whatever name is selected are motivated by an interest in clearly identifying the topic and providing information in an encyclopedic fashion, rather than political or personal interests. Also, in the interest of full disclosure, I was, and still am, an avid supporter of Obama, but my personal support for his candidacy is not at all a motivating factor in my opinion on this topic. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So basically what we have found is that there is no clear or consistent pattern across the board, so that should take care of the "let's do it like all the others" argument. Tarc (talk) 04:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Could someone correct the template again. The problem now is that Happy22 has not responded above (I don't think he knows about my guideline correction), so I left a note on his talk page. Perhaps he will self-revert. Modocc (talk) 02:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Got it, I was totally ignorant about the discussion topic "Infobox format"... but what's the full official name of Silvio Berlusconi? Joking, ciaoo!--Kitfox.it (talk) 02:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've responded above. Happyme22 (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Lets get the Infobox name right

Earlier discussions are at Infobox format and Talk:Barack_Obama#Full_name_in_infobox.

Identity has value. Its important not only to me, but almost everyone that has put together this Wikipedia. Having and keeping a birth name is sometimes done only for legal purposes, such as for wills and estates, and used in swearing in (again a legal formality), but a common name is something else, its something we live and breath with every day. Obama may not care one iota which name we use in the template above his image, and it doesn't bother me much. But, not following our style guideline does bother me. Think about it... are we following reliable sources? How often do reliable sources use Barack Hussein Obama II in their titles? We worry about giving biracial too much weight, but now disregard weight completely with his names (juxtaposed with his image)? And what about future presidents? Do we again go against the reliable sources and not use their notable identities under this recent push for a troublesome non-compliant full name convention? How many president articles have been through the rigor of a Featured Article process? Lets get this right and comply with guidelines at Manual_of_Style#Identity that many hardworking fellow editors put together with these exact same considerations in mind. Modocc (talk) 06:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

note: I had not intended on a straw poll, and the first responses to this are a jumbled mess, with agreed meaning either for full names or against. Any help cleaning it up or putting together a proper poll would be appreciated. Thanks. Modocc (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Barack Hussein Obama II is his name, and that should be in the infobox. Everyme 11:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed. Facts are facts. To leave the full name out of the infobox would demonstrate a bias. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 13:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Following Manual_of_Style#Identity with the precedence set by Template:Infobox_Person would not be bias. All biographies should conform. If there is any bias here, its the favoring of full names for only US Presidents. Modocc (talk) 14:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. It needs to be in line with MOS.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed . Almost all similar articles use the full name and should be no different here. Landon1980 (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean only US Presidents? What other leaders should not conform with guideline precedence and set new precedence? Modocc (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Madocc, I'll say this once: Cut out the baiting, now. Everyme 15:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I was hoping for some clarity on your position so perhaps we can change guidelines to reflect whatever consensus might be reached.[striking what came across wrong, as I didn't mean to fray any nerves here] Modocc (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Consistency Barack Obama There seems to be a dispute over the use of full names in the infoboxes. I remain unconvinced that using the full name follows the manual of style. However, the last time I checked, the President's infoboxes are all that way. So by that approach, Obama's should be also. His political enemies tried to make a thing out of his middle name. That tactic didn't work (nor did trying to rhyme "Obama" with "Osama"), and there's nothing wrong with his middle name. So if the other Presidents' middle names stay, so should this one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC) As a more observant reader pointed out, the template has a spot for Birth Name, i.e. full name. Restating that at the top of a bio infobox is a redundancy, except where commonly used (William Jennings Bryan, for example). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No one has even come close to showing that there is adequate precedence for them; what has been shown here on talk are only US presidents and those articles have been inconsistent over time and have not been Featured and fall under Otherstuffexists. Also, why stop with US presidents, supreme court justices are important too and governors such as Sara Palen... and I could go on, but not here. The reason this goes down a slippery slope is that the presidential full names are being given undue weight. Modocc (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The article title is the common name, and the lead carries the full name. Toss a coin as to which one belongs in the infobox. Here's a radical idea: Neither one. The subject is already stated. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The person infobox set precedence here, unless reliable sources for presidents differ radically from other biographical subjects. Modocc (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• consistency I prefer the "most commonly used name" for the info box, but vote for consistency (whatever that is) above all.LedRush (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• commonly used name, of course. :-) Its really not a matter if there is a preference either, for I like his full name,since Barack Hussein Obama II is going to be our best president ever! That said, presenting encyclopedic information that reflects published reliable sources does matter. Full names are not used in titles of most secondary sources. We should check the Britannica, Old World and other encyclopedias too. We should have common ground here, and we can change any or all of the presidential names to reflect it. Modocc (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Barack Hussein Obama II. Every other Wikipedia biography about a president uses the president's full name. Why are we making an exception? This invites accusations of favoritism from one side, and racism from another. 300wackerdrive (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The MoS guidelines demand consistencytoo, but over a broader range of people. Thus, this discussion is really about what all presidential info names should be. Modocc (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, so what should it be? If the norm for names is the most common name, i.e. the name of the article, then the U.S. Presidents should be changed to the names of the articles, and it wouldn't take but a few minutes to do that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Aye! All should be changed to their article name, unless reliable sources differ. Modocc (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Again (and I repeat myself in part), there was a discussion about this going on [it was around June if I remember right] and the result/consensus was to keep the common name in the info box as the full name is already (and consistently) given in the lead. About a week ago, someone came up with the Idea to include the birth name in the info box since there is a spot exactly for this (unless it was erased as it was in some I checked). IMO I was hoping it stays and it did for a while till after the election when surprisingly this issue was brought up again. I'm really wondering why now, since it wasn't an issue for month and I'm trying to figure out the actual intention of going thru this again. Take a look at the long-term history of McCain and Hillary Clinton and you'll find out that the common name was used before this silly discussion emerged.

