Talk:Barack Obama

Redundant discussions

In case anyone is wondering if they have an original comment about one of the frequently-discussed issues for this article, here is a list of discussions at length which have taken place just in the past couple of months.

Race

• Talk:Barack Obama/race
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 47#Barack Obama is half-white
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Ethnicity in first sentence
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Media coverage of ethnicity controversy and the intro
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Mulatto, the term is Mullato
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 44#He's Multi-Racial.
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 43#Obama and race

Religion

• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 47#Religon
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Religion

Citizenship

• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Supreme Court Controversy
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 45#Still no mention on the birth certificate?
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 45#Donofrio v. Wells
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 44#Unverified Birth Hospital Needs Revision and Reference

Full name

• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Article Name
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 44#Barack Hussein Obama JR, not II

Give this some consideration before deciding to start another one. Bigbluefish (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

Since I'm a bit intimidated by the attention this article receives, I'm not going to repeat an edit I've had to make several times in the past without some feedback. In the "Cultural and Political Image" section, it states: "With his Kenyan father and white American mother". This is a minor issue, but I think that "white" should be removed, simply because it is unnecessary. That he is of mixed ancestry is well-documented throughout the article. Originally, because I hate the whole concept of race, I wanted all mention of "black" (instead of Luo) and "white" (instead of English/American) removed, but as I am mostly satisfied with the White American article in how it addresses race perceptions in America, it works. The restating of it in the Cultural and Political Image section seems redundant if not obsessive. —Godheval^{T C W} 19:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the term "white", just as I wouldn't use "black" to describe Obama or his father. Since we are talking about the "Cultural and Political Image" section, I think describing his mother as European American would be appropriate. --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking it was redundant to mention ethnicity again at all - his father is listed simply as Kenyan, so the mother should be American. If there is need to mention ethnicity again, then either the used White American or European American are fine.—Godheval^{T C W} 20:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms

This section was closed in bad faith. Numerous questions were posed in this section which received ad hominem or personal attacks and no response. There is nothing more I can do. If another editor wants to raise the issue again, please see the discussion in the archive. I will no longer participate in such an adversarial environment in editing this article. Zoticogrillo (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not a general talkforum - once you are able to articulate *what* you want including, start a new section and tell us what that it is. Continued vagueness in an attempt to trick editors into giving you carte blanche is going nowhere and is now verging on the disruptive. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Biographies of prominent individuals should have a section addressing some of the criticisms or controversies related to that individual, as long as the content can meet the wiki standards. Otherwise the article is not neutral, and fails to provide the depth of information possible, thus harming the value of the community for the benefit of a few. Articles such as this one which are possibly edited by official staff of the individual (whether paid or volunteer) should receive the highest scrutiny for this characteristic. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC) No there shouldn't be a "criticism" section, criticism,theories should just be added to the article at places they fit,so any criticism like for example people saying he does not have enough experience should be added to the part where the article talks about his run from presidency, and criticism and praise (I think thats the opposite of criticism) should only be added on this page if it's actually notable in the bigger picture of his life store, as this is what this page is about, there are other pages where certain "details" can/should be added but that is on those pages and not on this one. 86.89.102.98 (talk) 09:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Forgetting the slanderous implications of the last sentence, what specific criticisms do you have at this point, for a President who has not even taken office yet? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Regardless of the redundancy of the issue, this is not an article about his presidency, Bugs. Stick to defending the integrity of the article, not defending Mr. Obama :-) Bigbluefish (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Anything that has received considerable coverage in the public media is notable. It is not slanderous if it is reporting things that appeared in the popular media, and not reporting them as truth. There are enough that they warrant their own section. Zoticogrillo (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC) There are so many things wrong here. First, there are two separate issues here that you're confusing: one is the inclusion of criticisms in the article, and the other is organising them into a dedicated section. If you are commenting about the former, what criticisms specifically does the article lack? If it is the latter, what is wrong with the current location of the criticisms and how does a single section make it better? This is a biographical article, documenting the details of his life, not a profile to help people make up their political minds. Bugs' comment about slanderous comments was not aimed at criticism of Obama but at your suggestion that the Obama administration or similar might be editing this article and might be doing so with a favourable bias. It's a moot point because they are entitled to edit the article and there are both favourable and unfavourable "bad edits" made to the article, none of which should affect community editorial decisions. Bigbluefish (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Adding more information to the article would be informative, and is a notable part of the life of the individual. Where they appear isn't critical, but I believe that there has been enough to warrant a separate section. Most of the critical information that has passed through the media has appeared here in the discussion. Zoticogrillo (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Since there aren't any active discussions here about any criticism that isn't already in the article, perhaps you'd like to suggest some. As a whole, criticism has not played a big part in Obama's life. If he died right now, he would not be remembered as the guy who was criticised a lot. A section of criticism comes from either the opposite being true (which is the case for very few people) or practical issues with placing an important fact elsewhere in the article. Bigbluefish (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Yes, the "slander" part is the accusation that Obama's people are editing this article to show their man in as positive a light as possible. Unless you're prepared to name some, you had best back off from that charge. As far as criticisms are concerned, maybe you could start by listing your top 3 criticisms here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC) There are enough in the archives, and at least one on this page. Then you admit, any criticisms or accusations that have appeared in the media should be included in the article? Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Who are you talking to? Whatever. "Any" criticisms in the media don't necessarily qualify. But it's certain that only criticisms reported in reliable sources belong here. And they would have to be significant in some way, such as reneging on a campaign promise, behaving unethically, or whatever. A criticism whose sole basis is "I don't like what he's doing because I'm conservative and I don't like what liberals do", is nothing more than partisanship, so it does not qualify. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC) So, having said that, kindly name your top 3 favorite criticisms, so we'll have something to talk about here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC) It seems crazy to me to discuss hypothetical criticisms. Tell us what you want to add, and we'll talk about whether and where it should be.LedRush (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Zoticogrillo, above you wrote "...I believe that there has been enough to warrant a separate section." Criticism sections are not against policy, but they are discouraged, see the essay Wikipedia:Criticism.--Modocc (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Then you disagree with the statement that criticisms or accusations that appear in the media about the individual should be included in the article? What are the wiki rules or principles that support that position? Are you saying that any criticism or accusation that was published by a reliable media source could be included in the article? What about editorials or commentary? Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Instead of talking generalities, how about you pose some specific potential criticisms so we can talk about them? You've been asked that several times now, and you seem reluctant to do that; but if you're not willing to do that, then we're probably done here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC) But can't you see how, from my perspective, that is seen as a trap and an evasion of the issue? I am trying to clarify the wiki rules on this topic, and how they apply to this situation. But I haven't received any clear answers. Standards and rules should not be so fact specific that they require specific hypothetical examples every time they are used. Why should I provide three criticisms first? What do the wiki rules say about this, and how can we apply them to this situation? Again, should criticisms or accusations that appear in the media about the individual be included in the biographical article? Here are some wiki principles that could apply: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Criticism_and_praise and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Are there others? Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC) It's not a trap, it's an honest question about what criticisms you think should be in this article. Vague assertions of the article needing more items critical of the subject don't really help. If there's something specific you think should be added, please discuss it. No one here is trying to trap you or evade the issue. Dayewalker (talk) 07:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC) From the essay I already mentioned and the essay Wikipedia:Criticism sections, I'll quote Jimbo: "In many cases they [criticism sections] are necessary, and in many cases they are not necessary. And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." Jimbo Wales Therefore, what is the criticism that needs to be incorporated into the article? --Modocc (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC) I'm trying to identify some general rules. So, based on the last reply, does that mean that whether or not a criticism should be incorporated is not just whether it is verifiable, but also how it is used? Also, are there some criticisms that would be permissible in the article? Because I don't see any, other than the indirect statement that some have said that he isn't "black enough". Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC) The criteria you're missing is relevance. A criticism should be included if it's important to his biography, as should praise. We don't have a quota for each and try to satisfy them to make a "neutral" article - the policy is a neutral point of view not multiple points of view. If all criticism and praise that is relevant is documented neutrally and you think there isn't enough praise or criticism in the article, maybe you have a skewed view of that person's public image. All that said, I went back and had a look through the article, and the area I don't think is very balanced any more is the Cultural and political image section. Since we might never get them from the original poster, here are some specifics: concerns about his experience, perceived elitism and concerns for lack of substance behind showmanship and rhetoric. The first two are already treated in the sub-article Public image of Barack Obama, and all of them pop up from time to time in both opposing pieces and when writers want to include opposing views for balance. All are in my view more important than, say, the "black enough" thing (which has been part of the article since time immemoriam), the Rosa Parks/MLK quote, and what Jonathan Haidt has to say about Obama's oratory. Perhaps the inclusion of these things could be reviewed. One of the main problems is that neither this nor the sub-article cite many sources about Obama's public image, rather citing multiple sources that are trying to sway it and synthesising them to create an alternative overall view of his image. Bigbluefish (talk) 09:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Yup, exactly what I wanted to avoid. No one has given me a response, and we are plunged into a discussion of the particular points. Post on my personal discussion page if there's someone with a mind to answer my question. Zoticogrillo (talk) 09:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC) I've just read this rather weird discussion and I've got to ask you what was your original question? It seems to me that they continued to answer your question over and over again, yet you yourself continued to dance around their questions about naming three criticisms so that we could have a meaningful discussion. It seems to me that you never planned on answering that question. If you want to have a meaningful discussion first keep the comments on the subject, Barack Obama. Second, if you have policy questions, this is not the place to ask or discuss them. Third, if you have specific criticisms you want to see put in the article about Barack Obama, then post them here and lets discuss them. Brothejr (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC) His original slanderous comment about wikipedia editors, combined with the specifics of his answering-a-question-with-a-question, make it clear that he wants us to give blanket approval to post any sourced negativity he can find. It is he who is trying to set the trap, but it's not going to fly. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC) So putting aside the fact that slander is oral, that the Obama administration are entitled to edit the article if they choose to and that the original agenda of this thread did indeed seem to lack the integrity of the article at its centre, what of the issues I've noted? Anyone got any good sources that might help deciding the key points that are relevant to the image section? Bigbluefish (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Instead of "slander" how about if I just say "veiled personal attacks"? As we were saying to the original questioner, you're free to post some suggested rewrites here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC) To the original poster, why will you not outline three particular criticisms you'd like to see included? It's beginning to seem like you quite possibly have an agenda that you wish to see perpetuated through this article, but you're not (yet) willing to reveal it. SDJ 14:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Seriously guys, what's the obsession with cutting down the original poster? You've made your point; why is nobody interested in the three particular criticisms that I have raised which probably ought to be present in this article? Bigbluefish (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC) The original poster started with the hostile claim that Obama lackeys are editing the article. You have at least raised specific topics, but they are still generalities. It would be useful to see how you would word (and source) your proposed revisions. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Also to add on to what Bugs said, not only do you need to have a neutral wording for those general criticisms, but you must also have reliable sources that back up those statements and also those statements must be verifiable. Brothejr (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Indeed. The very problem with the article at the moment is that the sources aren't really secondary enough. I'm basing my remarks on my general impression of commentary on him, but I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to nail down a source which says "some people are concerned he's not experienced enough" or "he may be good at getting stadiums full of people excited, but whether he can deliver that change will be put to the test", et cetera. These are probably more relevant to his overall image than "he's not black enough", and certainly some doe-eyed remark about Martin Luther King, but the sourcing is the same, just some hand-picked examples of what important people think of him. What we're lacking is some sources saying "well this is how the voting public have seen him and here are the reservations some of them have". Bigbluefish (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC) I actually wouldn't have a problem inserting any of the three criticisms that bigbluefish has mentioned (with the possible exception of the last...though that could fit in public perception)...now it's an issue (for me) of whether they're properly sourced and included.LedRush (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC) I would - seriously "he's good at filling a stadium full of people but.." - what? what? that's not a criticism, that's argument to the future. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC) As far as the "experience" issue, the soon-to-be-expired administration is good evidence that "experience" is overrated. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Anyway, the question that LedRush raises is the same question that Bluefish raises - proper sourcing for "the obvious". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC) And as Cameron says, that's just a sound bite. You could find plenty of criticism of Obama, from Rush Limbaugh and Hillary Clinton both. But what's the point? It's just "I wanted someone else to win" cloaked a different way. You've got Limbaugh derisively calling Obama "The Messiah", which is silly, and besides which, Obama has already denied being the Messiah. Valid criticism will arise with the way he handles things once he's actually in office, which as far as I know hasn't happened yet. But one valid criticism could be the question of whether his team is vetting some of his appointees enough. There's already been one guy withdraw, and he's having to defend another guy, and there you have possibly substantive evidence of "inexperience", or something. Provided you can find a source that says that. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Are you happy removing the "not black enough", "Joan and Martin" and "emotion of elevation" details then? These are also just soundbites, and ones which are heard far less than others. I would support this as a temporary solution, but ultimately this article needs some decent analytical sources. Perhaps if I find the time I'll do a bit of hunting. Also, Bugs, your meanderings of opinion about the validity of different arguments are becoming tiresome. At least some of the citizenship cranks try to discuss an actual encyclopedic topic rather than whether it's right that his experience forms part of his public image. Bigbluefish (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Well...that wasn't a very useful post. I actually agree that some of the included details are soundbity, but firstly, we should keep topics separate, and two, stay civil and discuss specific additions and deletions.LedRush (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC) I absolutely agree that the topics should be kept separate. I thought I balanced the useless part of my post well by specific suggestions for content changes, but the former was a rather necessary (in my opinion) response to another two completely useless posts (separated by a useful one). When the self-referential and off-topic comments outmeasure the real article discussion it's worth giving everyone a bit of a trout-slap and drawing a line. Now, any suggestions for a higher-quality treatment of that section... Bigbluefish (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC) I suggest getting a reliable source for one and proposing a place and way to put it in.LedRush (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC) What he calls "meandering", I call "exploring". That's what the talk page is supposed to be about. The "not black enough" stuff comes from a possibly realistic concern that Obama is an elitist, and is ironically connected with the constant complaints by posters here about him being "Halfrican American". It overlooks the point that pretty much all Presidents are elitists in some sense. Much of the perception problem with Palin was that she was "just one of the folks", whereas it's clear that Obama is not "just one of the folks". Great leaders seldom are "just folks" - there's a degree of necessary aloofness. Reagan is a good example of that - he never let his "folksiness" get in the way of decision-making. In Obama's case, the irony is the fear, by some whites, that he's going to be "President of black people", and the fear, by some black people, that he won't be. (God forbid he should be President of the United States and not any one special interest.) So the "not black enough" and its implications is a worthwhile area to explore, provided reliable sources have covered it objectively and thoughtfully. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC) I never much cared for the "not black enough" stuff. It seems more like something for a sub-article on public perception, or on Obama and race. It's not something in most people's minds, nor is it directly relevant to what he is all about. It is also very early in his presidential career - it hasn't started as of now. After four years or eight, will anyone care whether he was black enough? It seems mostly a prospective concern. I don't see the point of discussing in general whether the article is critical enough or not. We had enough of that for months and months during the campaign. Assessing articles in terms of whether they are too full of praise or criticism is, in general, forcing points of view into the article because wherever that dial is set, adjusting the dial just for the sake of making an article more negative or more positive is inherently a bias issue. As people have said again and again, we have to look at the specifics, one issue at a time, to decide what merits inclusion. In general criticisms (as opposed to negative material more generally) are not terribly germane to a biography because it is neither here nor there what people think of someone. He won the election so whatever negative impressions and campaign attacks people made, they did not prevail. If it does not affect his life or how he governs, why should it matter that so-and-so has a negative comment to make about Obama? Wikidemon (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC) That sure didn't seem very productive. I thought it was going somewhere a couple of times, but ultimately... nothing. It seems that we agree that criticisms should be included if it is verifiable and relevant. The election received so much coverage worldwide, that I believe we are all aware of the various "criticisms" that have been raised during campaigning, therefore listing them individually is not helpful. Nonetheless addressing this will be for the benefit of those in the future who wish to research the campaign, or who wish to understand popular perception of the president, or for those who just seek the convenience of having the most prominent criticisms listed in one place, with the useful links in the citations. Because of the similarity in the nature of these criticisms or accusations which have appeared in popular media, and because of the uses just mentioned, I still believe that the most plausible presentation of the content would be in a separate section. Zoticogrillo (talk) 09:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC) It might have gone somewhere if you had actually cited some examples. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC) It doesn't matter which examples are used, as long as they meet the wiki criteria. This is not a forum to editorialize about political pundits. Nonetheless, I did raise one example, and a few editors mentioned a few others. So continuing to raise that as an issue while ignoring all the others I raise seems to be a way of distracting and diverting the discussion. Zoticogrillo (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC) You've missed the point completely. This article is subject to exactly the same policies as every other biography. If you disagree with anything in that respect, this is not the place. If you are here to inform us that this article is neither perfectly structured nor perfectly neutral, good. We know. Thanks for the info - now be bold and help us fix it. If you are trying to field agreement for a particular change to the article, you're going to have to be a lot more specific. Whether or not an example "meets the wiki criteria", as you put it, depends on the source that it's backed up with. There have been no such proposals. Bigbluefish (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC) I thought you missed my point as well. You've spend more time objecting to my approach than would have been required to simply humor me and respond to my questions or issues, and without explaining why. Part of the reason why I wanted to first confirm criteria, is because I don't want to waste time researching if it's not even going to benefit the article. This is a highly contentious article, therefore going step-wise is more prudent. I think a key part in avoiding conflicts will be to re-affirm that something can be verifiable and still be untrue. This will be the case for much of the criticism content. There will be citations to articles, editorials and commentary of major newspapers, which will make them verifiable, even if those criticisms were unfounded or unprovable. And of course many of them will be about his policies, and not about him as an individual, but they are still relevant as they are about his campaigning and role as president. Zoticogrillo (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC) You're trying to get us to "pre-approve" some general criteria so that you can try to post some likely POV-pushing and claim that everyone said it was OK. You're not going to get away with that, and since you're unwilling to list anything in particular, that's the end of it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC) Seriously - piss in the pot or get off it. If there are specific criticisms you feel are not accounted for in this article, please list them in your next post. If you are unable to do so, someone is going to mark this thread "resolved" and it will be archived because you are wasting our time otherwise, because nobody is going to agree to anything with your current level of vagueness. --Cameron Scott (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC) Total ad hominem. I actually have a strong positive bias toward Obama, but I'm not going to POV-push at all. I'm just a wiki- hobbiest who wants to improve the article in an objective way. I can't give any examples without first researching and identifying some, which requires time up-front. I'm not going to waste my time if I'm going to be confronted by an editing war with editors who are unable to analyze the content logically. Zoticogrillo (talk) 05:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC) It's the risk we take as Wiki-hobbiests, isn't it? There's no guarantee that folks will be amenable to (or even logical about) your proposed changes, but all we can really do is propose them and see what happens. I'm sure most folks here are amenable in theory to the idea of including more criticism, but they need to know where the beef is so to speak. You are speaking far too generally here and I'm at a loss as to how you want folks to respond. It really should not take you too much time to find one particular criticism which you would like to include and bring that to the table with references (surely you already have some things in mind?). If you are not willing to do that right now then I suggest we archive this thread because there's nothing productive here. Once you come up with some specific suggestions you can start a new thread where editors can discuss the proposed changes. I just don't see any other way to go about this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Four citations???

