Talk:Barack Obama: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 249: | Line 249: | ||
:::::He's African-American. He's also biracial, of mixed race, multiracial, son of a Black African and a White American, etc. Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. That's not the question here, but rather whether it's worth mentioning in the first sentence that he's America's first black President or whether to save that for later in the lede. As for what he's first at, he's first of a lot of things, first President from Hawaii, etc. With only 44 presidencies before, every one is going to be first at a lot of stuff. Not a big sample size. Personally, although at the time and in foresight having a non-white President is a huge step for America, in hindsight, as race becomes less of a hinderance to achievement one would expect, it becomes less and less of a defining characteristic. - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 22:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC) |
:::::He's African-American. He's also biracial, of mixed race, multiracial, son of a Black African and a White American, etc. Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. That's not the question here, but rather whether it's worth mentioning in the first sentence that he's America's first black President or whether to save that for later in the lede. As for what he's first at, he's first of a lot of things, first President from Hawaii, etc. With only 44 presidencies before, every one is going to be first at a lot of stuff. Not a big sample size. Personally, although at the time and in foresight having a non-white President is a huge step for America, in hindsight, as race becomes less of a hinderance to achievement one would expect, it becomes less and less of a defining characteristic. - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 22:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC) |
||
::::::So you're saying Obama is not white, but black. I still think we should acknowledge his ''other half''. Not necessarily in the first sentence but later in the lead. Keep in mind that there are also [[European Americans]] and [[White Americans]], which Obama is literally half of. [[User:Supersaiyen312|Supersaiyen312]] ([[User talk:Supersaiyen312|talk]]) 02:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC) |
::::::So you're saying Obama is not white, but black. I still think we should acknowledge his ''other half''. Not necessarily in the first sentence but later in the lead. Keep in mind that there are also [[European Americans]] and [[White Americans]], which Obama is literally half of. [[User:Supersaiyen312|Supersaiyen312]] ([[User talk:Supersaiyen312|talk]]) 02:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC) |
||
Since you're too lazy to read the FAQ, Supersaiyen312, it says that Wikipedia defines the whole issue of Barack Obama's race by self-identification: Obama says he is African-American. End of story. |
Revision as of 06:48, 28 June 2014
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barack Obama article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83 |
Special discussion pages: |
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Template:Community article probation
Frequently asked questions To view the response to a question, click the [show] link to the right of the question. Family and religious background Q1: Why isn't Barack Obama's Muslim heritage or education included in this article?
A1: Barack Obama was never a practitioner of Islam. His biological father having been "raised as a Muslim" but being a "confirmed atheist" by the time Obama was born is mentioned in the article. Please see this article on Snopes.com for a fairly in-depth debunking of the myth that Obama is Muslim. Barack Obama did not attend an Islamic or Muslim school while living in Indonesia age 6–10, but Roman Catholic and secular public schools. See [1], [2], [3] The sub-articles Public image of Barack Obama and Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories address this issue. Q2: The article refers to him as African American, but his mother is white and his black father was not an American. Should he be called African American, or something else ("biracial", "mixed", "Kenyan-American", "mulatto", "quadroon", etc.)?
A2: Obama himself and the media identify him, the vast majority of the time, as African American or black. African American is primarily defined as "citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa", a statement that accurately describes Obama and does not preclude or negate origins in the white populations of America as well. Thus we use the term African American in the introduction, and address the specifics of his parentage in the first headed section of the article. Many individuals who identify as black have varieties of ancestors from many countries who may identify with other racial or ethnic groups. See our article on race for more information on this concept. We could call him the first "biracial" candidate or the first "half black half white" candidate or the first candidate with a parent born in Africa, but Wikipedia is a tertiary source which reports what other reliable sources say, and most of those other sources say "first African American". Readers will learn more detail about his ethnic background in the article body. Q3: Why can't we use his full name outside of the lead? It's his name, isn't it?