Anyway, this "discussion" doesn't belong here but at a "general" place since it isn't or shouldn't be about Obama. Consensus needs to be reached but not here because whatever comes out (or not) can be dismissed for other BLP's as "other crap exists".

One last thing: Another way to dismiss such "consensus" here can be "wp:ignore all rules".--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Few people visit style pages (a few per day). So what do we do, start a RfC there? I am also concerned about only editors that watchlist the affected articles will show up in droves, and their views may not reflect the wider community. Modocc (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there (or maybe on the page which I don't remember; Some BLP page about what to include in the BLP-template). And a "mass-canvassing" would be approbate and within WP-policies to attract more editors.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Happyme22 suggested in this discussion that we use the office holder template. I'm OK with any of these places, but have never done mass-canvassing and I haven't edited much, just visiting mostly, off and on for about a year, with a slow modem connection to boot and I still feel newbie-ish much of the time. Modocc (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC) I am tempted to start the discussion anew, but I just can't afford the time (and it would take a long time) to canvass. My dialup is just too slow, it takes forever to get anything done here as it is (its gotten better cause my connection used to fail often). Hence, someone else will have to do the honors. Modocc (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Preferably someone will volunteer that has the skills, experience and speed to do it well, so we have something done that will help prevent future discussions like this one. Modocc (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes! That's the page it should be discussed and decided. And don't worry about "mass canvassing". That is the least of our problem ;)--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Even if it is "just" a guideline, and non-binding, if we can establish some consensus there my hope is that most editors will obey it (no matter of the outcome) and "crush" any further disrupting discussion about it in the future.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Little correction: The correct page is Template:Infobox Person where these info boxes come from.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't know about a crush, cause one really broke my spirit. )::-) But, I must take a wikibreak for awhile now, but I will be back later, either late tonight or midday tomorrow. I'll either start a discussion then or join in one if its already started. I enjoyed our discussion. :-) Bye! Modocc (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Hold your breath: Under Parameter, name, it states the following: "Common name of person (defaults to article name if left blank; provide birth_name (below) if different from name).".

So there is the page I was looking for all the time and the reason why the names in the info boxes of the participants of this years election where kept with their common name, rather than the now proposed "full birth name" (which still should be included in the box under "birth name"). After finding this I don't see a need for further discussion unless of course some just wants to bend this existing guideline [oh, hold it, it doesn't seem to be a just a guideline if I didn't miss something] or seemly more this policy for whatever reason.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

PS: "don't know about a crush, cause one really broke my spirit." Shit happens all the time but afterwards it only can get better ;) Best wishes, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL. You're citing a template documentation as if it were policy. I'll revert your edit now, and warn you to defy established consensus like that again, particularly with an inept wikilawyering trick like that. Everyme 12:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ha, I don't know who you reverted but it certainly wasn't me. Lack of attention?

