Talk:Barack Obama

Please get a better picture of Barack for the article. Krj3550 (talk)krj3550 —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC).

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 done.Jakob37 (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

69.134.20.90 (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC) i have come to notice that some of the people on this board are extremely racist and wont admit in the text of the article that obama is half white ..i understand the importance to some of the people on here that he be considered black but face facts he isnt.. he is listed as the first african american when in fact ,he isnt ..he might be the first half african american ever elected then when a true african american is elected you wont have to undo all the lies you have spouted about this one.this is afterall,a place where people come for knowledge not some general idea that is put forth by some people

Your comments are totally off base from beginning to end. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

69.134.20.90 (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC) bugs , nice brush off if i am so offbase then why isnt it mentioned anywhere in the text about his white hertitage..people are wanting to claim his citzenship but not the people who gave him the right to that citizenship his black father was not a citizen so why is everyone harping on his race and wont acknowledge the white side ..maybe if this source were more fair to other people there wouldnt be the rage about how a man with dual citizenship got elected president or about where he was born when anybody can have a birth certficate made up with about 30 minutes planning just a little research i can be anybody with a legitament birth certficate if you want to fair to the readers and to the man himself at least make it fair

Have you bothered to read past the first paragraph? Like where it states that his mother was white? Oh, and have you found any reliable sources that don't call him "the first African American President"? Of course he's African American. He's also English American. But that last part is hardly news, as most every President has been European American. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

69.134.20.90 (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC) yes i read the entire article and have seen lots of things about his life not published or ignored but the point i am making which you seem to be dodging he is only half and should be noted that way.. it is not as if it is hidden by him or anybody else if you were half italian 1/4 english and 1/4 russian would you want to be considered just russian ..he is english arabian and kenyan

We describe him the way the reliable sources describe him. And this has been already discussed at length. Your comments bring nothing new to the discussion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

69.134.20.90 (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC) so you need to change the slogan from "the free encyclopedia" to the free " follow the masses rumormill" if you cant post truths about somebody

First rule: Wikipedia bases its information on reliable sources, not on the "rumormill" and not on someone's opinion of the "truth". Second rule: Kindly put your 4 tildes at the END of your comments rather than the beginning. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

my apologies for posting incorectly ,but back to the main argument so you are saying that it isnt a reliable source that he is half white. if it is a reliable source it should be noted in the lead paragragh instead of half way down on one line69.134.20.90 (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

We go by reliable sources, and the wording is proper on that basis. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity in first sentence

The fact that Obama is "the first African American to be elected President of the United States" should not be in the first sentence. It's an important fact, and ought to be in the lead, but putting it there implies it is of equal importance as him being President-elect. His ethnicity was not in the first sentence of the Featured Article version (which was, admittedly, written before he was elected). This is the only politics and government FA where an individual's ethnicity is mentioned in the first sentence.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"President-elect of the United States and the first African-American to be elected President of the United States" is really awkward. It sounds like two separate things, plus it is a list of two items that are dissimilar, one being a position and the other being a superlative. For clarity and flow we should cut out the statement that he is president-elect because it is fully implied by the statement that he is the first African-American to be so. I share Cuchullain's sentiment, though, that the fact of his being President is primary. But how to do that without unduly minimizing the rather stunning importance of his accomplishment? How about "B.H.O....is President-Elect of the United States. The first African-American elected to the position, Obama....(etc)"? - Wikidemon (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is as straightforward as you think it is. Consider it from this alternative perspective: there have been lots of US presidents, but Obama will be the only African-American president. From a certain point of view, being an African American president is more remarkable than becoming president - especially to Americans. Most reliable sources talk about the historic nature of this particular election, purely because of the ethnicity. I suggest that this is of equal importance to his status as President-elect, and perhaps even of more importance. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I have seen a small body of pan-african "scholarship" that indicate that he is not the first. Race is really not that important, or so I am lead to believe.I would have to say that I agree with Wikidemon here.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Wikidemon's suggestion, and Cuchullain's approach - two sentences to cover the two different points. Priyanath ^talk 22:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

My suggested wording was that exactly, Wikidemon: "Barack Hussein Obama... is the President-elect of the United States. The first African American to be elected President of the United States, Obama was the junior United States Senator from Illinois from 2005 until he resigned on November 16, 2008, following his election to the Presidency." I think that flows better anyway, and clarifies the other things that make him notable. I have to say, the fact that he is the first African American president hinges entirely on the fact that he was elected President in the first place, making that more important. Again, his ethnicity is important and must be mentioned in the lead, but it is secondary.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't have a problem with how it now reads, but the Wikidemon-suggested change is also fine with me. It's a non-issue, I believe.LedRush (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears most editors favor a change (or don't care), so how about we go ahead and make the change.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

He is not going to be the first African-American president, he's going to be the first half-african-american president or first mixed president as you will , but he's not the first African American president ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.106.138.37 (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama has a chance to be a great president and positively effect the nation. He has a chance to shed a positive light on his people. His people are not blacks, not african americans, not whites, but Americans. Barack Obama is a mixed race American, but more importantly an American. That is important above all else. I would hope that Barack himself would agree to this statement, being the good man that he is. Race should be of no importance. He is American and that is that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericbart (talk • contribs) 17:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama isn't legally "African American," as far as I know. He is about 7% African American, while about 43% Arab (but correct me if you know what you're talking about). Codster925 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC).

President-elect?

Failure to understand electoral system

Point of accuracy: He will not be "president-elect" until the Electoral College meets and confirms it. They certainly will, but as of now he is the "presumptive president-elect." And don't start that crap that "the news says he's the president-elect and that's a valid source." Until they meet, he's not, and it doesn't matter how many people claim he is.Mzmadmike (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No, that "crap" is a Wikipedia Policy. Grsz¹¹ 17:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is not wikipedia policy. However, this was discussed at length and we have a compromise that has kept the peace, so please see the archives.LedRush (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind...it looks like the consensus footnote has been removed.LedRush (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There, I've restored the note that was there to ensure that these discussions never get off the ground again. Move along...nothing to see here.LedRush (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

A foot note is not to say that consensus cannot change, nor should it be used to stifle debate. I would support such a change. I would say that is 2 people in the building of consensus for changeDie4Dixie (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the previous discussion in the archives, it's clear that the preponderance of reliable sources are using the simple "president-elect", and the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 also defines the next president as "president-elect". It would take an overwhelming consensus, if that, to override reliable sources and acts of congress. Not going to happen. Priyanath ^talk 22:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Where are your souces, absent WP:original researched synthesis, Mzmadmike?

Note that the following is how things work, semantically: If you were at some point to become generally presumed to have been elected to the U.S. Presidency, what you then become called is the, yes, President-elect. (THEREFORE, use of the term presumptive President-elect would be entirely redundant in this situation. In other words, sure, if for some reason people were to stop presuming Obama were the president-elect, then people simply would stop using the term President-elect until there was one who was so presumed to be elected. Got it? Cf.: Bush v. Gore, &cetera.)

The point of fact in this matter is that we simply can't throw out all those media sources, sir or ma'am; 'cause, cousin, Wikipedia ain't about The Truth -- but about reflecting prestigious secondary sources, plain & simple.

1. Such as, I don't know, say The New York Times:
   Times Topics > People > O > Obama, Barack
   Barack Obama
   President-Elect of the United States
   Vice-Presidential Running Mate: Joseph R. Biden Jr.
2. Then, as a check to see if Wikipedia editors got this one reasonably right this time, let's check other prestigious tertiary sources, e.g., The Encyclopaedia Britannica:
   Barack Obama
   president-elect of the United States
   in full Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.
   born Aug. 4, 1961, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.
   American politician who on Nov. 4, 2008, was elected the 44th president of the United States, defeating Arizona Sen. John McCain, the Republican candidate.
3. Or, for that matter, we can even check with the United States government itself, such as the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress:
   OBAMA, Barack, (1961 - )
   Senate Years of Service: 2005-
   Party: Democrat
   OBAMA, Barack, a Senator from Illinois; born in Honolulu, Hawaii, August 4, 1961[... ... ...]elected as a Democrat to the U.S. Senate in 2004 for term beginning January 3, 2005; elected as the 44th President of the United States on November 4, 2008.
4. And last but not least, we can check the private organization headed by the private citizen (and, um, presumed elected presidential candidate, viz., the President-elect) Mr. Barack Obama: CHANGE.GOV: OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT-ELECT:
   YOUR ADMINISTRATION
   President-elect
   Barack Obama
   LEARN
   Barack Obama was raised by a single mother and his grandparents.[...]

Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply … 22:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any real support for a change (other than the 2 people above), so why don't we just ignore this and hope it goes away?LedRush (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

 I . (But it's so fun-- !) To reemphasize: Being President-elect is essentially a conditional affair -- similar to a couple's being "engaged to be married"......

Bob promises Sally if he were to make partner, they'd marry. The company offers him the partnership, with the offer only awaiting mere rubberstamping at an upcoming board meeting. Bob calls Sally and tells her the good news. They book a mosque, church of temple for the ceremonies, and the minister lists the ceremony in its bulletin. They register at a local department store for gifts. A local newspaper's society page carries a newstory about their upcoming nuptials. The couple sends out invitations. Is the couple engaged?

Since being engaged is conditional in nature, to insist, "No, one must not say they are engaged -- because Bob told Sally their engagement forever remains conditional upon his becoming partner, and this awaits being rubberstamped at the upcoming board meeting, so until that point, they're just presumed engaged!" -- is unnecessary. So, we just go by the minister's announcement, the news report, the department store listing, and the couple's announcement and go ahead and step out on a limb and call the couple -- "engaged." Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply … 23:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

 II . Barack tells Hillary, "I'm going to designate you my nominee as long as Bill agrees to /x/ /y/ and /z/." Obama's transition publically announces Hillary is designated, but the President-elect mentions in his statement something about his assumption that the Secretary-to-be's husband will fulfill certain obligations. The announcement is published in the press, by government organs, and by Senator Clinton. Q. Is she the designated nominee? Or the presumed Secretary-designate?

A. The former, because Secretary-designate is already conditional enough a description and reliable sources term her as such. Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply … 00:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College The Electoral College consists of the popularly elected representatives who formally select the President and Vice President of the United States; since 1964 the electoral college has had 538 electors.[1] In 2008, it will make this selection on December 15. There's your source. "Consensus" doesn't enter into it. Incidentally, Grsz saw fit to claim that I and my novels (nominated for two major awards, translated into German and Russian, available in all bookstores in the English speaking world, sold somewhere over 400,000 copies, made several bestseller lists, etc) were "not notable" about ten minutes after I made the correction to the false claim that he is president-elect. Now, he almost certainly WILL be president-elect. However, per the Constitution and laws of our nation, he is not yet president-elect, and no "consensus" changes that. Claimed "consensus" supports such claptrap as Creationism. So, I will be correcting the article again, and on the morning of the 15th you can officially call him President-Elect, as he will be. The "consensus" and myth that the popular vote elects the President is how we got that whining crap about Gore's loss. Let's remember that this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA that is supposed to be accurate and educate, not express a "consensus" opinion. Anyone who can throw OR around about this clearly is not educated enough on the subject to comment and should refrain from doing so, and anyone petty enough to personally attack someone's professional status over such a minor issue, especially when they are wrong, should not be editing at all. Unfortunately, I don't see any way to nominate a person for deletion, though there certainly should be. Play nice, now.Mzmadmike (talk) 08:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Spare your lectures on how the electoral college works. We know how it works. This has already been debated at length. The term "President-elect" is defined by the government to include the "presumed" winner. There is no OR about it. Obama is the President-elect, period. And the Gore-Bush issue had to do with the popular vote in Florida, not the overall popular vote nor the electoral vote, so you've got that story wrong. And you've also got it wrong about the date - it won't be official until January 6th. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

.Mzmadmike, everyone here agrees that electors confirm the formal election results; where our disagreement is, is whether the presumed winner is the President-elect or not until they do so. Per WP:SYN:

Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion[...]then the editor is engaged in original research.

Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply … 09:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

[ec] Mike, making changes, especially to a FA on article probation, should not be done unilaterally when the discussion on the talk page and in the talk archives quite clearly opposes those changes. You are incorrectly assuming that you understand the electoral process better than the experienced editors here - which, by the way, is patronizing and insulting - and you are ignoring the arguments that have been presented many times over on this: namely that the article that is wikilinked in the first sentence, President-elect, has a very clear and elaborate explanation of exactly how it works, and that the common use of the term is slightly different from the technicality, but that virtually all sources that we draw on to build our articles use the term as soon as the election is decided, well before December 15 or January 6. We have bent over backwards in this article - unnecessarily as far as I'm concerned, but I am going along with that consensus decision - to include a footnote (now 123) that explains some of the arcana surrounding this, so your insistence on adding "presumptive" is just not going to fly. Just about every press report that one encounters refers to him as President-elect, as they have for all other presidents-elect in the past, once the election was decided, before the Electoral College meets and before their votes are certified. I understand that this may give you agita, and that's regrettable, but as has been explained, we follow sources and, yes, we make decisions based on the consensus of editors, not because any one of us thinks he or she knows best. My advice would be that you take a few days off from this article and return after Dec 15 when your sensibilities won't be so offended, but please don't presume that you possess more knowledge than the rest of us about how this encyclopedia, or the American political system, works. (As for your irrelevant views about that "whining crap about Gore's loss", I think you may have missed the part where the Supreme Court stepped in, against all precedent, and substituted their views over the views of the Florida Supreme Court in a matter that has otherwise and always been deemed a matter of states' rights - and prevented the recount that would have determined whether Gore's popular vote would have carried the state, and therefore the election. So please try to leave your obvious POV at the door in this very minor issue of using the term "President-elect".) Tvoz/talk 09:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time believing the amount of vitriol in this discussion when it's over something that is going to be a moot point in around FOUR DAYS! SAColorfinger (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It started the day after the election, and it won't be officially over until January 6th. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

In response to SAColorfinger: do a Google Blogs search for "presumptive president-elect" (or just click here[4]) and you'll see where this is coming from (you can skip the first link, which is to User:Mzmadmike's blog about 'Failpedia'). It generally has to do with 1. There's only "one president at a time", and 2. Obama hasn't proved he's a citizen yet. I'm guessing they like the tone of 'presumptive', as in 'presumption', also. sigh..... Priyanath ^talk 15:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

" ... the common use of the term is slightly different from the technicality ... " Although I agree that common usage dictates calling him "president elect" in articles, I sympathize with mike on this (he's wrong, but I sympathize). The electoral college vote is not a technicality - if they say "no John Doe", the answer is "no John Doe" (I am deliberately avoiding using Senator Obama's name in that context). All common sense and historical precedent tell us that the electoral college will confirm the Novemember vote, but (as I understand it) it's not a technicality; which is why we are a representative democracy and not a democracy, no?Nightmote (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the electoral college is by no means a technicality. But the term President-elect is not defined in the constitution, and the government uses the term as an umbrella term that includes the "apparent" winner. Indeed, if some startling revelation or other misfortune came out about Obama over the weekend (or Biden, for that matter), the electoral college would likely have to chose someone else. The logical choice would be Hillary Clinton. No, it wouldn't be McCain, because these are Democrats, remember - unless they wanted to shackle him with the recession for 4 years. Not likely. And he won't be "officially" the President-elect until January 6th, when the ballots are certified by Congress. But "President-elect" is perfectly proper to use, from the evening of November 4th until noon on January 20th, barring some misfortune. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Footnote

In order to stop the endless debate on whether or not Obama is the president elect, after countless hours of fighting and research, we decided to keep the language as it is currently in the article but put a footnote in the lead explaning the situation (hours later all footnotes in the lead were deleted and we made the NB as it is now). The rationale for this was twofold: 1. it could deter the repeated discussions on what it means to be president elect from occupying our time and taking our focus off the ball; 2. doing what Wikipedia does best: inform. By having a simple explanation, people could learn all the need to about the issue in one sentence. If they want to learn more, they can go to the article.

Sometime during my wiki-break the footnote was changed, and I have since replaced it twice in the last 24 hours. Of course, I will not revert again and break the 3RR rule. However, I hope that people can understand why the note exists (and there are tens of thousands of words you can read on this in the archives) and why I made the change. We should work for an integrity of process here, and when a compromise is fought over as long and as hard as that one, it doesn't seem right for people to delete it without discussion.

Anyway, that's just my two cents...LedRush (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course, before I even finished this baseball bugs deleted it.LedRush (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Show me the diff where the "NB" part was agreed upon and I'll back off. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I left a message on your talkpage so as not to ignite a flame war over here.LedRush (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of reliable sources report that Obama is the president-elect. While a niggly-piggly to-the-letter reading of the Constitution may tell that it isn't proper to term one the president-elect until after the Electoral College actually votes, the colloquial, everyday usage meaning of the term has simply come to mean "the dude who won in November". Tarc (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we can stay on topic here.LedRush (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Show us where there was consensus for adding the superfluous "NB" to the footnote. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately hostile and rude, baseballbugs, or if it is inadvertent. However, I have explained the situation on your talk page and above. Demanding proof for something no one claims is true as a straw man for discussion is not good faith. I've tried to avoid flaming over on this article, and will continue to do so, but I believe the change of the footnote was improper for the reasons stated above, on your talk board, and now below:

The compromise called for a footnote in the lead. When the lead was cleaned of this footnote, the NB formed. Later, the NB was deleted. I think this is unhelpfull for two reasons:

1. Baseballbugs correctly argued in the discussion that a footnote is helpful (rather than just a link to the President Elect article) because: "What if they don't want to read that entire article and just want a simple explanation? It's just a courtesy to the reader. Keep in mind we do this encyclopedia for the reader, not for ourselves." That end was met when the footnote was in the lead and not buried at #137 in something people will never see.