A3: The relevant part of the Manual of Style says that outside the lead of an article on a person, that person's conventional name is the only one that's appropriate. (Thus one use of "Richard Milhous Nixon" in the lead of Richard Nixon, "Richard Nixon" thereafter.) Talk page consensus has also established this. Q4: Why is Obama referred to as "Barack Hussein Obama II" in the lead sentence rather than "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr."? Isn't "Jr." more common?
A4: Although "Jr." is typically used when a child shares the name of his or her parent, "II" is considered acceptable, as well. And in Obama's case, the usage on his birth certificate is indeed "II", and is thus the form used at the beginning of this article, per manual of style guidelines on names. Q5: Why don't we cover the claims that Obama is not a United States citizen, his birth certificate was forged, he was not born in Hawaii, he is ineligible to be President, etc?
A5: The Barack Obama article consists of an overview of major issues in the life and times of the subject. The controversy over his eligibility, citizenship, birth certificate etc is currently a fairly minor issue in overall terms, and has had no significant legal or mainstream political impact. It is therefore not currently appropriate for inclusion in an overview article. These claims are covered separately in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Controversies, praise, and criticism Q6: Why isn't there a criticisms/controversies section?
A6: Because a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praise and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per the Criticism essay. Q7: Why isn't a certain controversy/criticism/praise included in this article?
A7: Wikipedia's Biography of living persons policy says that "[c]riticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." Criticism or praise that cannot be reliably sourced cannot be placed in a biography. Also, including everything about Obama in a single article would exceed Wikipedia's article size restrictions. A number of sub-articles have been created and some controversies/criticisms/praises have been summarized here or been left out of this article altogether, but are covered in some detail in the sub-articles. Q8: But this controversy/criticism/praise is all over the news right now! It should be covered in detail in the main article, not buried in a sub-article!
A8: Wikipedia articles should avoid giving undue weight to something just because it is in the news right now. If you feel that the criticism/controversy/praise is not being given enough weight in this article, you can try to start a discussion on the talk page about giving it more. See WP:BRD. Q9: This article needs much more (or much less) criticism/controversy.
A9: Please try to assume good faith. Like all articles on Wikipedia, this article is a work in progress so it is possible for biases to exist at any point in time. If you see a bias that you wish to address, you are more than welcome to start a new discussion, or join in an existing discussion, but please be ready to provide sources to support your viewpoint and try to keep your comments civil. Starting off your discussion by accusing the editors of this article of having a bias is the quickest way to get your comment ignored. Talk and article mechanics Q10: This article is over 275kb long, and the article size guideline says that it should be broken up into sub-articles. Why hasn't this happened?
A10: The restriction mentioned in WP:SIZE is 60kB of readable prose, not the byte count you see when you open the page for editing. As of May 11, 2016, this article had about 10,570 words of readable prose (65 kB according to prosesize tool), only slightly above the guideline. The rest is mainly citations and invisible comments, which do not count towards the limit. Q11: I notice this FAQ mentions starting discussions or joining in on existing discussions a lot. If Wikipedia is supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, shouldn't I just be bold and fix any biases that I see in the article?
A11: It is true that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and no one needs the permission of other editors of this article to make changes to it. But Wikipedia policy is that, "While the consensus process does not require posting to the discussion page, it can be useful and is encouraged." This article attracts editors that have very strong opinions about Obama (positive and negative) and these editors have different opinions about what should and should not be in the article, including differences as to appropriate level of detail. As a result of this it may be helpful, as a way to avoid content disputes, to seek consensus before adding contentious material to or removing it from the article. Q12: The article/talk page has been vandalized! Why hasn't anyone fixed this?
A12: Many editors watch this article, and it is unlikely that vandalism would remain unnoticed for long. It is possible that you are viewing a cached result of the article; If so, try bypassing your cache. Q13: Why are so many discussions closed so quickly?