And as for your insult including your laughable warning [you're already in the "hall of fame" for such behavior]: Keep it for yourself, best in a dark spot and hard to reach. End of discussion.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Lolly, what's the point of having the full name in the infobox twice, when he's not commonly known by his full name? Or are you still trying to make a "thing" of his middle name? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The real question is: Why are you still trying to make a "big thing" out of his middle name? Do you have a personal problem with the Arab middle name? Everyme 14:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the name Hussein. The general question is: Why does Franklin Delano Roosevelt need to have his full name in two different places in the infobox? It's redundant. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The full name should be at the top. You keep arguing against it, and I still don't recognise any reason why anyone would do so other than a pre-existing sentiment against the Arabic middle name. Everyme 15:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

There's already an infobox slot for full name. Why do you need it twice in the infobox? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know or care what you are talking about. The full name should be at the very top of the infobox in big bold letters, period. Everyme 17:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

If you look at other presidents they all have their full name at the top of the infobox. So if it's consistency you want, you should either have Obama's full name here or delete the full name from all the other presidents. Obvious, I would have thought. MFlet1 (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps size and length matter!

I'm one of those people who don't care which format is used, provided there is consistency. That being said, it occurs to me that the larger font and bold face lend themselves to the common name, rather than the full name (which might cause wrapping in some cases). If the full name is duplicated later in the infobox, it makes more sense to use the common (and usually shorter) name in the prominent position. Anyway, it should be fairly straightforward to get a consensus on something as trivial as this. To continue the innuendo, how hard can it be? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Voting results

I just saw that someone actually took a straw poll and there are currently 19 supports for African American and 2 supports for Other. WP:consensus would support what an obvious consensus of editors supports. I don't know why there is any more discussion on the issue. Personally, I favored use of the term bi-racial but I am not involved in this article. (I am a pro-life Catholic who voted for McCain)NancyHeise ^talk 01:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Because the straw poll asked about the most controversial aspect of the inclusion (in the lead) instead of the one most likely to create an acceptable, compromise solution, like ones suggested above?LedRush (talk) 02:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not taking sides, but part of the reason why this keeps being brought up is because it is a high profile page, that has new viewers all of the time. They may not be aware of the previous discussions, and since consensus can change, it is perhaps always a good question to ask.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that the straw poll went up a matter of hours ago. Wikipedia moves fast, but not that fast.--Tznkai (talk) 02:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The straw poll is not accurate IMO, as said above it focused on the most controversial content. It was written to where without a doubt a large number of people were going to pick African American. Nearly everyone treated it as if the question was should African American be replaced with black, bi-racial, etc.? The proposal suggested no such thing. I've tried my hardest to understand why the lead sentence cannot be more neutral, and honestly have not seen the first valid reason a combination could not be used. This isn't working people, are all of you willing to participate in the same discussion several times a week? It isn't fair to all of those that did not even get to participate in the discussion. Consensus can change and questions regarding this should not be closed immediately. Pretty much what everyone agrees is that African American should be in the lead. How many people actually have a problem with the lead mentioning biracial at all? Such as "From a bi-racial background he is the first African American President." If not bi-racial then just something, anything more neutral. Landon1980 (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus surely can change, that is what the is what the poll is asking. Oh, my god. Why can't you get this through your head? Obama refers to himself as AA, the vast majority of the media refers to him as AA, and, so far, almost all of the editors who have voted in poll have said that they think it should refer to him as AA. I am assuming bad faith here, but I would be willing to lay good money that if the straw poll was going your way, you would be trumpeting the consensus that has been achieved. You proposed that the article mention that Obama is bi-racial, and editors have (for the most part) overwhelmingly rejected your proposal. Why won't you just drop it? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Landon, you cried for a discussion and now that it happened it's "not accurate"? What more do you want man? Grsz^{11 →Review!} 03:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, the straw poll asked for the most controversial aspect of a change in a way not likely to produce good discussion.LedRush (talk) 04:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As evidence of what Obama refers to himself as, I offer you his profile on his website. He twice refers to himself as "African American", never as "bi-racial", never as "black", and never as "multi-racial". Do you not think that he is qualified to tell what his own ethnicity is? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for yet again ignoring what others say and attacking a strawman. No one here is saying he isn't african american or that the article shouldn't refer to him that way. NO ONE. Please try and participate honestly and constructively in conversations. If you're really busy with your college work, take a break from wikipedia and come back when you're relaxed and more willing to calmly and politely engage people. College can be stressful on some people.LedRush (talk) 06:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you [LedRush] tone it down a notch. Your comments are borderline uncivil, but more than that they are not conducive to discussion. Take a tea break or something. L'Aquatique[talk] 07:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion, but it is misplaced. I have remained civil despite a strong desire to file a Wikiquette alert against two different editors here. Just because your ideas seem to be in the majority doesn't mean you can act rudely and uncivilly, call people names, swear at them, and misrepresent others' ideas. Some people here need to do some soul searching (GRSZ, JDelaney, and, to a lesser extent, Tarc). I have remained polite, and remain so. Wuite honestly, your post coming right after mine asking someone to remain civil, seems uncivil (or at least inappropriate)LedRush (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