"and became the first African American to be elected President of the United States.[122][123][124][125]"

Why do we need four citations for this one sentence alone? ScienceApe (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The multiple cites might discourage people from changing the line to "multiracial" or "mulatto" every two or three days. PhGustaf (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Is that really necessary to prevent vandalism? Just revert their edits. ScienceApe (talk) 06:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Try reading the 50,000 words of past discussion on how "controversial," "untrue," "racist," blah, blah, the "African American" bit is, and you'll start to get a sense that it actually is necessary. :-(. LotLE×talk 09:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama and race

Closing this discussion that has been ground beyond dust form. Please see the answer to question 2 on this article's FAQ. --Bobblehead (rants) 11:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why is Mr. Obama referred to as "the first African American to be elected President of the United States"? Isn't he half white? Trent370 (talk) 07:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC) It's been discussed quite often, details can be found at Q2 in the FAQ at the top of this page. Dayewalker (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC) I still wasn't clear from the discussion...isn't he half white? Should it at least be mentioned in the lead? Thanks. Trent370 (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC) His mother was white so yes, he is half white, but if you read the answer to Q2 in the FAQ at the top of the page again you'll see that it's explained why we do not mention this fact in the lead. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC) But if the facts indicate he is half white, and there are reliable sources that attest to these facts, can't that simply be mentioned in the lead (as a matter of fact)? Trent370 (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC) No, as he is predominantly and overwhelmingly described as simply African-American. The fact that his mother was white is noted in the "Early Live and Career" section. It simply isn't all that notable of an issue. Tarc (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC) (after ec) - No. You need to show a preponderance of reliable sources describing him as "half-white" (which is an absurd designation, frankly). By an overwhelming number, reliable sources use the term "African American". Please read the extensive archive on this matter. It has been discussed not less than eleventy-billion times previously. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Would it hurt anything, violate any of Wiki's policies, or otherwise offend the reliable sources (that probably don't even know they are being used as reliable sources) to simple say he is "...the first person of African-American descent..."? Seems that might satisfy both those who point to his "half-whiteness" as well as those with whom is "half-blackness" resonate? Compromise and consensus, and not biting the newcomers, might have a place here. Newguy34 (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC) No. We say what the reliable sources say. To use your suggested modified version would be a form of synthesis and/or original research. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Bunk. Read synthesis and original research. The entire article, and every article in Wiki for that matter, is a summarization of what reliable sources say. It is not, as you suggest, merely a compendium of quotes and unedited textual matter from reliable sources. If it were, Wiki would largely be unreadable. So, allow me to be more direct: I think a bit of compromise on this issue is called for here. Attempts at Wiki-lawyering, aside, the compromise is benign, and should be added to the article. Newguy34 (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Is there a reliable source that can attest to the proposition that "an overwhelming number of reliable sources use the term African American." I don't believe this is the case. There are many reliable source referring to Mr. Obama as mixed race or half-African American. Perhaps not "eleventy-billion," but at least a significant fraction. Trent370 (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC) This is not very scientific scientific but here is a full search of the Google News archive searching for Obama and "mixed race" while here is the same type of search but for Obama and "African-American." The former shows 629 hits while the latter shows 22,800. Like I said not scientific, but a good rough indicator of which term is used more often in news reports.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC) @ Newguy - This is a BLP, so we must say what the reliable sources say. We cannot make stuff up that we think is correct if it isn't properly supported by references. @ Trent - There are reliable sources that describe Obama in ways other than African American, but they are insignificant compared to the number of reliable sources that describe him as African American. While you are unlikely to find a reliable source that gives specific numbers, or a ratio of "African American" to "other" descriptors, it is probably safe to say that the difference is probably orders of magnitude - and patently obvious to anyone who reads a newspaper, watches TV or browses the internet from time to time. @ both - seriously people, this has been discussed dozens of times and the conclusion has always been the same. We go with the reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Trent, the average black person has a lot of european and native american blood in him/her. The average white person has a lot of african and native american blood in him/her too. Therefore, designations like "black" and "white" go mostly on physical appearance. Not genetics. Obama looks black, so we call him black. Vin Diesel looks white, so people mostly call him white, even though he's half black. Mariah Carey is 25% African, but she looks white so we call her white. ScienceApe (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Just to add to this, the specific suggestion by Newguy to say "...the first person of African-American descent..." really does not make sense. Obama does not descend from African-Americans - he is one. He is descendant from Africans and from Euro-Americans. His daughters are descendants of African-Americans, though that's an odd thing to say. It really can't be exaggerated (alright, I guess eleventy-billion is an exaggeration) how often this has been discussed. I only spent a few weeks at this article last summer and it easily came up 7 or 8 times, and having not commented since then it is still going on. The consensus in the past has always been to describe him as African American. Just to mention something else alluded to by ScienceApe, nearly all blacks in the United States are partially of European descent because of the constant sexual abuse of black female slaves by white men. Most prominent African Americans in this country have a not insignificant percentage of white parentage going back generations (Colin Powell being one example), however we don't generally talk about that fact in the intro to our articles about African American persons because that's not how we talk about it in American society. If secondary sources generally identify someone as black (as they do for Obama) and the person himself identifies as black (as does Obama) then that's what we go with and we explain the specific ethnic heritage in the body as we do here. Can we move on from this?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Oh, Scjessey, enough with the Wiki-lawyering and red-herrings. I am not suggesting that the article should say something contrary to reliable sources. The preponderance of reliable sources (as if citing material in Wiki is a popularity contest of reliable sources) state that Obama is descended of an African father and an American mother. He is by definition, "an African-American" and "of African-American descent", according to more than (pick any number less than eleventy-billion), say 30 reliable sources. Why not try a little bit of simple compromise, that doesn't cost anything? And, the editor above who claims that my "specific suggestion...really does not make sense. Obama does not descend from African-Americans - he is one." is logical nonsensicality. If he is African-American (and he is) the only way he could so be, is if he were descended from African-Americans, or from Africans and from Americans. If A=B and B=C, then C must=A. I frankly don't care how he is refered to herein. But, we are taking about the insertion of one word and rearranging two others. That some object so forcefully to this simple compromise is telling. Future members of congress, me thinks. Newguy34 (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC) That's enough with the false accusations of wikilawyering, if you don't mind. Your "compromise" is, quite simply, wrong (see Bigtimepeace's reasoning above) and unsupported by reliable sources (despite your claim). Can you name a single African American ancestor of Barack Obama? No. That's why your proposal won't work. Further discussion of this, particularly any that denigrate longstanding editors with comments about "members of congress", etc., will be regarded as disruption. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Simmer down. That my proposed compromise is wrong is your opinion. How can a compromise be wrong, by the way?! With all due respect and homage to your self-recognized superior intellectual abilities, you are completely missing the point. There will be further discussion, I suspect. This is neither your article, nor your Wiki. Long-standing editors have no more rights or value than any other editor. Please do make threats on Wiki, as I know that is contrary to the community's policies. We are tallking about a disagreement over content, not disruption. Newguy34 (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC) A compromise is "wrong" when it seeks to replace properly referenced facts with complete nonsense made up on the spot, and proffered with the misrepresentation that it was supported by reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC) There are many, many reliable sources that refer to him as an "American of African descent", so why not try that in the article? Just consider it before the knee jerks itself again. Newguy34 (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC) That's a different thing to what you were saying earlier. Also, an "American of African descent" is (drum roll please) an "African American"! We've gone from tortured logic to circuitous logic. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC) I'm still trying to find compromise, which is surprisingly difficult. So, at the end of the drum roll, would this meet your personal standard of approval for this ultra-controversial edit? Or, will this proposal of mine meet with the same fate as the last, given I have only been editing on Wikipedia since 2005. Not sure if that makes me a long-standing editor, or not, and therefore qualified to profer suggestions. Newguy34 (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC) No, as your compromise is contrary to the vast preponderance of reliable sources the refer to him as simply African American without all of the weasel words. --guyzero | talk 22:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Ah, thanks for your response. Wait, I don't remember asking you for your thoughts on the matter. Newguy34 (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Luckily, part of "pure awesome-ness" you referred to below is the fact that I don't need an invite from you to comment on this talkapge. thanks, --guyzero | talk 22:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Touche', my friend. Newguy34 (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Since African-American and American of African descent mean the exact same thing, why not keep the more succinct African-American? Newguy34, you still haven't provided an acceptable explanation of why it is necessary to refer to Obama as anything but the first African-American elected President of the US. As I noted below, the context that African-American is being used it does not mean that Obama is only African-American. There just isn't anything particularly special about being the 44th Caucasian elected US President, so that aspect of his ancestry is not covered in the sentence. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Fair enough. I am not advocating, merely trying to find a compromise that works for everyone. As I said before, I don't care. Plus, my feelings are hurt by being told no! so many times by the collaborative, jovial bunch of editors working on this BLP. Newguy34 (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Are you calling me a member of a congress Newguy34? Personal attack! Personal attack! I joke, obviously. However I'm afraid your logic is what is lacking here Newguy. The term "African-American" literally refers to someone born in America who is of African descent. Neither of Obama's parents were people born in America who had African descendants (his father is from Kenya, of course), and therefore Obama himself is not descendant of "African Americans," he descends from Europeans on his mother's side and Africans on his father's. It is an important distinction. I can't quite parse your A=B logic because I don't know what "A" is for you, but think of it like this (pardon the relative crudity of the example). Let's say his mother is yellow paint and his father is blue paint. They are combined and we get green paint, i.e. Barack Obama. Now is Obama "descendant" from green paint? Of course not, he descends from yellow and blue paint but himself is green paint. Similarly Obama is descendant from white Europeans and black Africans, a combination which, given the racial history of the United States, is generally referred to as "African American." All of these categories are socially constructed and bizarre, but this is an encyclopedia article on one dude, not a critique of the construction of race in American society. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC) What?! What if I were a member of congress? Mine was a compliment. Well, maybe not so much. I understand your analogy. I am merely trying to find compromise where obsessive "ownership" of the article exists on the part of some. I say, take two readings of the collaborative promise that forms the basic mission of Wiki and call me in the morning. Articles are never "done". They can always be improved, and everyone gets to have a crack at doing so. Whether some like it or not, we all get to have a say. Pure awesome-ness. And, I am sorry for the implcation that you are acting like a member of congress. Sorry, eleventy-billion times. Now, as to that article on people of green descent... Newguy34 (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC) I definitely think we need an article for Green-painted American. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Since we're parsing words and all... It should be noted that in the context that African-American in the lead paragraph it is not establishing that Obama is only African-American, just that he is the first African-American to be elected president. An example of how this is applicable is Daniel Akaka who is a mix of Chinese and Native Hawaiian ancestry. Even though he is "half Native Hawaiian" and "half Chinese", Akaka is both the first Native Hawaiian to be elected to the Senate and the only Chinese-American currently in the Senate. That is exactly how Obama's racial ancestry is being treated here, there just isn't anything particularly notable about being the 44th Caucasian elected to President, that isn't included. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Mr. Obama is the first "half white, half African-American" president, so this would be the most accurate description. Trent370 (talk) 05:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC) He's the first African-American president of any kind. He's also the first Hawaiian African-American president. If you think that how he should be described in the first sentence should be changed, point us to any major influential profile of Obama that does the same. There is not a shortage of sources of any persuasion happy to sum up Obama just the same as we have. Bigbluefish (talk) 12:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Source like this: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17958438 are typical of what I have seen. The bottom line is, in fact he is biracial, but considers himself African-American. It seems as though the lead should acknowledge the fact, and then point to Mr. Obamas preference i.e., "Obama is the first half-white/half-African American president, although he considers himself African-American." Trent370 (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC) Since this has a) been rejected at every turn and b) we don't do that in *any* other article - why would we want to do it here? --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC) a) This is Wikipedia, the encyclopedia everyone can edit and it is an evolving enterprise and b) it is done in many other articles, i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Della_Reese Trent370 (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC) Where the individual in question has identified as such and Reliable sources have identified as such. Edit: which skimming up the page has already been explained to you in detail. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC) @ Trent270, after edit conflict - Sorry, but you are missing the point entirely. The fact that Obama is "half white" is not at all historically significant. It's not about skin color, but rather it is about heritage and ancestry. It is his African heritage, more than anything else, that makes his presidency such a special event in America. That is why the overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources specifically refer to him as "African American". Would you care to explain why the "half white" designation is so important to you? Don't forget that the body of the article adequately explains his ethnic combination. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC) The "half white" designation is not important to me. It is not about how I feel, it is about facts and reliable sources. Many feel that his race must be mentioned explicilty, therefore, if it is mentioned, it should be correct (that is half-white). Also, there are numerous reliable sources attesting to the fact he is half-white, thus, I can see no reason to keep avoiding adding this designation to the lead. I am not clear why everyone is so keen to leave out facts supported by reliable sources. Keeping out the "half-white" designation is really selective editing bordering on original research. Trent370 (talk) 02:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC) How many times do you have to be told before it will finally sink in? The overwhelming number of reliable sources use the term "African American". In case you aren't familiar with the term "overwhelming" (since I have repeated it often, but to no avail), it is akin to a whole beach versus a grain of sand. Only a tiny minority use the term "half white" - probably because it is a poor term with a vaguely racist flavor to it. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC) There is no reliable source indicating an overwhelming number of reliable sources use the term. Also, you are not practicing civility and Wiki-love. Trent370 (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC) President Barack Obama isn't half "African American". He is half African. Nevertheless, he is African American. LzqTAnFKVf7 (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC) Obama Momma = White Kansan Her nationality is American. Obama Poppa, African from the African nation of Kenya. This would make Barack Obama, Half American, Half African. Hes African-American. If you want to go further, hes Kansas-Kenyan. 'For the love of god.' --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 03:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC) You are confusing race and ethnicity with nationality. Trent370 (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC) His ethnic ancestry is well-covered in the article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC) But the lead is still incorrect. Trent370 (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC) No, the lead is correct. He's the first African-American elected to the Presidency. If you want to talk white, he's the 44th white President, so there's nothing remarkable about it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC) Minor correction: the first half African-American elected to the Presidency. Trent370 (talk) 05:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC) The sources say "first African American President", and we go by sources, not wikipedian opinions. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC) Just correcting your Talk Page edit as to the actual facts. The text of the article lead should read "biracial" or "half white" as supported by a large number of reliable sources. Trent370 (talk) 05:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC) Wrong. Rush Limbaugh sneeringly calling him "Halfrican American" doesn't count. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC) Rush Limbaugh was never mentioned. Only the fact Mr. Obama is "half white" and "half African-American". Based on the numerous reliable sources indicating his biracial status, this fact should be included in the lead. Trent370 (talk) 07:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC) Trent, please see WP:CONSENSUS. It's how Wikipedia makes editorial decisions. You don't have consensus here (in fact consensus is clearly against you), and no one has ever had it for the change you are proposing to make. There are roughly 8 people who disagree with you. Please drop this and move on because you are not convincing anyone and you are repeating yourself over and over while ignoring countervailing arguments. This is not a productive use of anyone's time. Sometimes you lose arguments when editing Wikipedia - it happens to all of us - and it's important to be able to drop the debate when it's clear your position has not won out.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC) There are more than 8 - some of us have just not commented on this again, as our positions have been made clear numerous times before. Tvoz/talk 08:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

