Talk:Public image of Barack Obama

RFC-Teleprompter

Resolved

 – This discussion ended long ago, in overwhelming opposition to the proposed change. Tarc (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Without substantive discussion, editors have repeatedly reverted a three-sentence, well-referenced subsection on Obama's Teleprompter use. See deleted section. Is the topic encyclopedicly notable, as evidenced by multiple references over several years (and noting that a previous, longer subsection had more than twice the references, and an earlier editor criticism was that the prevision revision had too many references)? --24dot (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The above seems to violate the RfC guidelines. Specifically:

• Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template.

-- Scjessey (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion of this right-wing talking point that has received virtually no coverage by mainstream media. Use of these devices is common and unremarkable. Any sort of coverage would be a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT. Numerous talk page discussions have yielded a solid consensus against pushing this POV, and repeated attempts to shove it into the article (as well as other Obama-related articles) have become tendentious to the point of being disruptive. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as weightless trivium. He used a Blackberry a lot before the Secret Service took it away from him; that's actually more important, but not worth including. PhGustaf (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Nothing has changed since this first appeared as a Limbaugh meme almost a year ago, which despite the RfC initiator's claims, has been discussed ad nauseam. It failed as a standalone article, and has been consistently rejected for inclusion in this article, per WP:CONSENSUS. I question why an RfC was brought up at this time, as there has been no change in its notability, or lack thereof. TOTUS and Teleprompter of the United States get a redirect to a jargon list, and that is more than sufficient for this minor political meme. Tarc (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - continues to be a trivium; even sillier than the so-called "Gore Effect", because at least most of those pushing the latter admit that it is a moronic joke. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - on the basis of no mainstream sources outside of the right-wing identifying TelePrompter usage as a notable aspect of how the President is publicly perceived.--Louiedog (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Wikipedia supposed to present the facts. Whether you think the fact is irrelevent is your opinion. Relevent or not, it should still be included.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - The fact itself is not interesting and the section does not tell the reader why they should care. Re: Jerzeykydd's comments, which facts do we stop at? What color socks? What kind of toothpaste? Certainly many "relevant" facts are also boring and not worthy of space. What is interesting is the fact that so many publications have discussed this fact. It's a story that is self-propelled by the media, not the general public. Perhaps the section could be improved by adding a little "why" as well as "what." So the topic of the section should not be "Obama uses Teleprompter" but "Media obsessed with Obama's use of teleprompters" or "reaction to Obama's teleprompter use." Why did the Washington Post bother to write about it?--Panda609 (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with this previous comment by Louiedog: "The most helpful thing would be for the pro-teleprompter folks to bring quotes here that support that telepromptering is a part of O's image, either through (a) polls or (b) commentators making statements about how the teleprompter usage is perceived by the public." --Panda609 (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose As I've stated above, in one of the many times this has tried to be added here, this is a right-wing talking point that has no basis in reality. Perhaps we should start another conspiracy theory article about Obama and the teleprompter, with right-wing claims that there is some kind of difference between Obama reading from a teleprompter or any any President reading from one. Or from scripted notes for that matter. This is almost as tedious as those trying to add 'Muslim' to religion or Kenya to his birth place. It's a non-issue that is a contrived WP:COATRACK. Just because some sources recite right-wing talking points in discussions does not give credibility to the talking points. DD2K (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose This is kinda ridiculous. WP:UNDUE WEIGHT anyone? This appears to be an example of a special interest group attempting to fabricate reality. Then again, perhaps the George Bush article should have a section called the "The Malapropisms President". Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support (Don't care if I'm late) The fact that he has earned him a nickname, that is quite well-known by MANY people, is fact enough. It hardly hurts any image, but it is still needed. Not doing so results in a BIASED edit to Wikipedia. Halofanatic333 (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Further discussion

• Support well referenced throughout many years. As I said before: "The fact is that all the claims [about WP:UNDUE] above have been proven false. January 2008 seems to begin the coverage of Obama's teleprompter usage, not March 2009 as is mistakenly claimed. This is covered in a wide range of reliable sources including the New York Times and is not simply attributed to Rush Limbaugh. The subject received more coverage than "Obama Republican," which is given a prominent section in this article. Please give me evidence that this is trivial or a violation of WP:WEIGHT"