A shame that you do not take your own advice, rather than just name-dropping those who hold a different opinion. Tarc (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Funny that he only mentioned 3 names if he was name dropping. I realize you are the type to never admit to any wrongdoing, but you have been uncivil throughout this. Landon1980 (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Saying that another editor is "the type" of person to do something, in my opinion, comes very close to crossing the line of what constitutes a personal attack. It begs the question "what type is that, exactly?" Please comment on content rather than on contributors. We're here to discuss improving the article. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Why have you not warned the users that actually crossed the line. I didn't see you warn Tarc for calling me insane, amongst other rude comments of his. What about the admin that said I wasn't capable of finding my nose? Why have you not warned him. There are many far worse civility breeches than those that are being warned for them. That is my point, and that is a double standard. Landon1980 (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've searched the page for the word insane and the only result was the statement immediately preceding this. So, that remark must have been refactored or withdrawn. I hope this explains why I didn't comment on it. Personally, I prefer editors to use strikethruthrough to withdraw remarks, since this makes the page easier to understand for later readers, but never mind. I don't see incivility or personal attacks, provided they have been removed, as an ongoing problem. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Be sure and only warn the user that is "borderline" uncivil, pay no attention to the admin screaming at him in all Caps telling him he can't find his nose in front of his face. There is such a double standard on how things work around here. Landon1980 (talk) 13:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm not taking sides, but it seems that the question was properly asked and the overwellming consensus was African American. There is no reason to believe that reformating the question will achieve a differant result. I actually don't like the term African American in any situation, because I believe it is a term invented by the politically correct to enslave the speach patterns of the masses. But I digress. I prefer the term black, but I'm not voting, so it doesn't matter, since I am not officially taking sides on this issue.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The question was asked about the lead, not the article. The whole thing was poorly done.LedRush (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, and I agree with you about the use of the term, but consensus was reached and is there any reason to believe that the result will be differant if the question is changed?--Jojhutton (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I believe there is, based on the conversations we had before the vote. However, based on a conversation below, I think I will be withdrawing my support for any change (even though I think it would make the article better). I am afraid these discussions open the door to worse discussions (though, who knows, maybe the compromise would shut the door). As usual, I am conflicted :)LedRush (talk) 15:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:ASF

• The imho most crucial point has not been responded to by anyone so far. Why are we not following WP:ASF? Everyme 11:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Why does everyone keep ignoring this question? Landon1980 (talk) 13:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

My best guess is that some don't understand that we may use sources which are non-authoritative for a particular piece of information only as primary sources to back up the assertion that this claim has been made, in this case that News media widely refer to Obama as the first African American to be elected President of the United States, but not as secondary sources to back up the claim as fact, i.e. in this case the assertion that Obama is African American. Incidentally, there is no source in the article that could serve as a reliable secondary source for the latter assertion itself. Contrary to these quite simple and straightforward facts, some believe there is No need for modifiers - references do the job adequately and that the "apparent consensus" was about adhering to WP:ASF vs. ignoring that part of our core content policies -- which it was not, it was about which term to use. Not to mention that local consensus cannot possibly override any of the core content policies. RfC anybody? Everyme 14:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I would support an RFC, I'm not happy with 18 page watchers forming their own consensus. Wider community input is needed on this. Too many policies are being ignored here to not look for a solution somewhere. A lot of these people (I'll not mention names) have made it known they are die-hard Obamites, and they worry too much about what Obama would want. Correct me if I'm wrong but are BLP's usually centered around the living person's wishes? The truth is far, far, far more than 18 people have complained about the current state of the sentence in question. Even in the past week way more than 18 people, those of you that do not think this is true look for yourself. Landon1980 (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, are you guys saying that Obama is not African American or that we shouldn't describe him as such? You could never "prove" anyone's race because race is a fuzzy description, not made completely on biological attributes and there is no way to make a classification system that is even close to 100% accurate (and why would you want to?) If the movement to include some mention of Obama being by racial will also include any attempts to remove reference to him being African American, I am getting off that train fast. I support inclusions of his bi-racial (or other term) ancestry because it is true and because it can end these discussions. If the latter part isn't true, and the term is being used as an excuse to open the door wider to this type of discussion, I will strongly agree with the other editors to keep the article as is.