2. Integirty of process. We came up with a compromise after long disagreements. The compromise was to have a footnote in the lead. It is not a leap to assume that the reason this was acceptable to people who wanted the text in the article itself because of the prominance of the note (the first note in the article).

I really hope the conversation can stay constructive and not degenerate into insults, sarcastic replies, and deliberate misrepresentations of others' opinion.LedRush (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, I was on-topic, as is Baseball Bugs. You have been asked several times to produce the location of this footnote or whatever compromise, and have failed to do so. Why is that? Tarc (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect. I was not asked "to produce the location of this footnote or whatever compromise". I was rudely threatened with the following condition: "Show me the diff where the "NB" part was agreed upon and I'll back off". Of course I never stated that the NB was part of the initial compromise. The compromise called for a footnote...that is all. This footnote was put in the lead. Because it was in the lead, all parties agreed to it and the issue was over. However, footnotes were removed from the lead and the note was moved and became a NB. I have been very clear on this point, and continuing to pretend otherwise as a straw man is just not acting in good faith. You can see the whole thread at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_42#Validity_of_the_term_.27President_Elect.27 .

However, now I don't even know what the point is. I hold out almost no hope that anyone wants to discuss this honestly and constructively. Long term editors who make fun of the people who come here angrily flaming for the inclusion of their fringe theories may want to look at why this place fosters such resentment and animosity. Being polite and honest will almost always better serve the article. Sarcastic replies and insulting misrepresentations of others' ideas just makes tempers all around worse.LedRush (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, that conversation. What I see there is some discussion on wording, and then a small group of people pushing for a footnote at the very end of the discussion, with no one else really chiming in. I would not characterize it as "consensus was reached on a footnote", no. that wold be a bit disingenuous. Tarc (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to look again.LedRush (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

By way of clarification, the first 40-50% of the thread is about whether he's the president elect or not. Then, the footnote idea is introduced as a compromise. The last 50-60% of the thread is in proposing the footnote language, tweaking it, and deciding whether or not it is acceptable to all parties.LedRush (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was wrong: Sheffield Steel introduced the idea of a footnote in the lead near the beginning of the discussion: "It sounds like a good source. I think perhaps a footnote could be added to the term "president elect" in the lead section, to explain this. That might make everyone happy (or at least, everyone might be willing to accept it). What do others think?" SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 03:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC) LedRush (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, BAseball Bugs said "A footnote after the linked President-elect, explaining it in one simple sentence for those who don't feel like reading the President-elect megillah, would seem reasonable. Especially as there have been editors here who didn't understand it." Of course, the linked president elect was in the lead at that time, and that's where the compromise expected it to go. I am not arguing for that now (though not a bad idea), just by way of further clarification.LedRush (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't the first to revert that "NB". In any case, I find it overkill, patronizing, whatever. A footnote is fair. It's also not worth making a big thing of. Everyone recognizes Obama as the President-elect. It's not an issue. A simple, discrete (not "shouting at you") footnote is more than sufficient. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

A note in the lead puts far too much weight on the issue. Moreover, a special "note bene" link anywhere in the article also puts a bit too much weight on it. However, a plain footnote lower in the article seems acceptable to me. I think the pedantic (and slightly WP:ORish) point would be perfectly fine to omit altogether, but I can live with a plain footnote low in the body. LotLE×talk 19:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Lulu is completely correct, as he was the last time I recall his talking about this, and as has been said over and over and over again here and on other pages. Ledrush, you are confusing consensus with exhaustion - I, for one, made my point in the thread you linked to above, and stopped commenting in that thread because enough is enough. There is a tendency at play here to wear down people, asking the same question over and over, opening the discussion again and again, and then when editors are sick and tired of responding, calling consensus for what was clearly not the consensus at all. Consensus doesn't mean last man, or woman, standing gets his or her way, although I have seen it tried many, many times. The consensus was and is crystal clear that the most that is needed - the most - is a footnote in the President-elect section. The President-elect article explains it all. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE WIKILINKS. The "nota bene" footnote that you keep inserting without consensus is overkill, gratuitous, and way too much weight - LotLE's solution is just fine, and I also remain unconvinced that even that is necessary. But I have been willing to go along with it because it was so important to some folks, and I can live with the irritation I get every time I see it. But I am not willing to live with a huge Note Bene section about this incredibly minute point, nor am I willing to go along with "Presumptive" president-elect as MadMike tried to strongarm in last night, see discussion immediately above. This is all of a piece, and it is a gross waste of time, and pathetic to boot. The man was elected President, he is now called the President-elect according to virtually all sources - we say so, like everyone else does, and like we would have had McCain won the election, and this has to stop already. As I suggested to Mike, I really encourage you to take a break from this article until at least December 15, when that part of the issue will be even more moot than it is now, and you won't find it so painful to read. Enough. Tvoz/talk 20:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC) correction: MadMike's unilateral change was discussed two sections up. Tvoz/talk 20:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion is fine, but pretending that there wasn't agreement on the note in the lead is just wrong, and your personal insults are unwarranted. This whole process is quite demoralizing. Your statements above that the most that is needed is a footnote is not even remotely supported by the record. However, it doesn't matter now because the issue has been brought up again, and a small group of agressive and rude editors will simply outlast anyone who has any idea that could be seen as negative to Obama.LedRush (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I think I supported the footnote because, at the time, there seemed to be a reliable source explaining the issue. That does not now seem to be the case. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

There are reliable sources, so let's not use that pretext. Again.LedRush (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding December 15th, I don't know that the electoral college results are going to be announced then. Certainly they're not official until Congress certifies them on the 6th. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It might be instructive to see how this was handled in the past, although wikipedia may not have existed yet in 2000. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess we could look to other coutries...but do you think anyone here would soften there position based on it? I am resigned to not getting a constructive conversation about this, and the issue mostly died after the last compromise.LedRush (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Correct. And a good thing, too. Can you imagine the POV editing that would have been going on then on a minute-by-minute basis? Or suppose we had wikipedia during the Civil War? Tvoz/talk 20:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I was just looking for a President precedent for the present. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If there's a new proposal for a footnote, why not post it here? Then we can discuss it, and its sourcing. If there's no proposal, or no source, there's not much to (productively) talk about. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I posted here to get the old deal back in place. (FN in the lead, like agreed, or NB in the body, like what happened after the lead was "cleaned"). I will not waste my time showing people sources again (like I did before) only to have them be ignored by people who don't care (I have not heard a serious contention that the sourced info was incorrect, and getting bogged down in sources before there is a general agreement wastes time).LedRush (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I have long had a problem with the President-Elect issue. The foot note is a goodfaithed effort to resove some editors concerns. Besides being factually accurate, which we all want,( or so thought we did). Anyone who has had 10th grade political science in the US should know the voters do not elect the president , the electoral college does and they have not voted. An inconvientant fact, that if we argue about it for 3 more days it will be a moot point( which I get the feeling that this is the idea). Leave it in for a couple of days , and when they vote , change it to whatever you want.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you shoudl have finished grades 11 and 12 then. The Presidential Transition Act of 1963 establishes in law the orderly transfer, the establishment of office for transition and the use of the term President-elect as follows:

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

Barack Obama is the President-elect as recognized not just in media and and common usage by the public, but also under the above cited law since the polls closed on November 4th, 2008. Those claiming otherwise are braying at the moon. - Lestatdelc (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

i'm sorry you felt like you need to personalize this. While your 11th and 12th grade comment had a certain humor, I'm certain your point could have been made just as effectively without it.Die4Dixie (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

All these "Prez elect concept clarification" debates, have many phases in common. Apart from the repetitiousness of the arguments, one of the most common phases of the discussion is the introduction of the 1963 Transition Law. This phase will be followed by the usual Electoral college and Congressional proclamation arguments. Is there a possible shortcut to all this? Dr.K. (logos) 03:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Every time the same question comes up, answer SEE ARCHIVES and be done with it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) You know Bugs, I was thinking about a very similar thing. I was going to propose copying and pasting answers from the archives as a kind of fun exercise and to demonstrate the repetitive nature of these debates. Of course I was also going to propose that after pasting two or three previous answers to terminate this debate due to absolute proof this was covered before and to save some bandwidth. Dr.K. (logos) 03:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the answers don't "answer" the issue about how to deal with a complicated issue. Of course, I did cut and paste some of the proposals we had before, which were to just put the footnote in the lead (which was moved to a NB in the article). We discussed, agreed, and then welched. Now the issue has come up again. What a surprise.LedRush (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