All these months later, evidence has failed to be provided. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Haha. Instead of discussing, PhuGustaf conceals the post and writes "Still boring after all these months. Note that the NYT also covered his dislike of beets." I ask him to point to other sources that discuss this "dislike of beets." Also, I could care less what Goofball thinks is boring. Boring is not an argument against inclusion. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

See [1], [2], and [3], for a start. Or one of the other 541,000 Google hits on <Obama hates beets>. PhGustaf (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

RfCs do not stay open for 2 fucking months, as you should well know. The proposal was made, the proposal was rejected. Move on. Tarc (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I did not participate in the RFC. The RFC failed to address the important issue mentioned above. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you please direct me to the part of the RfC guideline that states "they are closed after 30 days except when William S. Saturn hasn't had a chance to comment yet" ? Tarc (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Just think of this as starting a new section. Just tell me why I am wrong, and I'll move on. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Surely the reasons why are contained in every post in the RfC that begins with Oppose. HiLo48 (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

That was a vote. There needs to be consensus, which requires a clarification of how WP:UNDUE is being applied. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You're not discussing this rationally. You asked for "why" so I pointed you to where you could see why, then you deflected the discussion to one about a vote rather than a consensus. I'm an outsider to the USA, but I care about Wikipedia. There must be due process, and the RfC was closed. As for the vote vs consensus issue - Because some editors will stick strongly to a view, a consensus won't always reflect everyone's views. It will tend to reflect the views of a strong majority. Outliers have to just be accepted as a reality at times. That doesn't even mean you're wrong, just that the consensus at the time was different from your view. HiLo48 (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

No, when issues are raised then they are discussed. Wikipedia is not democracy. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course. What is your point? HiLo48 (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

My point is to discuss the application of WP:UNDUE while taking into account my above statement. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's time to concede the argument. Besides you and me, no one else has agreed with us on this issue.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 03:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I won't concede until I'm given a valid explanation of why I am misunderstanding the application of WP:UNDUE in this article. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. As I said above, I'm an outsider to the US and its politics, and new to this topic as well. I AM interested in the amazing and surprising success of Obama, but I see no need to be told that he used a Teleprompter. I would have assumed that he did. I am aware of very few politicians anywhere in the world who don't use such tools for organized media appearances. What is more important is what is said and what is done. The means of promulgating the message is hardly an issue. Well, except when new tools such as Facebook and Twitter are used. That WOULD be of interest. But a Teleprompter? Stop wasting Wikipedia space. HiLo48 (talk) 04:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you are right, but wikipedia must reflect what is being reported in the media. For example, the media regarded President Ford as a clutz even though the characterization was false. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking through the latest batch of Obama Teleprompter hits on google, we have a bunch of new ones such as Jon Steward on Obama's use of a teleprompter in 6th grade or the Onion reporting that he cannot make it through a family dinner without one. So now the comparison has began to mock itself? In the style from the Gerald Ford article, "In spite of Obama's demonstrate speaking ability, Rush Limbaugh painted him as a President who extensively used the teleprompter. While the coverage of Obama's teleprompter use originated with Limbaugh, by 2010 the notion itself was the subject of widespread derision by many media outlets. Barack Obama utilized the teleprompter usage was comparable to prior presidential candidates and he was repeatedly demonstrated to be able to function without the use of a teleprompter." RTRimmel (talk) 11:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Support reopening the discussion and taking it to a vote and doing so on a regular basis as is necessary. How can you possibly "settle" an argument when the news and events are surrounding it are ongoing? As more skits, more news reports, and editorials mention and satirize Obama's teleprompter use it becomes more and more relevant and there is more weight. If you still don't think it has gained enough weight than vote Oppose when the vote comes around, but don't forever close off the vote, doing so is inappropriate in this case when the story is constantly growing. Ink Falls 21:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

No, just show a mainstream source that either has polling data about people's perception of O's TP usage or makes a claim about people's perception of O's TP.--Louiedog (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Ink Falls, you have to understand why people were against putting the teleprompter in the article in the first place: because people thought that no mainstream source had it, right wing bias, etc. I don't agree with them, but we shouldn't reopen until we have the votes to get it passed. We need to get new people in the discussion that support putting it in the article and/or have the editors that originally opposed it to change their minds. Until then, reopening discussion will be a waste of time.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It is complete delusion to suggest that this is "constantly growing". This is a dead-end, Limbaugh-championed meme that had its proverbial 15 minutes in certain corners of the blogosphere, and little more. Tarc (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The failure in comparison to President Ford also should be mentioned. Ford's presidency was hurt, badly in many circles, by the perception he was a clumsy. It dogged him and prevented him from getting his agenda positioned as successfully as was necessary. Further if you ask people about Ford, that's one of the first things they remember. By the same token, the teleprompter controversy has done nothing to Obama. So we don't necessarily even need sources saying that there is a teleprompter controversy, but rather that this controversy is significant to the President or his agenda somehow. This is why it fails WP:UNDUE, because its hasn't affected him. RTRimmel (talk) 03:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Conservative support