A13: Swift closure is common for topics that have already been discussed repeatedly, topics pushing fringe theories, and topics that would lead to violations of Wikipedia's policy concerning biographies of living persons, because of their disruptive nature and the unlikelihood that consensus to include the material will arise from the new discussion. In those cases, editors are encouraged to read this FAQ for examples of such common topics. Q14: I added new content to the article, but it was removed!
A14: Double-check that your content addition is not sourced to an opinion blog, editorial, or non-mainstream news source. Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons states, in part, "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims." Sources of information must be of a very high quality for biographies. While this does not result in an outright ban of all blogs and opinion pieces, most of them are regarded as questionable. Inflammatory or potentially libelous content cited to a questionable source will be removed immediately without discussion. Q15: I disagree with the policies and content guidelines that prevent my proposed content from being added to the article.
A15: That's understandable. Wikipedia is a work in progress. If you do not approve of a policy cited in the removal of content, it's possible to change it. Making cogent, logical arguments on the policy's talk page is likely to result in a positive alteration. This is highly encouraged. However, this talk page is not the appropriate place to dispute the wording used in policies and guidelines. If you disagree with the interpretation of a policy or guideline, there is also recourse: Dispute resolution. Using the dispute resolution process prevents edit wars, and is encouraged. Q16: I saw someone start a discussion on a topic raised by a blog/opinion piece, and it was reverted!
A16: Unfortunately, due to its high profile, this talk page sees a lot of attempts to argue for policy- and guideline-violating content – sometimes the same violations many times a day. These are regarded as disruptive, as outlined above. Consensus can change; material previously determined to be unacceptable may become acceptable. But it becomes disruptive and exhausting when single-purpose accounts raise the same subject(s) repeatedly in the apparent hopes of overcoming significant objections by other editors. Editors have reached a consensus for dealing with this behavior:
Other Q17: Why aren't the 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns covered in more detail?
A17: They are, in sub-articles called Barack Obama 2008 presidential campaign and Barack Obama 2012 presidential campaign. Things that are notable in the context of the presidential campaigns, but are of minimal notability to Barack Obama's overall biography, belong in the sub-articles. Campaign stops, the presidential debates, and the back-and-forth accusations and claims of the campaigns can all be found there. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Template:WikiProject CD-People Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
Obama as a six (6) year principal member of the international G7 not included on his Page
The G7 is currently meeting in Europe and Obama has issued his strongest foreign policy statement against Putin to date. Obama was asked to voice an international consensus opinion of the seven participating nations which was reported in the NY Times on this date as shown below. Is there any merit or explanation as to why the current page does not having a G7/G8 subsection since Obama has been and continues to be a de facto center of these meetings and a central international voice for expressing their consensus views. Could someone take a look at the quote included below (abridged) to make a comment on a possible G7/G8 subsection on this Page possibly under "Foreign Policy".
- Obama Gives Russia One-Month Ukraine Deadline at G7 Meeting; By PETER BAKER, NY TIMES, JUNE 5, 2014
- President Obama and Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain said Russia will face tougher sanctions from group members if President Vladimir V. Putin refuses to work with Ukraine’s new government.
- BRUSSELS — With the backing of other world leaders, President Obama effectively set a one-month deadline for Moscow to reverse its intervention in Ukraine and help quash a pro-Russian separatist uprising or else he said it would face international sanctions far more severe than anything it had endured so far. Mr. Obama and other leaders of seven major democracies meeting here demanded that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia recognize and negotiate directly with the newly elected leader of Ukraine, stop the flow of fighters and arms across the border and press separatists to disarm, relinquish seized public buildings and join talks with the central authorities in Kiev.
- “Russia continues to have a responsibility to convince them to end their violence, lay down their weapons and enter into a dialogue with the Ukrainian government,” Mr. Obama said at a news conference alongside Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain after a meeting of leaders of the Group of 7 industrial powers. “On the other hand, if Russia’s provocations continue, it’s clear from our discussions here that the G-7 nations are ready to impose additional costs on Russia.”