A proposal I hope gains the community's consensus: How about we put a note next to the article's first use of the term President-elect that suggests the reader cursor over it. Then when its cursored over, have a youtube-type box pop up, upon which would be shown a beautiful or handsome spokesmodel who'll be doing airquotes on his or her fingers? Wouldn't that satisfy everybody's concerns? Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply … 03:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The Prez elect part of the discussion should not have taken place at all due to exhaustive coverage. The discussion, if any, should have been limited to the size and location of the footnote. Dr.K. (logos) 03:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

A lot of issues would go away a lot quicker if everyone on the page would be a bit more civil, and lose some of the rudeness and sarcasm. Everyone responds more positively if they are treated with respect, and if there concerns aren't mocked, etc. There aren't any major civility issues I've seen lately, but about 4 or 5 of you are unnecessarily hostile, rude, and bitey with anyone who doesn't share the same opinion as you. It seems like that unless someone is doing something other than praising Obama they are treated poorly, and you fight to keep any content out that could even possibly cast a negative light on Obama. I'm done with arguing my concerns about the neutrality of the article, but when you compare this article to other similar articles there is an enormous difference in how things are handled, how things are written, what can and cannot be added and so on. Landon1980 (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

When people say ridiculous things over and over and over and over and over...whether it is whining about bi-racial descriptors. footnotes, criticism sections, natural born citizenship, or throwing hysterical hissy fits when they think people are insulting them when they really didn't...it tends to try on the patience of others. We don't have to reinvent the wheel everytime someone hope along into this talk page to suggest one or more of the above. Tarc (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::::(ec) @Landon: I don't see your point(s), neither do I see where I have been uncivil or bitey. You put me in a difficult position because if you refer to me you have no reason to be so uncivil and I don't wish to answer in kind. I am not going to be baited but you should stop this line of personal attack. I guess asking you to apologise is asking too much. Enough said. Dr.K. (logos) 04:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would apologize, but I wasn't talking to you. I wasn't talking to anyone, it was just a general statement on how newcomers/editors are treated sometimes. You, Dr. K, are one of the few people on here that actually do respect other editors, and their opinions and hear them out properly. There was no need for you to accuse me of baiting, personal attacks, and incivility though, there was nothing uncivil in my comment, let alone the fact I wasn't even talking to you. I'll apologize anyways, I didn't realize this thread was about you, I thought the discussion was about issues that were brought up frequently and how to handle them. Landon1980 (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Landon. It's my turn to apologise for mistaking your comments. I thought the way you indented just below my comments it was to include me also and I simply couldn't find where I could have gone wrong. I should have known better because I met you before and I would not expect this from you, at least not for a good reason. Anyway I just struck my comments above. Thanks for the courtesy of the apology but clearly it was not needed because you clarified your point. Take care. Dr.K. (logos) 05:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

And yes. Thanks for the gentle (slightly sarcastic?) reminder that the thread was not about me. But what do I know? ;) Dr.K. (logos) 05:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Haha don't worry about it, we all make mistakes at times. I was surprised when you thought I was talking to you, and I understand your reaction based on that. None of those things apply to you, you are always respectful and a pleasure to converse with. Have a good day, Landon1980 (talk) 05:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The feeling is mutual Landon. Thanks for your kind comments. Take care. Tasos (Dr.K. (logos) 06:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC))

(out)Similar articles handled in a different manner? How many articles have you seen with a debate on whether or not someone should be called President-elect? This is a unique situation that can in no way be compared to other articles. We have no precedent to work from (Wikipedia wasn't around for the last President-elect), so we're working on things as they come up. I think all the editors here should rather be commended for their constant discussion and innovation put forth here, as it truly is unchartered territory. Grsz¹¹ 05:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the President-elect issue, I think it's fine like it is. I just mean in general that sarcasm and rudeness never helps anything, it only further agitates the issue. Sometimes everyone needs to realize that even though the issue has been raised a hundred times that it's a new person, not the same person that has participated in the prior discussion(s). Most of the editors do a tremendous job on here, but some of you have a habit of being rude, sarcastic, hateful, etc. Nothing is viewed as uncivil as long as it is used while expressing the view of the majority, but nearly anything from the minority that could be possibly seen as borderline uncivil is reprimanded. Landon1980 (talk) 05:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Come on, sarcasm gets everybody through a bad day! Grsz¹¹ 05:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

This is the nerdiest discussion on the entire Internet Tim010987 (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm is truly horrible. People who employ sarcasm should be blocked immediately. This is a serious encyclopedia!!!!1 Jehochman ^Talk 18:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Be careful, you might be the first to go. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Did I hear something about nerds? Does anyone doubt the many contributions of nerds to the advancement of science in general and to encyclopaedias in particular? Dr.K. (logos) 18:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Please people. Wikipedia is not a forum. --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of !voting

The signatories below support updating the proposed guideline (or whatever it is) "Post-election edit war syndrome" to address candidates presumed elected, eventually certifying it an official Wikipedia policy (or whatever).

X me Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply … 22:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Electoral College

If this random article from 2004 is any indication [5], the results of the electoral college votes will probably be made known on Monday. It still won't be official until January 6th, when the Congress certifies it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The 111th United States Congress won't be certifying it until January 8, 2009. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

NEWS FLASH: HILLARY WINS ELECTORAL COLLEGE IN AN UPSET!!!

Made ya look! The electoral college vote today went exactly as expected, and Obama is now almost the "official" President-elect. [6] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean they voted today as expected or what? How exactly do you know it went as expected when the votes have yet to even be tallied? All that article said was that they voted, that they will tally the votes, and gave the projected outcome based on election night. Landon1980 (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

They voted today on schedule, and elected Obama as expected. As the article notes, "With only Hawaii still to vote, all the electors had cast ballots in accordance with the popular votes in their states." There are many other internet stories talking about the individual states' electoral college votes, whose results are made public, they're just not "official" until the joint session certifies the votes on January 6th. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Make that January 8th. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

So it's the 8th now??? Wow, they're cutting it close. What if the electoral college lied about who they chose? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, all right. I admit I looked... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Smoking

For some reason I am unable to edit the article to update it. The article currently claims:

Before announcing his presidential candidacy, he began a well-publicized effort to quit smoking.[179] He has not succeeded.[180]

This is misleading. Obama has quit per MSNBC, but fell off the wagon a few times during the campaign. See the following:

"I have [quit]," Obama said. "What I said was that there are times where I have fallen off the wagon."

MSNBC (Meet the Press) is the original source of the interview that has renewed pundit talk about Obama's smoking, so they should be used as the source for any smoking update. TAway (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

So... he's only mostly quit, then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.231.15 (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

For people without a political agenda, if you're still smoking, you haven't quit. And he's still smoking. Thus we see editorials like Obama should quit smoking. - Nunh-huh 21:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

That's just silly. I was a 70-a-day smoker until 1999, when I quit. Since then, I've had maybe half-a-dozen cigarettes in moments of weakness, but I am most definitely a non smoker now. It all depends on how often Obama is having a cigarette - if it's one or two per week, you can probably safely say he's quit. More than that, and you could say he has failed to quit. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. If you smoke, you're a smoker. Trying to quit/saying you've quit/cutting down on the number of cigarettes you smoke is not equivalent to quitting. - Nunh-huh 22:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. I went from 70-a-day to effectively zero. In the 9 years since I quit, I've had perhaps half a dozen cigarettes, and none at all in the last 5 years. Calling me a smoker is absurd. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If you haven't had a cigarette in 5 years, it's certainly reasonable to say you've quit smoking. That's not at all Obama's situation. Smoking one or two cigarettes a week isn't "non-smoking". - Nunh-huh 16:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think this should really make the article at all...is it really worth of mention in a biography of a president [elect] of the USA? However, if we decide to include it, we should do it right. If you still smoke, you haven't quit. Until reliable sources say otherwise, he hasn't been successful in quitting despite several attempts. Perhaps more neutral language on this would help...perhaps saying he hasn't succeeded "yet" or mimic his own language and say "Before announcing his presidential candidacy, he began a well-publicized effort to quit smoking, though he has "fallen off the wagon" several times." or something to that effect.LedRush (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