Why is there a conservative/republican support section? Why isn't there a conservative attack section? Or a liberal support section? Makes no sense to me.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That's academic. Repeatedly removing content from Wikipedia is vandalism. Recommend you self-revert in order to avoid being blocked. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Why are you threatning me? You don't own wikipedia. We need to come up with a compromise.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A good compromise would be to self-revert your vandalism. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You are being very cocky. You can't just threaten me like that. You don't have the authority to block me. I made legit arguments, and you haven't even made an argument.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm simply stating facts. Your continuous removal of fully-referenced and relevant content from the article is an example of both vandalism and edit warring. I cannot block you, but if you persist in this disruptive behavior I can report your actions to someone who can. Support from Republicans and conservatives was a significant fact that contributed to Obama's election victory, and reliable sources documented this in some considerable detail. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There were many reasons why Obama won the election. But again, WHY should conservative support be included, but not liberal support?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Because "liberal" (as you insist on calling it) support is unremarkable. It is expected of a Democratic candidate, and therefore not really notable. Republican/conservative support is unusual, and notable - as evidenced by the huge number of reliable sources reporting about it at the time. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't conservative, or some Republican, support for Obama be considered crucial to Obama winning States such as Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia? I think some of the same references are in the Reagan article concerning Reagan Democrats, who were crucial to Reagan winning in some States/areas he was not supposed to. Why wouldn't this be mentioned here? DD2K (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is not about why Obama won the election. This article is about is image. Having conservative support is not an image, it's simply one reason why he won. Someone's public image is about what people think of Obama (e.i. charisma, criticism, etc.)--Jerzeykydd (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you quit deleting this notable, fully-referenced section out of the article or you will quickly find yourself on the wrong end of the article probation general sanctions. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That is part of his image, and one of the reasons why he won the election. They are interchangeable, and don't have to be separate. Frankly, I can't see how you could read this article, the references cited, and still believe the section you consistently delete(over several editors objections) does not belong here. The conservative support section definitely belongs. I was wondering if there was something I wasn't seeing, because of your insistence on removing the section, so read the whole article, the section, and the references, and I can't understand your objections at all. DD2K (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Vote on deletion of section

I support deletion. This article is not suppose to praise Obama. It suppose to be an objective article that states not why Obama won the election, but how people perceive him before and after the election. Again, this article is not about why Obama won, it's about his image. His public image may lead to conservative support, but not the other way around.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Support' deletion. I move for the deletion of section Conservative Support for Obama. I don't see the relevance of showing conservative support for Obama during the election in his current public image article. That would be like showing a list of democrats who supported Beck on his program back when he was at CNN in his current public reception section. There's just no relevance to it today as conservatives overwhelmingly disagree with Obama's policies, and I feel this section's inclusion misleadingly gives the impression that Obama has current support from conservatives. Ink Falls 22:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's time to get more opinions on this matter.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I support removal as well; 9% is hardly notable considering that McCain won 10% of the Democratic vote. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I, too, support removal. It is irrelevant and biased in my opinion. I notice too much political bias of Wikipedia. -Americus55 (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I Oppose deletion. The prose is relevant to the article and well-sourced. Anyone concerned about actual political partisanship in this content dispute are advised to note the existence of articles such as Democratic and liberal support for John McCain in 2008 and Reagan Democrat. I do not believe that those ought to be deleted, either. —Notyourbroom (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I oppose deletion. It's well referenced and notable. (It's why he won!) It's also true, and a quite small part of this article. It has a Wikilink to Republican and conservative support for Barack Obama in 2008, a much larger article which elaborates on the points made in this article. It's all part of the Obama picture. Cannot see the logic of removing, unless some hard core Republican supporters cannot deal with what happened. And I say this as a non-American who cannot vote in the USA and is not a member of either party. To remove that section is to conceal a significant fact about his election. HiLo48 (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Support: 9% is hardly notable considering that McCain won 10% of the Democratic vote. Obama won because of Independent voters, who are now firmed opposed to his policies. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