If I have misrepresented your views above, just ignore everything I said.LedRush (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

We should take great care to follow our core content policies is all I'm saying. I could agree to including an overdue mention of his mixed heritage in the same sentence in the lead. But even more than that, I wonder why we cannot, as a start, amend the current formulation of the African American bit so as to avoid asserting non-authoritative opinions as facts. Either that, or I'd ask people who prefer the current assertion that Obama is African American to produce a source that can actually serve as an authoritative, reliable secondary source for that particular claim, which all the news media in the world can not. They can only serve as primary sources for the assertion that they have called him African American. Imho, and looking at the sources currently in the article, both amendments should be made. Seriously, what speaks against something along the lines of:

News media widely refer to Obama, who is of mixed heritage, as the first African American to be elected President of the United States.

? How is that less accurate than the current assertion? How does it reflect all the available sources less accurately than the current wording? How does it defy current consensus to cite the term "African American"? Everyme 14:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, couldn't we make that claim about virtually every person on the planet. Race is an unscientific and fuzzy idea. No one conducts tests to prove anyone in african-american, so we could never get a reliable source.LedRush (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, he is definitely widely being refered to as the first African American to be elected U.S. President. That bit is uncontested fact, and we should formulate it accordingly. Everyme 15:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand that part of your argument. I am asking "what if we accept that argument?" Couldn't we make that claim about virtually every person on the planet? No one conducts tests to prove anyone's race, so we could never get a reliable source. Wouldn't that mean that we could never refer to someone's race except through your formulation above?LedRush (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not as easy as that (but it makes for a neat strawman). In Obama's case, the fact that he is being widely referred to as the first African American to be elected U.S. President is the far more noteworthy aspect. Supplementing this with a simple and factually undisputable statement that he is of mixed racial heritage, should be the preferred course of action. Everyme 15:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that you think I am making a strawman. That is not my intent. However, I would like you to answer my question: If we accept your argument, under what circumstances would we be able to refer to someone's race not using your formulation above?LedRush (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I answered it before you even posted it: Wherever there is an authoritative source that can actually serve as a secondary source for that particular claim. Now, please return the favour and explain how my wording is less accurate than the current one. And how does it defy any consensus on this talk page? Everyme 15:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So your answer is "never". OK. To answer your questions: 1. it's not less accurate (though it is a little weasel wordy); 2. I don't know...I've not paid attention to that argument because: a) I'm not interested in it; and b) I doubt it has any chance of being adopted. I hope that helps.LedRush (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Your interpretation of my answer is wrong and therefore irrelevant. You are the one says there can never be a reliable secondary source for a claim like that, but you are entirely mistaken. Everyme 15:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to reply to this so late. I did actually note earlier that you'd made the point about WP:ASF applying to this case; unfortunately the only immediate reply to my post was a comment that "sources describe Obama..." would violate WP:WEASEL. Such is life. Given the weight of sources, I think a better proposal than those made above might be:

News media widely refer to Obama as the first African American to be elected President of the United States.

...with a footnote providing a few representative examples from prominent sources. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Halleluja. Thank you, I fully agree. Everyme 19:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Still a bit weaselly. =) There is no doubt that he is AA, so why qualify it? It isn't just news media, but primary sources, academia, etc. etc. --guyzero | talk 20:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that is that it's incomplete and a little misleading. The truth is that nearly everybody in the US considers Obama African American. It is more than "widely" and it is not just news media. Inasmuch as race is a social construct (based on certain biological and ancestral factors, for which Obama qualifies) that is the same as saying that he is African-American. It would be a mess, and frankly, quite POV, to edit all of the articles about light-skinned and mixed race blacks (and while we're at it, Latinos and Native Americans) to say that they are widely considered to be part of their race. While we're at it, there are big debates about who is Jewish. I think a lot of people who self-identify as Jewish would be rather upset to be told that they are merely "widely considered" to be Jewish. This is just not a good way to treat race. If a group of people wants to stand on a soapbox and object to a racial classification, that is fine, but that kind of small minority position does not deserve a mention in instances where that classification occurs. Finally, semantically, the sentence seems to imply some support for a fringe theory - that Obama is in fact AA but he is not universally considered the first. Wikidemon (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Look you both, we're talking about this and everybody is talking about this because he is being widely referred to as the first African American to be elected President. We might not even be talking about including this in the lead if it weren't for the media referring to him as such. That's why it does indeed need to be qualified. You do apparently not understand the difference, but take my word and the word of our policy that the distinction exists and it is non-trivial. Everyme 20:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

By the media, by his party, by the GOP, by his own campaign, by himself................................. BUT not by WP?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused why you don't apply ASF to determine that he is widely referred to as African American because he IS African American? --guyzero | talk 20:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemon and Guyzero...he is African American and the language implies something unintended (that he's AA but not universally regarded as the first.)