What if you just omitted the last sentence about Obama not succeeding? It sounds to me almost mocking in its tone. LovesMacs (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and that's how it currently reads. Even if he "quit", it might be like Mark Twain, "Giving up smoking is the easiest thing in the world. I know because I've done it thousands of times." The fact that Obama is attempting to quit is plenty good enough. Having regular updates on his success and failure goes against WP:NOTNEWS. Priyanath ^talk 22:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how we could even consider saying that he quit without saying that he still smokes cigarettes. As stated above, I don't think the entire topic belongs. But if we talk about it, let's be honest.LedRush (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Our article says Obama "...a well-publicized effort to quit..."[my highlight] and thus doesn't say he quit, and he is still making the effort by using the gum according to the MSNBC article. Modocc (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The idea of Wikipedia is not to obfuscate because of personal opinions. As it stands now, the article presents only the positive effort to quit and not the realistic hurdles that many smokers face. If there is an effort to quit, what is the result as of now? Why can't we use his own words to describe what has happened? Why are we afraid of simple, NPOV presentation of facts?LedRush (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Obfuscate? No, and we don't know when he last smoked or is going to agian, and I don't care one way or the other if its covered here. Its "not fair" is simple baloney, for such a detail can get buried to another article because of summary style. This short bio has more important info to cover than the "realistic hurdles that many smokers face." Modocc (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I vote that we removed the entire smoking 'story' as too trivial. Also because it's something that would have to be constantly updated ("he quit", "he was seen smoking yesterday", "he's quitting again", "he hasn't smoked in three weeks", etc.). I think there are other things more relevant for the article, and for the editors. Priyanath ^talk 03:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I also find the coverage of Obama's smoking/quitting to be trivial. Unless he's getting impeached for lying to the American people about it, it doesn't need to be here. --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with removal. Actually, I personally would like the addition of the Obama quote that Led suggested (for me this article couldn't be too long anyway), but I'm cool with whatever level of detail is appropriate here. Modocc (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems trivial. A number of Presidents have smoked. The only thing would be is if he himself had made a big deal out of trying to quit. I doubt Limbaugh would criticize Obama for smoking, given that he himself smokes cigars. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

In response, addition to, Evb-wiki's comment: another reason for including it would be if he said that he "didn't inhale" when he smoked. Priyanath ^talk 03:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Priyanath gets it right in terms of avoiding excessive detail. We certainly don't want "he lapsed in his quitting attempt on date X, then went Y weeks, ..." However, I think the very brief mention that we have is appropriate. In the last decades, smoking as a major public health hazard has been well recognized, so public statements by a prominent politician contribute to a notable degree to his political image.... that is, a few words worth of notability in a general biography, not more but not zero. This political meaning has changed since FDR or LBJ, who publicly smoked; it's not politically neutral the way it might have been in 1940 or 1960.LotLE×talk 03:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It may not be politically neutral, but it's also not that big of a deal. Perhaps the way to say it in one sentence (plus the citation) is that he has "struggled" with trying to quite smoking. That's something any smoker could relate to and any non-smoker could sympathize with. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Evb-wiki. Unless he's being impeached for lying about his smoking habits or dying of lung cancer, It's too trivial for inclusion here. Finally if we did choose to include it we have to do as Priyanath said and change it regularly to stay factually accurate. Rengaw01 (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I just gave it a shot by changing it to this: While he has never been a heavy smoker, Obama has tried to quit smoking several times, including a well-publicized effort which he began before launching his presidential campaign.

Anyway, I'm not married to it but thought it was neutral and more closely followed the source than the old language. Of course, if we want to delete the whole sha-bang, that is fine too.LedRush (talk) 02:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I will fight you to the death on it. On second thought, no - I'm not allowed to fight anything to the death. Doctor's orders. It seems OK, but it doesn't go far enough. He did a lot of smoking during the campaign, ya know - first he smoked Hillary, and then he smoked McCain. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't part of the point that he said he quit, then admitted that he couldn't, then wouldn't give a stratight answer? Apparently, not relevant to anyone else but me. Fair enough. Newguy34 (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the smoking issue is pretty trivial for this article, given that Obama didn't run on an anti-tobacco platform or express such views. If smoking has to be mentioned, why not use Obama's own words and let readers interpret them for themselves? How about this suggestion:

When asked about his smoking habit (you could add the number of years if you want), Obama said on (fill in the date), "I have [quit]. What I said was that there are times where I have fallen off the wagon."

I don't remember Obama's exact words or the reporter's question, so those words could be used instead. LovesMacs (talk)

I think it has some relevance. His smoking has been the main point of press sources lately, and Tom Brokaw was pretty put out with him for his obfuscation on the subject. Newguy34 (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Newguy34, just trying to follow your point of reasoning...as an impartial editor, you believe that a reporter throwing shoes at a sitting president, thereby triggering protests throughout Iraq is irrelevant, but Obama falling off the smoking wagon is...? -RoBoTam^ice 17:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep. It's called context. I don't get to decide what is relevant or not, the reliable sources do. "Obama smoking" on Google, gets 10,900,000 hits, while "Bush shoe throwing" gets about 1,200,000. So, you say tomatoes, and I say reddish, roundish, fruit-like, veggie. Oh, and for the record, I am not an unbiased editor, in fact I am a very POV editor, but I do my best to ensure that the articles reflect NPOV. That's all that's required. Newguy34 (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"His smoking has been the main point of press sources lately" LOL yeah, between Blagojevich, the Big 3 auto rescue legislation failure, record unemployment, Bush shoe-dodging, cabinet speculation, and a myriad of real issues and events, the media is practically beside itself abut Obama smoking or not smoking. What alternate universe has this been a "main point of press sources lately"?Lestatdelc (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

All valid points, which is exactly why I typed the words some and even put those little quote-y looking things to add emphasis. Newguy34 (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the smoking 'issue' is as trivial as the shoe-throwing incident would be for the Bush article - even though that one has received far more coverage. Coverage does not confer notability. I think the whole thing should be removed from the article as being too trivial - plus it seems to attract daily drive-by editors with a point to make or push. Priyanath ^talk 18:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A conclusion with which I am in agreement; it'll make for a stronger article. Every since election day, this article has been barraged with POV pushing and vandalism. Newguy34 (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Some perspective: imagine that it's the year 2050 and someone is reading about Obama. Will his smoking habit be of major interest and proper to an encyclopedia? I highly doubt it. LovesMacs (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Nor will the fact that he is the first African-American, black, bi-racial, or whatever, president. Hopefully, we will have moved past all that by 2050. Newguy34 (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ya think? See Jackie Robinson, sixty years later. Hopefully we'll have moved past the nonsense part of it, but the notability will still be there, I bet. Priyanath ^talk 18:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

[Outdent added] I read an interesting article about how Obama will be the "last black president", just like Kennedy was the last "Roman-Catholic president". No one talks about John Kerry having been a Catholic, and for good reason; it ceased being an issue that divided us. We love "firsts" for important historical reasons, but only because they are departures from the status quo. Once we are able to move past the first, we tend to make progress. I wish it wasn't important that Obama was the "first", and hopefully, race will no longer be a gatekeeper. We'll see. By the way, who was the second black player in the major leagues? Tough to come up with at the spur of the moment, huh? Newguy34 (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Larry Doby. And I didn't have to look it up, either. d:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Very good. Free tacos for you. Newguy34 (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Gracias. Although, as the authors of The Great American Baseball Card Flipping, Trading and Bubble Gum Book said, this was "like being the second person to invent the telephone." Which I think is kind of like the point you're making. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

But wasn't Alexander Graham Bell the second person to invent the telephone? LOL--Sorry, couldn't resist. -RoBoTam^ice 21:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

But, we are not talking about telephones...wait, are we? No, we are talking about bubble gum, err, no that's not it either. Wait, what are we talking about, again? Newguy34 (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it's baseball. It all comes back to baseball in some way. To echo the editor's Meucci vs. Bell situation, you have Marconi (???) as the inventor of radio; Edison (???) as the proponent of alternating current; and Jackie Robinson (???) as the first black ballplayer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and let's not forget Christopher Columbus (???) as the discoverer of America. But back to baseball...

"The one constant through all the years has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It has been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game: it's a part of our past. It reminds us of all that once was good and could be again. People will come, Ray. People will most definitely come." Sorry, I was channeling Terence Mann there for a minute. d:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The "Family of Barack Obama" navigation template

-- as found at the bottom of this article below the "Obama" nav template -- is being discussed here: Template talk:Obama family#Ugly -- which amounts to a vote from among

• its present version (option A, see here)
• a pair of alternatives (options B1 and B2, offered here) and
• a new-and-improved version of the present version (option C, offered here).

Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply … 02:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Media coverage of ethnicity controversy and the intro

This new coverage won't make some editors here happy, but it's out in the media from a very reliable source:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081213/ap_on_re_us/obama_s_not_black

Debate over whether to call this son of a white Kansan and a black Kenyan biracial, African-American, mixed-race, half-and-half, multiracial — or, in Obama's own words, a "mutt" — has reached a crescendo since Obama's election shattered assumptions about race... [...]

"To me, as to increasing numbers of mixed-race people, Barack Obama is not our first black president. He is our first biracial, bicultural president ... a bridge between races, a living symbol of tolerance, a signal that strict racial categories must go," Marie Arana wrote in the Washington Post.

At what point do those with concerns about using "African-American" instead of biracial in the intro stop being archived or told to read the FAQ in the face of notable public controversy? TAway (talk) 08:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

One article is not going to do it. Ditto for Dr. Leroy's scholarship. His theories were enbraced until Barack came along by the Pan-Africanists, but they are strangely silient on the issue now a days. This article will not make it in unles there is a lot more coverage of it, sorry.Die4Dixie (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with my previous suggestion, based on the Lewis Hamilton article - "Coming from a mixed-race background, with a white American mother and black Kenyan father, Obama is often recognised as the first African-American president of the United States", which I feel covers both sides of the coin succintly enough? Once you factor in his time in Hawaii and Indonesia and his limited connection with the African-American community until his 20s, I feel that 'African-American' alone gives a misleading impression of his history. If we're realistically honest, a kid growing up in the Bronx surrounded by crime and drugs has little hope of becoming president, but the son of two university students does - ethnicity is a smaller factor which appears prominent as more of the former and less of the latter are black--MartinUK (talk) 11:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with it. I get the feeling that most of you have never taken the time to look for sources that cover this subject, or sources that refer to him as bi-racial. Just about any reliable source you can think of has called Obama bi-racial, and probably referred to him as the first African American President as well. Very reliable sources can be found. I've seen hundreds if not thousands of sources that go into detail about his mixed heritage, finding sources is not the problem. Landon1980 (talk) 12:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's the thing: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and most importantly Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. Everything that is added to this project has to come from a reliable third party source. (I.E. a source that does not have any glaringly apparent bias (An example of a paper with bias: World News Daily), that has at a sizable editorial board that oversees the articles that journalists write and publish, and has enough oversight over everything they publish.) This does not include opinion pieces, blogs, forums, etc. Wikipedia also reflects what the majority of reliable sources say about Barack Obama. Currently the majority of them refer to him as African American and the article reflects this. If a person is trying to open a debate as to get rid of the African American tag, then Wikipedia talk pages and articles are the wrong place to do it. This is the main reason why these debates get shut down, due to this not being a forum to discuss these things. Please keep all conversations on topic and on how to better improve this article. Brothejr (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Obama is the nation's first biracial candidate for president. Landon1980 (talk) 12:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

From that same article: Most Americans see Obama as a black man, and he identifies himself as a black man. As they mention he see's himself as an African American and the Wikipedia article reflects this. Brothejr (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, looks like someone didn't read their own source and just ran with the headline. Landon, noone here is arguing the position of "no one calls him bi-racial". The argument is that the majority of reliable sources refer to Obama as the first African-American president. Tarc (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware of what the source says tarc. Can you direct me to the policy or guideline that suggests what Obama self-identifies as matters, or that the publics opinion matters? I don't have the time, nor do I wish to rehash this, my only point was finding sources is not a problem. I don't see how anyone could possibly know how many sources say this or say that, there are way too many of them. One day the neutrality of the article will improve, in due time. As of now too many editor's are hung up on what Obama's opinion on the matter is, and ignore the fact that thousands of sources refer to Obama's mixed heritage. You name a reliable source and I bet that I can give you a link where the source calls him bi-racial or mentions his mixed heritage in some way. Most of you are still in pre-election defense mode and don't realize the election is over. Landon1980 (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the core problem here is that what Obama truthfully self identifies as does not matter to you. The thing here is that it does very much matter. It would be a violation of WP:BLP to apply labels to a living person who does not apply them to themselves and also to ignore what the person self identifies as. We are not arguing that he is mixed race and the article does go into his mixed heritage. The real issue is that first tag, the tag that the person applies to themselves. If I was writing a bio article on you for instance and you personally think of yourself as one thing that can be backed up, and every reliable source out there refereed to you as that, then I would be obliged to use that tag the same way as you do. To do anything less would be a BLP violation. The same argument applies here. He self identifies as African American and we refer to him as such in the intro section. Brothejr (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"It would be a violation of WP:BLP to apply labels to a living person who does not apply them to themselves and also to ignore what the person self identifies" I'm having trouble finding that in WP:BLP can you show me where it says that please? It's one thing to say that he is widely referred to as African American, or to say that most of the public consider him AA, and another to report it as fact. Read over WP:ASF please. There are more than enough sources to justify including something in regards to his mixed heritage in the lead. Obama being bi-racial and being widely referred to as African American can be sourced with thousands of reliable sources. Landon1980 (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I am always a little disheartened to see that people pretend that no reliable resources refer to Obama as biracial...that is clearly not the case. While it is true that it is much more common to see Obama referred to as African American, there are very many references to him as biracial (or a similar term), including Obama himself. Yes, he usually self-identifies as African American, but not always. Anyway, I am not sure how much better the inclusion of the fact that he is biracial will make the article, but it would be nice to see people discuss wikipedia policies fairly.LedRush (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and that makes it hard to discuss things on here. Most editors are less than honest about this. When such a large number of editors demonstrate a bias there is really nothing you can do about it. It's a shame that policy does not trump consensus of around 20 talk page regulars. The large number of editor's disputing the neutrality is also ignored, the threads are speedy archived so to shift consensus to their side. The truth is far more people have suggested a change be made than are happy with the current state of the lead. I'm confident that the article's bias will be short lived and that sooner or later WP:NPOV can be introduced to the article. The article is one big praise section, and anything that could even possibly cast a negative light on Obama is completely ignored. Landon1980 (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You two are getting pretty good at the strawman constructions, I'll give you that. Again, the argument isn't that "no reliable resources refer to Obama as biracial", it is that only a minority of them do, as compared to those that refer to him as African-American. Obama's self-identification, while important, is not the only contributing factor either. Please respond to what people are actually saying here, and not to the made-up arguments that you only think they are saying. Tarc (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You are getting very good at inaccurate character assaults. People above have argued that there were no reliable sources: Brothejr said that this type of statement would be original research. This could only be true if no sourses backed up the statement. Die4Dixie said that "one article isn't going to do it" which implies there is only one article. That is obviously not the case. Your argument, Tarc, is a more reasonable and defensible one. But alas, we need to address all the arguments thrown our way, and one concerns there being no sources to back the claim and therefore the use of the term is original research. You could probably help focus the discussion by helping to respond to these arguments yourself rather than attack me with misrepresentations of the situation.LedRush (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of character assaults, you are also pretty good at them too and I'll ignore the sly comments of logic. Simply put your argument is mainly a soap box argument. Maybe you could separate your POV from this and take a look at the sources. While we can all agree there are sources out there that comments on his mixed race, the thing is there are a many more that comment on his AA status. The lead of an article is meant to summarize the entire article with the important highlights of the person's career. One of the largest achievement is that he is the first publicly identified African American to be elected president of the US. This is how the vast majority of sources report it as and many other wikipedians have mentioned before, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Brothejr (talk) 18:44, 15 December

2008 (UTC)

Thank you for again misstating my arguments (or projecting others' upon me) while making insulting comments about me. Anyway, as I've stated above, I don't know that the inclusion of this term in the article will make a substantial increase on the quality of the argument. I only entered into the discussion to try and get people to make logical points and not knee-jerk reactions against anything seen as a slight to Obama. I really hoped the tone of discussion here would improve here after the election and after the right wing conspiracy theorists left...but it appears many editors here are conditioned to be haters.LedRush (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Here we go with "original thought" again, it is not original thought when reliable sources say it. Have a look at original research before you mislabel things as such again. Asking for reliable sources not to be ignored is also not soapboxing. Is that the best reason you can come up with for the lead to not be neutral? Also, please show me where I can find that previous quote of yours in WP:BLP. Will you also show me how you know that many many more sources call him African American than mention his mixed heritage in some way? This is the only article I know of on here that everyone has to dance around what the subject would and wouldn't want. There is not one negative or questionably negative thing in this article, try comparing the tone and content of this article with other articles on political figures. Do you not realize that Obama also self-identifies as a biracial person (not that it matters)?Landon1980 (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Of course Obama is multiracial, and any source that documents his heritage will report this. So much for things that can be filed under "duh". Moving on to less obvious matters, such as how we should describe Obama in the lead of the article, it may be helpful to revise what Wikipedia is. Our purpose is to provide a tertiary source - in other words, a collection of data published by other sources. Indeed, our criterion for inclusion is not truth, but verifiability, which is assessed according to publication in reliable sources. We should report the view of those sources neutrally and should not give any viewpoint coverage which is of undue weight compared to its representation in the sources. Finally, the article lead should provide a concise neutral summary of the article contents.