middle name in infobox

Closing this perennial discussion to halt the inevitable descent into off-topic Bigbluefish (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Obama has decided to use his middle name during the swearing-in ceremony, in a conscious effort to "reboot America's image around the world." -- This appears to outweigh the (old, and still ongoing) conscious use by some media types of his middle name to slant his image (implying that he's Arab when he's in fact Christian -- on top of fomenting ethnic prejudice along the way). I know there have been a gazillion discussions about these issues here, but this is an entirely new development. Obama realises that "hiding" his middle name would send the wrong message (just speculating on this bit: he's also probably aware that if he omitted the middle name he'd just get criticised the same way by the same people who are criticising him now for using it). Moreover, he realises that prominently and officially using his middle name is a positive thing. So far, this article agrees with those on both sides of the "aisle" who think his name should better be "hidden", or at least is not his public name. But the article subject himself has decided that "the world is ready for that message" and sees it as a way to reach out. I have never understood those who don't understand that the main task when confronted by people who try to slant him by "pointedly" using his middle name is to just go ahead and use his middle name and be even prouder of what America achieved in electing him. Obama understands. So, could we please follow Obama's own insight and example and adjust the top of the infobox to prominently use his full name, the one under which he's going to be sworn into office? Or are we going to keep succumbing to those who wrongly imply that there is anything wrong with the name Hussein? 78.34.145.54 (talk) 12:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Surely he's using his full name because that's standard for when taking an oath? I presume Clinton said "William Jefferson Clinton" during the oath at his inauguration but we have "Bill Clinton" in his box because that's the name he's actually known by. Obama is not generally called "Barack Hussein Obama". Timrollpickering (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Well unless you only watch fox news - but agreed, the info box generally uses the common name. It's not like we are trying to hide the information, it's the first thing in the article itself. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Clinton did in fact state his full name, as I know from seeing a clip of it the other day, but that's customary anyway. The Presidential infoboxes generally have the full name, which is a silly way to do it, because the full name is already given elsewhere. If Fox News is still making a big deal out of his middle name, they're farther behind the curve than I thought. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Talk page discussions can do without snide comments about Fox News or any other news outlet. JenWSU (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Snide comment? I'm sure you're aware you're exaggerating, right? Grsz11 14:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Not at all. JenWSU (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Is Fox News actually making a thing out of his middle name? I thought it was Limbaugh doing that, and I'd have thought he'd be done with that by now, since it didn't work anyway. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC) You are correct, Fox News is not making a big deal out of his middle name (and they shouldn't). JenWSU (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Some people on Fox News used to like Hannity. Not that it matters what one moron thinks. It doesn't make any more sense than pointing out that Stalin's first name is Joseph. ScienceApe (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

just to let this clear

HE IS CHRISTIAN

Yes we know. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, it shouldn't matter anyway. Religious affiliation (or lack thereof) isn't supposed to have anything to do with government. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Succeeding George W. Bush (info box)

How can it be true when currently he is not the president? It will be only true from 20-th of jan. It should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.246.10 (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The info box informs the reader he is the current President-elect of the United States, and is to be taking office on the 20th. 96.251.75.240 (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Transition process

I would guess that we are going to be plenty busy on the 20th - in the same way that Obama has a transition process - it might be as well for us to discuss and consider the changes that we need or might need to make on the 20th. So that the reader can see a smooth changeover here. As far as I can see the article is basically structural sound and most of the context can be updated by removing the "elect" bit from the lead sections. Are there any major changes we need to think about? --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah; the media seems particularly interested at the moment in the way breaking news propagates onto Wikipedia. Should we perhaps prepare a version of the article post-inauguration in advance? Is there an official moment when he can be said to be the President - at the beginning or the end of the day or the beginning or the end of the ceremony? You're right that the structure will basically remain intact, but at a glance, the first paragraph will need reorganising, the infobox changed, a succession box added and probably various templates and categories. Bigbluefish (talk) 12:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the CotUS, Bush's term ends at noon Tuesday Obama can't excercise his Presidential powers until he's taken the oath. It's probably not worth while to look up the status of the Presidency during those few minutes.

On Tuesday the article will be deep enough in questionable changes that it won't be possible to correct things for the edit conflicts. PhGustaf (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama becomes President at 12:01 EST on January 20th. (that is, noon plus one minute, not midnight plus one). At that point we should change the article to reflect that fact. I imagine there will be about 1000 simultaneous edits to that effect. 24.201.116.45 (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Obama is supposed to take the oath at around 11:56 a.m., a few minutes before actually becoming president.[4] According to the 20th Amendment he becomes president at noon exactly, not 1 minute after. He takes the oath ahead of time so there is no discontinuity. I imagine that the minute people see Obama take the oath on TV, they will start editing the article to say that he is president instead of president-elect (I had this idea myself but checked first), but it will be 4 minutes too early. 207.241.239.70 (talk) 06:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama's race

See answer to question 2 on this article's FAQ. --Bobblehead (rants) 11:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would like to bring to everyones attention the following fact; A person having one white and one black parent is identified as a mulato, not as an African-American. So pleases in the future please get it correct. Obama is the first American mulato president. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.22.97 (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC) It's been discussed, details can be found at Q2 in the FAQ at the top of this page. Dayewalker (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC) I'd like to bring to everyone's attention the following fact: the term mulato is considered racist, as are people who use it. Therefore, it's a bad idea for Wikipedia to use this term.LedRush (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Linux?

why is the Linux article pasted in here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.226.229 (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It was either a test edit or vandalism, now reverted in either case. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

linux?

where? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apa aff os (talk • contribs) 19:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Short-term Protection?