How many times are you going to post that? Does the section say "conservative support" or "Republican support"? Because Obama received 20% of the conservative vote and was the first Democrat to win Virginia in 1964. Time to find another reason. DD2K (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

How is "conservative" measured? How much "conservative" support did John Kerry receive? --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It is measured by counting the people who self-identify when they do those things called opinion polls. It's not rocket science, Will. Tarc (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Then it's pointless because most blacks identify as conservative. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Even if that's true(and it's not), are you suggesting that if African-Americans were conservative and voted for Obama, then their votes are worthless? That just doesn't look good, William. DD2K (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Your link is about Asian-Americans. Don't try to make some racial issue by misconstruing what I wrote. Obama won 95% of the black vote compared to 88% for John Kerry. On average, blacks are socially conservative and vote for Democrats, that's the flaw in measuring conservativeness by self-identification. The bottom line is that Kerry won 6% of the Republican vote, Obama won 9%, that is not significant. Considering that there are conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans, self-identification of ideology does not tell you much. It would be significant if he won a large percentage of the opposing party, as Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush did in the 1980s.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong on all counts. 1- I didn't inject race into the conversation, it was you(it's pointless because most blacks identify as conservative). 2- You obviously didn't read the Gallup poll link(or did and for some reason ignoring the facts), because it definitely polled African-Americans and listed their ideology(as well as Whites, Asians and Hispanics), showing they had the lowest conservative self-identifying factor(29%) of all races except Asians(21%). 3 - Lastly, and once again, we are referring to the conservative support, not Republican(as has been stated numerous times). And that was 20%. DD2K (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I did read it. 29% of blacks self-identify as conservative, something like 63% are moderate. A very large percentage of the 29% voted for Obama. This increases the perceived conservative support. And it's a pointless measure because it doesn't show much. How is only 20% conservative support (with a flawed measure), and 9% Republican support enough to merit an entire article and section claiming that Obama has significant conservative backing? --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Stop altering the closed RFC. If you don't undo your edits, you are going to be reported. You are not supposed to alter archived discussions. Especially a RFC. DD2K (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose deletion. His support was at one time very high, and this is a significant fact. Adamc714 (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This vote is discounted because the "voter" provided no evidence. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It's well referenced and notable. (It's why he won!) I'm not denying the fact that Obama had conservative support. It is significant, and should have a separate article. But it does not belong here. Again, this article is not about why he won, it's about his image, during and after the election. As a result of his image, he may get some conservative support. But that's not apart of his image, it may be a result of it.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to remind William S. Saturn (talk · contribs) that a profession of opinion on Wikipedia is not a vote. Wikipedia is governed through consensus. —Notyourbroom (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Support deletion of section. Obama's support among conservatives has never been significant and there was tremendous distrust among conservatives particularly regarding his social policies. He was however able to win the support of some libertarian minded independents who opposed the war efforts in the middle east. Jerzeykydd makes some good points. Boromir123 (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The crux of your issue, then, lies with your personal opinion not lining up with reliable cited sources. I am sure I do not need to remind you which of those Wikipedia considers to be valid for consideration in content disputes and which is not considered valid. If nothing else, review WP:TRUTH. —Notyourbroom (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• To be perfectly honest, I oppose the existence of any such article entitled 'Public Image of...' as it's all based in opinion and serves no real purpose. Everyone has his or her own opinion, and is entitled to have one, but really, what's the point of writing an encyclopedia article about it? Image and polling numbers are only important for predicting election outcomes. He (President Obama) is in office. His image is irrelevant so far as the constitutionally defined parameters of the office are concerned. If you don't like him, good for you. Elections will be held again in November of 2012. If you do like him, ditto. That's all that matters. My vote: delete the whole article -- and those concerning anyone's 'public image' as well. This is Wikipedia, not People Magazine right? Ryecatcher773 (talk) 07:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The article's importance rating is high, which suggests to me that the consensus on this genre of article is not in alignment with the view you have expressed. Also, please keep in mind that it is a goal of Wikipedia to attempt to provide a worldwide view on a particular subject. To assert that there is no need for articles of this nature because everyone is a priori an American, has a nuanced understanding of perceptions of Barack Obama, and has a concrete opinion of the man and his policies is somewhat myoptic. What of someone in India who wishes to understand more about the controversies surrounding Obama's public image, but who has no first-hand experience in American politics and may consume very little American media? That's the sort of role Wikipedia can fill. —Notyourbroom (talk) 18:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Changing title name