My own opinion is that, although sources which write about Obama's heritage or racial background will use terms such as biracial or multiracial (interestingly, often in addition to calling him black or African American), sources which write about Obama himself tend to use one of the latter terms. Consider the newspaper headlines and lead paragraphs from around the world reporting the election results:

• The Sydney Morning Herald: THIS IS OUR TIME THE new president-elect of the United States, Barack Obama, pledged to unite the nation across racial and partisan divides and to show the rest of the world that "America can change" as he made history by becoming its first African-American leader.
• The Guardian (UK): Barack Obama to be America's first black president Americans placed their faith in Barack Obama today, turning their backs on a past of slavery and segregation and electing the first African-American to the US presidency.
• The Financial Times (UK): Obama promises ‘new dawn’ after historic win Barack Obama promised a “new dawn of American leadership” after he was elected the first African-American president of the US amid international acclaim and record turnout on Tuesday.
• The Times of India: Obama makes history, elected US president WASHINGTON: Democrat Barack Obama captured the White House on Tuesday after an extraordinary two-year campaign, defeating Republican John McCain to make history as the first black to be elected U.S. president.
• The New York Times: Obama Elected President as Racial Barrier Falls Barack Hussein Obama was elected the 44th president of the United States on Tuesday, sweeping away the last racial barrier in American politics with ease as the country chose him as its first black chief executive.
• The Globe And Mail (Canada): Obama overcomes CHICAGO -- Americans overwhelmingly chose Barack Obama as their next president last night, sending the first African-American to the Oval Office in a historic election victory that also gave Democrats commanding control of Congress.
• The New Zealand Herald Obama: 'Change has come to America' Barack Obama called his election as president of America the "defining moment change has come to America", calling for "a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility" to address the greatest challenges "of our lifetime". Obama was elected the 44th president of the United States - and the first black Commander-in-Chief in the country's history in a crushing victory of his Republican opponent.

I believe that the above sources provide the best available guide as to how history will describe Obama.

In summary: The lead of the article should provide a summary of Obama and his achievements, as the sources do. The body of the article should contain a section which describes Obama's heritage, as the sources describe it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Almost all of those sources you've quoted are left-of-centre politically, and thus have an agenda to overstate the racial significance of the event, when his white Grandmother, Indonesian stepfather and Hawaiian time may be more positively significant to his life than his black father. Plus, newspaper leads are not the same as Wikipedia article leads - theirs trying to grab the attention of the reader, rather than to summarise the facts of the event. Is it a fact that there are no remaining racial barriers? As there's never been an Asian-American or Italian-American (for example) President, that's debatable. Does his election directly relate to slavery? Debatable, as none of his ancestors are known to have been slaves and I believe he earnt a majority of the white vote. Was the campaign any more extraordinary than Bush V Gore in 2000 or Kennedy V Goldwater in 1964? Matter of opinion - it wasn't as close or controversial as the former, and the candidates weren't as polarised as in the latter.--MartinUK (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Please provide sources rather than arguments. I'd be delighted to see any sources you can provide to redress the balance, perhaps headlines from right-of-centre newspapers that describe Obama as America's first president to be Hawaiian-born, raised in Indonesia, or (to get back on topic) multiracial, biracial, or of mixed race. Otherwise your position seems to be nothing more than original research. Speaking of which, I don't really know why you'd want to use this page to argue that the sources are wrong. This isn't the place for that. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel is explaining this quite accurately. As long as the vast majority of reliable sources lead with, and emphasize the African-American part, that's what we'll do here, end of story. Those same sources also sometimes touch on the rest of the story, further down in their articles, or in the occasional article about the broader picture. Oh look, that's just what we do here also—in the fourth paragraph of this article, leading the second section, it gives the full details of Obama's heritage. Surprise, surprise, Wikipedia is quite accurately reflecting how the vast majority of reliable sources are covering this issue. Priyanath ^talk 17:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a body of afrocentric scholarship that proves he is not the first. Perhaps the "first publically acknowledged by whites to be black " would be more accurate, and would not minimize the brave contributions to scholarship that these reliable sources have made. I'm begginning to see the Euro-centric agrrogance that my professors talked about and that i was always incleined to dismiss.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL, if you can find a preponderance of Reliable Sources that say "first publically acknowledged by whites to be black ", then I'll be impressed, to say the least. Priyanath ^talk 19:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

D4D, as noted above Vaughn's theory is the epitome of a fringe theory currently and any inclusion of his theories in this article would be a violation of WP:UNDUE to the extreme. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a conspiracy perpetrated by the white man to keep a brother down by minimizing the achievements and successes of the brothers in the struggle over the last 400 years by calling scholarship "fringe" in order to keep a Eurocentric view of history!:DDie4Dixie (talk) 03:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Dixie. What's more evident to me is the classist insinuation that the election of this so-called "black" man somehow reinforces the achievement ideology and other romantic American myths. How similar was Obama's privileged white childhood to that of the typical African American boy? What are we trying to hide by rejecting the opportunity to celebrate Obama's multiracial heritage?M. Frederick (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Here is a direct quote from Obama: "I identify as African-American — that's how I'm treated and that's how I'm viewed. I'm proud of it." In other words, the world gave Obama no choice but to be black, and he was happy to oblige. This is clear cut, and further legitimizes this talk page's FAQ Question/Answer #2. Read it, would you please? Duuude007 (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Facts only matter if the mainstream media cite them more often than myths perpetuated for political gain. What a fancy, fancy loophole!M. Frederick (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Alma mater

Woodrow's Wilson's listed alma maters include Davidson, from which he transferred to Princeton. Working on that logic, should Occidental not be added to Obama's?--203.129.60.245 (talk) 06:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, JFK's listed alma maters include those from which he transferred.--203.129.60.245 (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Supreme Court Controversy

There is a case in the Supreme Court's docket to investigate whether or not he is qualified to become POTUS, because of the "natural citizen" requirement of the Constitution. According to British law, which applied in Kenya at the time of his birth, he would be born a dual citizen, because he was born in Hawaii, but to a minor mother, and Kenyan father. He would not be a natural citizen, according to some people's definitions. A natural citizen is someone born in the country to two citizen parents. His parents weren't citizens. However, he would be a citizen, because of the 14th ammendment, but not a natural born citizen. The Supreme Court has been called to decide. Shouldn't that be mentioned? 24.21.94.80 (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed at great length and determined not to be a valid addition to this biography. Please see the archives. Tvoz/talk 02:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

yeah. that case was rejected by SCOTUS. Mention of it (or others like it) in this article would be trivial and carry undue weight. The question of Barack Obama's citizenship has its own article. --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe Berg v. Obama is still active in the Supreme Court, but Donofrio v. Wells and Wotnowski v. Bysiewicz have been denied so far. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

While the petition for cert. in Berg v. Obama is still pending, [7] it alleges he was born in Kenya. It does not involve the duel or "primary" citizenship argument/analysis addressed by 24.21.94.80 above. Berg contends that Obama was not born in the U.S. --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

And none of it belongs in this biography. Tvoz/talk 05:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

A more suitable article would be the 2008 presidential campaign.Fredmdbud (talk) 05:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Except it is already included in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. --Evb-wiki (talk) 05:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The real conspiracy is the attempt to get people to donate money to fund these 'vital investigations'. Follow the money. (I'd prefer Wikipedia not be used as the enabler in this scam, but I guess some fools have to learn by experience.) Flatterworld (talk) 06:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The other issue is that if your parents are citizens of a different country, even one we dont like, and you are born in the U.S. , You're a Natural Born Citizen. You don't automatically become an Unnatural Born Citizen when its politically convenient for those who are afraid of you. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 08:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

[Outdent added] Not necessarily. Constitutional scholars are not settled on whether one is a "natural born" US citizen or a US citizen, under the scenario described; see also dual citizenship. But, in this case, unless some other "informnation" comes to light, it's safe to assume that Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen. Newguy34 (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it true that some of his relatives say they witnessed his birth in Kenya? Landon1980 (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

??? Is there a reliable source that says so? Actually, for something as controversial as this in a BLP, there should be several reliable sources that say so before it becomes a candidate for inclusion. Newguy34 (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not true. Any more questions? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Tin hat wearers