Also, where will this proposed language go. If in the lead, I disagree strongly. If in the body, I'm more "meh" on the subject.LedRush (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• My guess is, (seeing at least one editor being or having strong European roots) that what is normal for US here and non-offensive is seen as a somehow racist view at least in some major countries over there. I respect this but must also reject it as it is not an European issue.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying all non-Americans should be banned from this article and talk page indefinitely. I.e., unless they are in line with a "typical American viewpoint," whatever that may mean. Ok, message received. Everyme 12:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

And a side note: Even African Americans accepted him as such after giving him (initially) a hard time" not being black enough in the primaries. Forgot about that?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Article has many flaws, suggestions for improvement

No discussion generated; unneeded repetition. Closed for space
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please don't remove. An IP called it vandalism but it is clearly constructive. This is a featured article but it is not a good article. It has many flaws. It is hard to write because some people love him and want to make him sound like Jesus and others hate him and want to make him look like Hitler. Some key details are omitted and some not so important points are included. The political positions section should reflect his positions before becoming President. If there is disagreement, say so. If there is some change in positions, having only the new position would make Wikipedia a newspaper or possibly an Obama newsletter. This isn't right. There needs to be agreement now (not when there is a fight) about the length of the article. We can look at Bush or Clinton to see how long the Presidency part takes and then decide if we want a longer than normal article or we are going to cut it. If we cut stuff, then we have to be prepared to do major cutting. Are we prepared to do this? We should also keep an eye on other recent presidents and make sure that we don't treat articles differently. The excuse that problems in other articles don't justify doing the same thing shouldn't apply because presidential articles are edited a lot. Article length Support a longer than normal article. Support ImNotObama (talk) 03:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Have a long article but be prepared to do major cutting when his presidency section expands as he is president. Support ImNotObama (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Cut and create sub-articles. Support It is normal wikipedia practice to create sub-articles when the main article gets too long. I see no reason to change that practice in this case.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Political Positions Keep much of what we have. Expand as needed. If there is a change, mention it. SupportImNotObama (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Have only his current political positions. It will be somewhat like news but so what. Oppose ImNotObama (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC) ImNotObama (talk) 03:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Comment Straw polls are used only when consensus is not clear after a lengthy discussion. Voting first, before discussion, is generally frowned on. J.delanoygabsadds 03:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC) And useless, as these "proposals" are nothing different than is already being done. Grsz11 →Review! 03:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC) I agree - this is not going to go anywhere. The options to vote on are not real choices. Further it is not good to start a discussion by accusing people of editing this article simply out of support or opposition to the person. Any discussion premised on that is not very useful. I suggest we close/archive this. Wikidemon (talk) 07:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Trip to Kenya Section

Today I decided to be bold and add a valuable yet overlooked event in Obama's life. The trip he took to Kenya in 2006 to campaign on behalf of his cousin in "his" Presidential bid. I worded it as follows.

In August 2006 Obama travelled to to his fathers homeland in Kenya to campaign for his cousin Raila Odinga. Early that year Obama dispatched his foreign policy adviser Mark Lippert to Kenya to coordinate his visit. Upon arrival Obama and Odinga traveled together throughout Kenya and Obama spoke on behalf of Odinga at numerous rallies, declaring that "Kenyans are now yearning for change".

It contains two references, one from the Washington Times and one from the BBC. It has been deleted with WP:UNDUE cited as the reason. This implies the wording of the section is unbalanced. I would like input and suggestions as to what exactly is unbalanced in the above paragraph and what can be done to rectify it.

Surely this event is notable. It certainly has many high end sources like the ones included referencing it. I think it adds some flesh to Obama's foreign policy credentials, something he was attacked on by Sarah Palin during the Presidential campaign. Glen Twenty (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

In a summary style biography article, new content needs to be weighed carefully to ensure it carries sufficient weight to belong in the main article, not one of the sub-articles. In this case, I'm not sure it does. Thank you, by the way, for bringing this up here, instead of edit-warring to insert it. I'm actually a little on the fence about it, and would like to see other people comment on whether this trip abroad merits mention in the main article. --GoodDamon 05:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The undue weight may be partly the nature of the main source: a highly slanted commentary - not a news story - from a POV source, in the heat of our Presidential election without any counterbalance. I would agree with GoodDamon that this is more properly placed in a sub article if anywhere. The coverage cited is not widespread and not at all clear that this is notable in his life, for placement in his biography. Also there is some question about whether Odinga is actually Obama's cousin, despite the BBC's citing Odinga. Tvoz/talk 08:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this (well written) paragraph is undue weight for this main biography. A sub-article would seem like a better place: but which sub-article? A lot of suggestions nowadays say generically "put it in the campaign article". That doesn't seem relevant for this (nor for that matter, do most topics now that the campaign is over). I'm starting to think that some other sort of sub-articles might be appropriate to focus on other aspects of the bio subject's life other than the campaign or senate career. Not sure how that might be divided or titled though. LotLE×talk 09:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Was this a trip in his official capacity as U.S. Senator? Perhaps the info should be in United States Senate career of Barack Obama.--Appraiser (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Why include an image of his signature?