Support changing the name of the section to Conservative support in 2008 as a compromise, and because that's really what the section is about. Ink Falls 19:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I find that idea reasonable. —Notyourbroom (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that either. In fact, that's almost the title of the main article that the section is directed to. DD2K (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed Adamc714 (talk) 05:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with the idea about changing the section header to specify 2008. Seems like a reasonable compromise solution and it would be more concise.--JayJasper (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Continued discussion

The title change didn't solve the problem. The fact is it shouldn't be there because conservative support is an effect of his image, not a cause.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed off topic text

The text below has nothing to do with the public image of Obama; rather is a comment on US society in general and the effects of slavery, so I have removed it. I have moved the references to the external sources section and to the next paragraph of the text where they fit better.

In January 2007, The End of Blackness author Debra Dickerson warned against drawing favorable cultural implications from Obama's political rise: "Lumping us all together," Dickerson wrote in Salon, "erases the significance of slavery and continuing racism while giving the appearance of progress."

Here is thediff 209.44.123.1 (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleting the lede and misrepresenting poll

While Boromir123 made the changes, Jerzeykydd is once again deleting consensus material and re-adding a poll that is being misrepresented. The lede is supposed to be a short summary of the article, which it is. The poll, Boromir123 inserted incorrect numbers, stating "Polling has shown that only 6% of Israeli citizens approve of Obama's policies" --even though the politico link states that "Just 9% of Israelis, according to the poll, says he's "pro-Israel," to the 48% who said he's pro-Palestinian and 30% who called him neutral" -- saying nothing of "approval" or disapproval. Also, the politico link makes a caveat of "the survey from the conservative JPost interviewed only Israeli Jews; a more positive figure last week from the liberal Haaretz...". So please stop changing the lede and re-inserting the incorrect polling section. DD2K (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Consensus can change. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Where in the article does it specifically say and cite that his savvy, charisma, conservative support, etc. were the main reasons of his election victory. I can argue that he won the election because of the Bush Referendum.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but did you even read the article, or the many other Obama articles, before making these changes or asking that question? You should start here --> Temperament - Political Savvy - Conservative support. DD2K (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

citation request.

Someone removed my citation request in the article header. I placed it there because the header states that "He was the first candidate for US President to have a biracial and international background." This seems incorrect, if you see here any thoughts? I'm disputing the "international background" verbage, not the "Biracial" part, unless you consider Cynthia Mckinney's simultaneous green party candidacy contrary to the first part of the sentence.Efcmagnew (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say the part about being "the first candidate for US President to have a[n]... international background" is incorrect. Especially considering that most of the candidates during the first half a century America existed had international backgrounds. Although I do think, and believe the sources indicate this, Obama is the first candidate who got elected with a Pacific international background. Dave Dial (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

if no one objects, I would like to change it to say "the first US president to have both a biracial and international background" though I'm not sure that's true, either. according to the primary definition of race, a person with eastern and western european heritage could be considered biracial. In any case, referring to him as a "US president" instead of a candidate prevents giving WP:undue to republican and democrat candidates over third parties. Thank you for your input, Efcmagnew (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change to Race and Culture section

Did this section just rub any of you other people the wrong way?

In a March 2007 op-ed, African-American film critic David Ehrenstein of the L.A. Times said that Obama was an early popular contender for the presidency not because of his political record, but because whites viewed him as a kind of "comic-book superhero", a benign magical Negro who would selflessly solve white people's problems.

I would like to begin by saying that IMO I think the author of this article is a racist(he's black in case you couldn't tell by his name), and that I feel this shouldn't be included if not for the Magical negro image making its way into pop culture(see Barack the magic negro). I would also like to note the article referenced doesn't even say anything about him "selflessly solving white people's problem" and that that was gratuitously added by whoever put this info into the article. With that being said I would like to propose a change(which should be noncontroversial but I'm going to Talk to discuss it anyways) to this:

In a March 2007 op-ed, African-American film critic David Ehrenstein of the L.A. Times said that Obama was an early popular contender for the presidency not because of his political record, but because whites viewed him as a kind of "comic-book superhero", the magical negro archetype of a black man coming to the aide of non-blacks with almost mystical qualities.