Again, no. Some wingnuts did a phone interview with Obama's grandmother. Between the bad connection, a bad translation, and confusing and leading questions, they thought she said Obama was born in Kenya. She later straightened people out. Their equally bad recording was their 'smoking gun'. You have to love conspiracy theorists. They will never accept that they are wrong, no matter how much evidence or how many court decisions go against them. Priyanath ^talk 18:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You forgot that they apparently edited the recording in order to eliminate the step-grandmother correcting them once she realized they were asking about whether she saw him being born in Kenya rather than saw him when he visited Kenya. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Alan Keyes has a suit too, which appears to have more merit and his statements of facts are substantially different than the "tin hat" crew's arguments.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What you think of the case really has no relevance here, though. It is no more or less notable/fringe/conspiratorial than the previous ones. Tarc (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the other cases is not that they are fringe/not notable/or conspiriatal, it is that the parties initiating the action lack standing. Alan Keyes does have standing, and his suit is notable and has been widely reported. I'm not sure what your definition of "notable" is. Appartently you think that your thoughts on note worthyness belong on the talk page, so I hardly see how mine would not.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Quick and easy test on Alan Keyes' suit:

• Does the mainstream media generally lend any credence to it? (Yes/No)
• Do law scholars lend any credence to it? (Yes/No)

If the answer to either question is yes, then it may be of significant impact to Obama's life, ergo suitable material for his BLP. If the answer to both questions is no, then while it is notable for the sheer amount of noise it has generated, it doesn't belong in this particular article until the unlikely event that the Supreme Court sides with Keyes. --GoodDamon 20:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

17 individauls and groups suing an indiviadual or filing suit against him is notable. If 17 individuals sued me in federal court, of course it would be notable to my life. Perhaps the analogy is bad? As far as lend creedence, they acknoledge and report that he has been sued. Reporting it means that they must believe the suit exists, or perhaps I missed your drift.Die4Dixie (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Er, Dixie, since when does legal standing confer notability? That Keyes may have standing (quite debatable, though) does not elevate his suit above the other kooks. Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories is where this subject matter resides, it really has no place in the main article. Tarc (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Er, Tarc, since it was reported widely in the media by reliable third party sources. "When" something becomes notable is established by this bar, not when narrow editors decide what is or is not notable. Perhaps there is some other policy under which grounds you object to this material, and not notability?Die4Dixie (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You made the claim that since (in your opinion) Keyes has more standing than previous litigants, that that elevates his case above the others, that it is more notable. I find that claim to be rather ridiculous, and see no basis for it in Wikipedia policy. Tarc (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That is not what I said. What I said is that the suit is notable, which you said was the bar for inclusion. The wide reporting of the existance of the suits is evidence of its notability. Perhaps, if you cannot understand why the suit is notable, I could break it down real slow on my talk page for you, if you like.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The suit is NOT notable. The "wide reporting" of anything does not necessarily make it notable. Of course, the story weaseling its way into wikipedia at all is intended to try to add some false legitimacy to this nonsense. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Presidents have scores of lawsuits filed against them. That is not notable, neither are the individual lawsuits, unless there is some merit. The coverage of all of these suits is about their kookery, which is their only notability. That's why they are being covered in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories‎. So regarding Keyes, the (tinfoil) hat still fits. Priyanath ^talk 21:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I gues we need to wikilimnk the article so that people seaching for the info can find it easier,no?`Die4Dixie (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No, not if it's notable only for its fringieness. For example, I don't see Reptilian humanoid (a conspiracy theory) linked from the Reptile article. Priyanath ^talk 21:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I like to monitor the Rush Limbaugh page from time to time, to see how the other half lives. As usual, the page is replete with turning every molehill he can find into a mountain, as regards Obama and the Democrats. Yet not a word about this so-called "controversy". Why? Because it's nonsense, and he knows it. The "controversy" exists only in the fantasies of die-hard conspiracy theorists and a few who somehow think they can steal another election for the GOP. There is no controversy. The fact that wikipedia even mentions these fairy tales is more than generous. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

BB, Limbaugh has covered this issue. He speculated on air that the reason why Obama visited Hawai'i at the end of the election cycle was not because his grandmother was sick, but because he was going to "update" his birth certificate to show that he was born in the US. Granted, that was before Obama's grandmother died, but he has covered the issue on his show. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and he repeated that theory on his page also. That was late October, and at that point he was trying to make a mountain out of that particular anthill. And when she actually died, a day or two before the election, he dropped that theory like a hot potato. The story has no substance, and he realized that. He may be a prevaricator, but he's not a total idiot. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a WP:SANITYCHECK tag? I guess not, it comes out red. Ask yourself this, though: If there were any objective hint that these allegations were true, don't you think that the FBI, the CIA, the Republican National Committee, the McCain staff, whatever bureau watches elections, or the New York Times wouldn't have jumped on it by now? Do Berg et al have better information sources than all those guys, or did they all conspire to get Obama elected? Sheesh. PhGustaf (talk) 01:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the threshold of inclusion being notability and verifiability? You can say what you want, but what it all boils down to is it is negative so therefore it cannot be added to his biography. If a case made it all the way to the Supreme court questioning Mccain's citizenship it would be in the lead sentence. If something is related to Obama, notable, and can be verified by reliable third-party sources then it should be allowed in the biography. There sure have been a lot of changes made to policies for this article, and as long as the article is owned by a couple dozen die hard Obama fans nothing will change. I voted for Obama myself but I leave my POV out of this, there isn't one single negative thing in the entire article. The whole thing reads like a campaign ad, and a big praise section. Have any of you actually compared this article to other articles on political leaders? Like regarding the issue of Obama's race, nearly all of you base your argument on "Obama says this and Obama says that therefore we must say the same thing" when the truth is Obama's opinion isn't even relevant. All that matters is what the sources say, and they report it both ways. Go back and look at the straw poll, nearly every vote was based on what he self-identifies as. I know that WP:RS doesn't exactly apply to this article but... "Primary sources are not considered reliable for statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion." Obama's race is what makes his election historic, and more notable than usual and sources can be found in large number referring to Obama's mixed heritage. None of you will even entertain the idea of a neutral, factual lead such as what I suggested. WP:NPOV exists for a reason and you should not be able to pick and choose which articles it applies to. You act as if Obama being biracial is the opinion of such a minute minority that it would violate undue weight to include it. There are a lot of firsts regarding this election, including how our policies are applied and interpreted. Landon1980 (talk) 04:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

First, the lawsuits are only notable because of their absolute fringieness. That makes them notable as a fringe movement, or for the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article. That is how reliable and mainstream sources are covering the issue, when they do cover it—and their coverage is not nearly as heavy, for example, as the George Bush shoe throwing incident. Which is also notable only for it's wackyness, and not for the George Bush bio article. Regarding the African-American issue, didn't you read the reliable sources quoted above? They are all emphasizing that aspect, often in the first sentence, like this article. The issue of how Obama self-identifies is barely secondary, if at all. The reliable sources are nearly all leading with 'first African-American' or 'first black' to be elected president. So there are no double standards here, only the standard of reliable sources, notability, and Undue Weight. Which is why this is a featured article. Maybe if other politician bios were as well-edited, they too could become featured articles. Priyanath ^talk 04:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you think of another article of such a well-known person that there isn't even one negative thing in it? There is a big picture of the man playing basketball, and talk about him quitting smoking, etc. 67.48.121.203 (talk) 05:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

And his drug use, and his relationship with Tony Rezko. I just looked at the George Bush article for comparison, and it's about equal to this one. Don't worry, after 4-8 years in office, there will be plenty of mud to throw at Obama, if not shoes. Priyanath ^talk 06:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Some of the shoes are already coming, including from his own party. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Trimming the fat.

I know you all love Obama. But this page is crashing my PIII 700. Keep it lean. There was no valuable info lost after fat trimming. Just a lot of lard. Thanks -Spotsbooks342 (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with loving or hating Obama. This is a featured article that is carefully edited by a large group of editors, and it is not appropriate to unilaterally make large edits in the way that you did without discussing them here first. If you want to present arguments for the edits you think will improve the article, please do so here. But note that the length of the article is within guidelines and given the significance of the subject, we think it is warranted. Tvoz/talk 04:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the time you've all taken to consider my changes to the page. Frankly, I can no longer continue working with you on this particular page, because it literally will not load on my machine: WinXP PIII 700 ~390 MBytes RAM. I leave you with my existing edits. I appreciate your attention. -Spotsbooks342 (talk) 05:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

If this talk page will not load on your computer I believe it's time to get a new one. Landon1980 (talk) 06:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I has an extra computer if u need 1. I am in PA so let me know on my talk page if you are near me. It is P4-2.4 Northwood with 1gb ram. The Obamanator probably can get a better one for free, but this is all I got. Testmasterflex (talk) 07:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)