- “We will have a chance to see what Mr. Putin does over the next two, three, four weeks,” Mr. Obama said, “and if he remains on the current course, then we’ve already indicated what kinds of actions that we’re prepared to take.”
This summarizes Obama's position from over the last six months on Putin as well. However, it is the G7/G8 section which appears missing on this wikipedia Page as a recurrent event for Obama during his entire presidency. Is anything of this G7/G8 history for Obama something to consider for the Obama Page. FelixRosch (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Articles are not intended to reflect every day-to-day event. Usually that observation is made when people suggest adding the current attack-piece against Obama, but it is just as valid here. In six months, a secondary source may write how Obama's work at this G7 meeting marked a turning point which led to certain outcomes—that is when it would be appropriate to add something to this bio. Johnuniq (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, not the day-to-day events. Its Obama's six-years relationship to the G7 that seems worthwhile for inclusion on the Obama page and the above quote is given as an example of only the most recent G7 meeting of the past six meetings (over the last six years) of the G7 of which Obama has been a central part. FelixRosch (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Chewing Gum at D-Day-ceremony and Mandela-funeral
[4] It is said that he wanted to quit smoking, but it is still an impertinent behavior. --Ich bin nicht dein Kollegah (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that the article should be amended in some way, and if so, how? -- Hoary (talk) 05:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sacrebleu! Dave Dial (talk) 05:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- L'Amérique, te baise! -- Scjessey (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Please strike that through Scjessy. But anyways, not notable. Just the latest in trying to smear obama, and people being offended too much. NathanWubs (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'll wager it will be listed on the bills of impeachment with the other Bs: Benghazi, Bergdahl, birth certificate - and bubblegum. Ok, it's nicorette, but you get the point. Newcomers please note that this is not a place to discuss what you don't like about Barack Obama. This is where we are supposed to be talking about how to improve the article. There are plenty of blogs and forums where you can vent your hatred. Tvoz/talk 22:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, I've found a source outside the Moonie press: Dok Zoom, "INPEACH! Obama Chewed Gum At D-Day Ceremony, Wingnuts Outraged", Wonkette, 7 June 2014. -- Hoary (talk) 05:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'll wager it will be listed on the bills of impeachment with the other Bs: Benghazi, Bergdahl, birth certificate - and bubblegum. Ok, it's nicorette, but you get the point. Newcomers please note that this is not a place to discuss what you don't like about Barack Obama. This is where we are supposed to be talking about how to improve the article. There are plenty of blogs and forums where you can vent your hatred. Tvoz/talk 22:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Please strike that through Scjessy. But anyways, not notable. Just the latest in trying to smear obama, and people being offended too much. NathanWubs (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- L'Amérique, te baise! -- Scjessey (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Correction of Daughter's name
Her name is Sasha and not Natasha.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-obama
Prissy1213 (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Prissy1213: Sasha is her nickname. --NeilN talk to me 17:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Natasha is one of the charges being leveled against Obama by the right wing, it shows he loves Russia because he named his daughter with a Russian name. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.93.234.239 (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- Obviously we need the birth certificate! HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- IP216, we don't aim to answer "charges" being leveled against Obama, and certainly not idiotic, lunatic fringe ones. Tvoz/talk 15:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Not entirely sure if IP216 was endorsing this latest idiotic smear against Obama.--Somchai Sun (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Never heard this one. So is Malia's real name Boris? Birth certificates can be found in the Pottsylvania records office? Something is going on here. Someone inform Drudge. Dave Dial (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Somchai, doesn't matter if s/he endorses it. Bringing it here is a distraction that gives air to pure nonsense. Trolling at best, idiotic lunatic fringe for sure, and yet another waste of time and space. (Must admit this one, new to me, is amusing.) Tvoz/talk 16:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Move to Barack Hussein Obama