Signature Image

I'm a bit disturbed about having a .JPG of the President-Elect's signature up on the website, listed as creative commons. Isn't that just inviting fraud, when anyone can make up a document with the President's signature on it, just by clicking the first link that comes up after a google search on his name? With great power comes great responsibility... 68.37.255.83 (talk) 12:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC) November 11, 2008, Tom

This is standard WP practice for all presidents. MFlet1 (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There are fools born every minute, who will believe anything. We can't be catering to them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No need to get snarky. It's a legitimate question by an outsider. Everyme 15:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey everyone! Look at all the money I made selling autographed pictures of Obama on... *reads the above* Oh, damn...

But seriously, and here's a perhaps not legitimate question coming from an insider- why exactly is it standard wikipedia practice to include an image of the president's signature as part of his article? What could a reader possibly get from that that would do him or her any good, except access to the subject's bank account? ("So that's what happened to the rest of the campaign funds!") I understand older presidents, and especially folks who signed documents like the declaration, but I guess I'm just fuzzy on how a .jpg of his signature lends any insight into Barack Obama as a person, lawmaker, or tax-paying citizen? L'Aquatique[talk] 16:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Graphology? But for that it wouldn't have to be their signatures, could be The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog. Wouldn't that be nice? Everyme 16:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Snark, snark. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new rule

Few would disagree that there is much disagreement with this article.

I propose that all news must be 3 months ago (we can make it 1 month if people want it) before it can be in the article. The only exception would be extreme news, such as a heart attack or divorce or that he was sworn in on January 20th.

This way, we can discuss what is news and what is history.

People who want the latest on President-elect Obama can read CNN.com.

This will also reduce in-fighting.

Comments? Wikiangel1 (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So you suggest we wait until early February before calling him President-elect and mentioning the election results. Well I disagree. The flaw of paper encyclopedia's is they get out of date so quickly and we would be shooting ourselves int he foot to follow this in any article. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

But that's also the problem with Wikipedia; every up-to-the-minute update gets posted and articles become a random collection of facts and events. There's no oversight over what is "encyclopedic". Chuthya (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The idea is not all that bad and I've thought about similar rules in the past, e.g. as regards current news events, some of which get three or more entire articles in the first few hours. But I agree with SqueakBox that no such rule could ever be enforced. The spirit of the wiki is to keep it rapidly updated, however much sense it makes in some cases (live scores for sports matches etcpp). Everyme 20:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

We can't do that. Some news might be clearly "sticking" forever, others don't. Therefore we have to evaluate new developments on a base by base occasion.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Advice about this sort of thing already exists at WP:RECENT, which is frequently invoked by regular editors trying to keep tabs on such transient stuff. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That's right -we don't need an arbitrary new rule. We need to use common sense and some judgment, and discussion with other editors. Tvoz/talk 20:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to propose the opposite, but just in the form of something to keep in mind, not a rule. Namely, if it happened more than three months ago chances are it does not need to be changed. This is already a featured article, and unless something new has come to light about a past event, it is probably described pretty well as it is. As a general rule, possibly 90% of all proposed edits to all featured articles are good faith bad ideas - simple mistakes, poor wording, undue weight, trivia, matters that have already achieved consensus, etc. Before jumping in and thinking "this is a problem, I must fix it at once" it's helpful to take a moment to ask yourself why the article is worded the way it is, and whether other editors have already thought it through. Wikidemon (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but not terribly optimistic that it'll happen. Tvoz/talk 21:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what most editors here are saying. Wikipedia is not news. That principle is established, and we can use it to guide our discussions. Of course, the original poster may not have known about this particular principle, and I think that as good faith suggestions go, this is far from the worst I've seen. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This article has rules that other articles don't, like the 1Rev/Revert rule. I think several people's comments are good. Having a 3 month rule might not be exactly what we need but having the 1 month rule (proposed, too) keeps news out but keeps the article encyclopedia.

