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)

Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

Following a discussion on the fringe theories noticeboard about how to deal with a metastizing series of articles and subsections relating to Obama's citizenship, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories has been created to provide a home for these fringey-but-notable issues. Donofrio v. Wells and similar subsections of Andy Martin (U.S. politician), Philip J. Berg and Alan Keyes have been condensed and merged into a roundup of legal cases on this issue; see Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#Litigation. I recommend that editors seeking to add such material should be politely but firmly steered in the direction of this new article, where such material can be corralled without exporting disruption to other articles. Also, if you know of Obama birth certificate or citizenship material that presently exists in other articles, please let me know so that it can be migrated into the new article. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You might want to generalize that the "Obama conspiracy theories", as the Rezko and Blagojevich stuff will be coming out of the woodwork also. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The citizenship conspiracy theories are in a class of their own; it's better to have a focused article rather than just a grab-bag of random conspiracy theories. If there is significant coverage of the Illinois issues than I'm sure we could look at creating an article on that topic. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:34, 10 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 !

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)

Image??

Is the new portrait used really official, is it the real presidential portrait or is it just made by Obamas team? Marcusmax(speak) 18:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Methinks it's not the "official" presidential portrait since he isn't president yet. But it works for me, for now. Priyanath ^talk 19:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Source

I wonder if any of this could or should be incorporated. Please read it in its entirity before commenting [[6]].Die4Dixie (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The "Is he black" question is already covered in the Cultural and political image section and Public image of Barack Obama article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering abour the lead where it is asserted that he is the first african american. Perhaps "although some question this assuption .. " and give an in text citation?Die4Dixie (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a good article (I read it all), but still doesn't change the preponderance of reliable sources that identify Obama as African-American. Someday this will all change, but for now that thought is best for discussion at African-American, imo. Same with attempts to add "some question that assumption" - it's best for the broader article, African-American. Not here, as has been discussed quite comprehensively. Priyanath ^talk 20:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Unfortunately that is an extreme minority view and such a prominent mention of this speculation would represent undue weight. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This is why I asked . Dr. Leroy seemed to be a prominent AA historian and expert in the field, but I figured it would be better to ask . I saw his impressive web site here[7], and remember when he did a presentation at a school that my mom did her student teaching at several years ago during black history month on the subject.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That's why this kind of thing might be best for an article like African-American, where it might not violate (best to ask there) undue weight (WP:UNDUE). Here, it most surely violates Undue Weight. Priyanath ^talk 20:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

THank you both . If his scholarship is so fatally flawed as not to be inclued here, then it certainly doesn't belong somewhere else on the project. I had some of my own questions, but you have both helped clear them up. If nothing else comes out about it, then I think it's best left closed. With a new mention of it in the news, I was unsure if it met the trhershhold or not. Thank you both for you patience.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh.. You're talking about the Dr. Vaughn paragraph of the article, rather than the article in its entirety... There's nothing technically wrong with Vaughn's scholarship, it just isn't accepted by his peers. That one is definitely an extreme minority view. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:29, 13 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)