In line with Hillary Rodham Clinton--117.207.123.162 (talk) 10:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- No idea why Hilary's article has that long name, but this one is consistent with Bill Clinton. HiLo48 (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- I thought these kind of pov pushes had died out. Also yeah probably the Hillary Clinton thing will probably change once she becomes president or something NathanWubs (talk) 11:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- HRC is far more well-known by her maiden+married name, and also frequently uses such on campaign literature and the like; that is why that article is what it is. IP users have been disrupting both the Clinton and the Sarah Jane Brown article with misogynist-tinged move requests for several years now. Now that they/he has failed in both, they/he appear to be branching out into other venues. Tarc (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that it is not necessary here. I don't know about Sarah Jane Brown but I have heard Hillary Rodham Clinton used a lot more than Barack Hussein Obama. In fact outside of right wing smears I can only recall his middle name being used during his inauguration and even then it was shortened to H. The two cases came be compared.--69.157.253.74 (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- If I recall correctly he used his full name when sworn in in 2009 (I don't remember about 2013). He's also joked about his middle names at times, especially considering Romney goes by his middle name. That being said, the page should remain where it is. Calidum Talk To Me 03:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that it is not necessary here. I don't know about Sarah Jane Brown but I have heard Hillary Rodham Clinton used a lot more than Barack Hussein Obama. In fact outside of right wing smears I can only recall his middle name being used during his inauguration and even then it was shortened to H. The two cases came be compared.--69.157.253.74 (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- HRC is far more well-known by her maiden+married name, and also frequently uses such on campaign literature and the like; that is why that article is what it is. IP users have been disrupting both the Clinton and the Sarah Jane Brown article with misogynist-tinged move requests for several years now. Now that they/he has failed in both, they/he appear to be branching out into other venues. Tarc (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- Tendentious sources such as Conservapedia use his full name in order to insinuate that he is a Muslim, not born in the U.S., not really president. "Common name" suggests that we keep the current name. TFD (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2014
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Rushmore Plus One; FDR joins Mountainside Figures Washington, Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt and Lincoln as Top Presidents, Siena Research Institute, July 1, 2010
should be changed to
Rushmore Plus One; FDR joins Mountainside Figures Washington, Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt and Lincoln as Top Presidents, Siena Research Institute, July 1, 2010
to fix the link. Tarc (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Ahh I see it now, the ref tags are braking the links, I took those out so the msg would be visible here. Will do. Tarc (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
First sentence of lead
The first sentence of the lead describes Obama as both ‘the 44th and current President of the United States’ and ‘the first African American to hold the office’. Should this latter description be moved elsewhere in the lead so that the first sentence focuses solely on Obama’s political position? As a quick comparison, the Nelson Mandela and Margaret Thatcher articles mention their subjects’ social notability (being the first black and first woman leader respectively) in the second sentence, but leave aside the first one to focus on what they achieved, irrespective of race or sex. 86.133.243.146 (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Response
- Close The IP (no doubt a sock of someone) has opened numerous unnecessary RFCs. --NeilN talk to me 02:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- RFC tag removed per AN/I discussion; this page has enough eyes on it. No opinion on the proposal but leaning towards agreeing with it. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- The suggestion is sensible at first blush.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Given the contentious history of race relations in the United States...particularly African-American history from the slave trade through the Civil Rights era...IMO being the first African-American president is a critical aspect of Obama's biography, and deserves first-sentence prominence. Tarc (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- But Obama is technically only half African-American, because his mother is white. So a better description would be Mulatto, since he's half white, half black. Look at his parents. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- This talk page is a flat circle... —Designate (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- But Obama is technically only half African-American, because his mother is white. So a better description would be Mulatto, since he's half white, half black. Look at his parents. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- "Half African-American" isn't even a thing, reads up on what the term actually means sometime. As for mulatto, that is a slur on par with the n-word. Tarc (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Then how about "mixed" or "biracial"? He is literally half of both, literally. The president's African look is simply more dominant, in which case the judging is based on his skin color only. But does race even matter in the 1st place? How about saying "descent" and acknowledging Obama's white side too? Supersaiyen312 (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- He's African-American. He's also biracial, of mixed race, multiracial, son of a Black African and a White American, etc. Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. That's not the question here, but rather whether it's worth mentioning in the first sentence that he's America's first black President or whether to save that for later in the lede. As for what he's first at, he's first of a lot of things, first President from Hawaii, etc. With only 44 presidencies before, every one is going to be first at a lot of stuff. Not a big sample size. Personally, although at the time and in foresight having a non-white President is a huge step for America, in hindsight, as race becomes less of a hinderance to achievement one would expect, it becomes less and less of a defining characteristic. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- So you're saying Obama is not white, but black. I still think we should acknowledge his other half. Not necessarily in the first sentence but later in the lead. Keep in mind that there are also European Americans and White Americans, which Obama is literally half of. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 02:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- He's African-American. He's also biracial, of mixed race, multiracial, son of a Black African and a White American, etc. Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. That's not the question here, but rather whether it's worth mentioning in the first sentence that he's America's first black President or whether to save that for later in the lede. As for what he's first at, he's first of a lot of things, first President from Hawaii, etc. With only 44 presidencies before, every one is going to be first at a lot of stuff. Not a big sample size. Personally, although at the time and in foresight having a non-white President is a huge step for America, in hindsight, as race becomes less of a hinderance to achievement one would expect, it becomes less and less of a defining characteristic. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Then how about "mixed" or "biracial"? He is literally half of both, literally. The president's African look is simply more dominant, in which case the judging is based on his skin color only. But does race even matter in the 1st place? How about saying "descent" and acknowledging Obama's white side too? Supersaiyen312 (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- "Half African-American" isn't even a thing, reads up on what the term actually means sometime. As for mulatto, that is a slur on par with the n-word. Tarc (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Since you're too lazy to read the FAQ, Supersaiyen312, it says that Wikipedia defines the whole issue of Barack Obama's race by self-identification: Obama says he is African-American. End of story.
- Wikipedia featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Wikipedia In the news articles
- Biography articles of living people
- Active politicians
- FA-Class biography articles
- FA-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- FA-Class U.S. Congress articles
- High-importance U.S. Congress articles
- WikiProject U.S. Congress persons
- FA-Class WikiProject Illinois articles
- High-importance WikiProject Illinois articles
- FA-Class Hawaii articles
- Mid-importance Hawaii articles
- WikiProject Hawaii articles
- FA-Class Kansas articles
- Mid-importance Kansas articles
- WikiProject Kansas articles
- FA-Class Chicago articles
- Top-importance Chicago articles
- WikiProject Chicago articles
- FA-Class African diaspora articles
- Mid-importance African diaspora articles
- WikiProject African diaspora articles
- FA-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- FA-Class Africa articles
- Mid-importance Africa articles
- FA-Class Kenya articles
- Low-importance Kenya articles
- WikiProject Kenya articles
- WikiProject Africa articles
- FA-Class United States articles
- Top-importance United States articles
- FA-Class United States articles of Top-importance
- FA-Class District of Columbia articles
- High-importance District of Columbia articles
- WikiProject District of Columbia articles
- FA-Class United States presidential elections articles
- Top-importance United States presidential elections articles
- WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
- FA-Class United States Presidents articles
- Top-importance United States Presidents articles
- WikiProject United States Presidents articles
- FA-Class US State Legislatures articles
- Low-importance US State Legislatures articles
- WikiProject US State Legislatures articles
- FA-Class United States Government articles
- Low-importance United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States Government articles
- United States articles used on portals
- WikiProject United States articles
- FA-Class New York (state) articles
- Low-importance New York (state) articles
- FA-Class Columbia University articles
- High-importance Columbia University articles
- WikiProject Columbia University articles
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press