I think the "after 3 months, nothing can be changed" is not a good idea because I see a lot of sections that could be improved with grammatical changes, tweaks in information, some more important information replacing the less important stuff.

The problem with WP:NOT#NEWS is that it can create unnecessary tension and conflict. Editor A say "Obama did this". Editor B says "WP:NOT NEWS", which can be in a hostile tone and a start of confrontation. If we have an informal agreement that things need to be a month old, then we get rid of the hot news gossip and the accompanying disagreements on whether it's notable.

In short, I support a 1 month requirement to assess notability except in extreme unusual news. After one month, we'll know if something is notable. ImNotObama (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You can't set a rule that isn't binding or simply said, even so it would be nice in general if people would follow the "not news" policy, there are plenty who just won't. Unfortunately a section with good intention that won't change anything.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

A simple approach would be to restrict "news" on bios to what could be called "life-changing events". I say on bios because you can't have such a rule for fluid articles like a sports season, for example. However, such a rule is not only unenforceable, it also violates the "everyone can edit" policy. The restrictions on this particular article are appropriate. Trying to add more rules would just accelerate edit warring, which would not benefit wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Infobox needs changing

Michelle Obama is listed as spouse in the article infobox. John McCain's article list Cindy Hensley, not Cindy McCain, in that infobox.

I propose changing it to Michelle Robinson.

If there is strong opposition, then those people should change it to Cindy McCain. I can live with that.

We need to treat people fairly and do things the same way. ImNotObama (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the normal rule on spouse names in infoboxes? Is the default the maiden name, or the name they are most commonly known by, or something else? We should follow the rule, whatever it is. If you feel that the McCain article does not follow the rule you can take that up over there. Wikidemon (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's listed as "Laura Bush" in the George W. Bush article. Maybe the McCain article is the outlier here? --Aeon17x (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure know the "rule" in a previous discussion was to include their maiden name in their spouses article's info box.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the 20th century Presidents there's a total mix, with some displaying maiden names, some married names as best known and some displaying the Forename Maiden-name Married-name format even if they didn't actually use that. If there's a single default it's not actually being followed. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course and that falls under wp:other stuff exists what I already mentioned in another thread. Taking a look at the recent election (and that's what we should focus on) it shows, that we did not go with "other crap exists". So what's your point? I wasn't talking about a long-term default.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"Other stuff exists" is a rejoinder used too often (especially when calling for consistency with other stuff). I am a great believer in the consistent presentation of information and an opponent of recentism. From an encyclopedic point of view the obvious comparison is with the Bushes, Clinton, Reagan, Carter etc... not with the unsuccessful candidates. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. I think consistency in articles is a plus but also not the only way to go. I'm comparing (and I said this before) the recent main articles about this years election and that would be, again, John McCain, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. So I'm referring to the recent time and history, meaning this year, this election. If you think it was done wrong you're a little bit late to bring this up. Sid you read my last comment called "hold your breath" at [30] here on the same page you're posting? If not you might want to do this before replying further.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Funnily enough when a talkpage is used so heavily that it gets about 500 new comments a day it's hard to keep track of every variable thread. But having looked at it now (for all that it says) the template details just say:

Name of spouse(s), followed by years of marriage. Use the format Name (1950-present) for current spouse and Name (1970-1999) for former spouse(s). Separate entries with a line break (br/).

So it doesn't help us at all here, although the example shows "Melinda Gates" not "Melinda French" (or even "Melinda French Gates").

I completely reject the idea that the main valid comparisons are with other candidates in this election. That is typical recentism. There doesn't seem to be a clear guidance on this at all so making changes on the basis of dubious consistency is flawed. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama's 2004 speech

I don't know about you but I find this edit[31] excessive. First, an undue (though not POV) amount of detail to the question of which networks carried the speech when. Frankly, that doesn't matter. Second, a flock of 15+ cites in a single footnote, and it's not clear what proposition they're standing for. Normally one or two should do. If you require 15 cites to prove one point it's probably synthesis. Can we get to the bottom of it and say something in a succinct way about the speech putting him on the national map, without taking up 1/4 of the footnote section? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

My god! excessive, ya think? It needs to be trimmed with a meat cleaver. Especially, the bit about PBS, reruns of shows, and starting off with "Although 3 networks did not carry it". The length and detail actually destroy context in this case. Oh, and the democratic "rising star"? Ugh. Digital^Ninja 00:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Brick wall

I've created this new section in response to the continued "African American" discussion above, so that I might have something to bang my head against. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Great idea, and I hope you enjoy yourself. Landon1980 (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)