We should consider putting the page under full protection on, say, Tuesday and Wednesday. Not only are the vandals and well-meaning new or inept editors going to be very busy then, but the enthusiastic experienced editors are too, and there are going to be edit conflicts and quick reedits up the wazoo.

Best to get a quick talk-page consensus for any change first. It's not exactly a tragedy if the page isn't updated before His Own Band finishes "Hail to the Chief". PhGustaf (talk) 05:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, there are going to be a lot of editors set to punch "save page" as soon as they hear "So help me God". Maybe we should give the winner a pony. PhGustaf (talk) 05:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

why no gun stance in political positions

gun debate is a very big topic in usa.After he won the elections gun sales soared and yet not a single mention of his gun policies in his political positions.Yes it exists in the main article but this should be included in the main article

This article can't contain every position, so if you can't find a position here, you may be able to find it at Political positions of Barack Obama. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 11:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

so the gun politics is not as imp to be added in the main article.Comeon just say you dont want to show his anti gun stance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs) 17:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The bottom line is that Obama's stance on guns is not very important went taken in the context of his entire life, which this article seeks to summarize. Also, I think you will find his stance on guns is more nuanced than "anti-gun". -- Scjessey (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

yeah you tell that to yourself.guns sales soared when he won,O i get it it was not politically important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs) 04:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

President Barack Obama

Barack Obama is the first Bi Racial president not African American. Bi Racial is 2 Races, Multi Racial is more than 2 races & trans racial are adopted children. Bi racial & Multi racial people are a race of their own.

In the winter time you can see his white skin shine through. Anyway even though President Obama does not acknowledge himself publicly as Bi Racial people like me see right through him.

This has been discussed AD INFINITUM. Please go and understand the basics of social construct ethnicity and the definition of African American. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see this thread, and bear in mind that this page is for discussion of improvements to the article, not a forum for general discussion of the subject.--JayJasper (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Pre-inaugural controversies?

In reviewing the article, I am wondering if a "Pre-inaugural controversies" section should be included? This could consolidate all of the current controversies surrounding the Obama appointees such as Leon Panetta, Timothy Geitner, Roland Burris, Bill Richardson, Eric Holder, etc. I think this would strengthen the flow of the article. Trent370 (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Not here. This, as you ought to know by now, is a biography of the whole man - his life and career - not appropriate for small details like these. Try looking at Presidential transition of Barack Obama, where you will find this material - and note that that subtitle wouldn't fly anyway, as such items are incorporated into the proper text areas, not set aside as a laundry list of so-called controversies. Tvoz/talk 20:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

and/or Presidency of Barack Obama or Barack Obama Cabinet depending on what you want to add --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That is interesting. On the Clinton page, all of the controversies are listed, many as standalone sections. I suppose this is part of ad hoc nature of Wikipedia. Trent370 (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it is - it's almost like software updates as the wiki evolves, new articles or articles that suddenly attract a lot of attention conform more to the current model of "what an article should be" than older articles that already have well formed structures. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent...as part of that evolution, I strongly suggest that a "Pre-inaugural controversies" section. Nothing in Wikirules appears to prevent it, and it would be an excellent step forward in the Wiki-evolution. Trent370 (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

em.. <thinks> <thinks> no. You are welcome to suggest it (but I suspect if you keep suggesting it in section after section, that will become increasingly less welcome), but you'll never get agreement here to put it in. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

And for the record, Bill Clinton is far from an ideal article. At the same time, Obama hasn't been impeached for any of his "controversies". None of the controversies in Obama's career so far will be remembered in history nearly as much as any of the Clinton controversies with their own sections (although those sections are not necessarily appropriate either). Bigbluefish (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The Clinton page is quite good. It is fairly neutral, and does a fair job of outlining his many controversies. The Obama page would do well to mirror this page. Trent370 (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, neither article's job is to outline one's many controversies but the life as a whole. The Clinton article is quite good but so is this one. Name a "pre-inauguration controversy" which is similar in weight to Troopergate and we can consider a section about it. Bigbluefish (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with having a section just for controversies is that it attracts more controversies, most likely ones that do not fit in the article, because in the greater scope of his life the controversy is not that notable.If it was to be added it should be added at the part where it talks about the selection of parts of his government, not as a separate section.Cameron Scott pointed you to the correct article where this should be posted, which would be Barack Obama Cabinet as in that article it is much more notable.It would be just the same as if we added that obama choose someone to be on his basketball team that has cheated in one of his basketball games before,is it notable in the greater scope if his life?No, but it might be notable on the article Obama's basketball team 01:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

There are several problems with this idea. Most obvious of all is the notion that any of these are "controversies" at all. They are not. Secondly, this is a summary style article. Documenting insignificant details like these would be undue weight. There are other issues, but these are the most important. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources call them controversies. This is not my interpretation. They are also lead news stories (not insignificant details). Trent370 (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Tuesday edit

I believe that the edit tomorrow replacing the president elect table with the President of the United states should be done a bot that will edit it at 12 noon and the page should be put on full protection. The Same should be done for Joe Biden at 11:56 est. because that is when they will take the oath. Hereford 22:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The same could be done to George Bush and Dick Chaney's boxes to show that they've been succeeded by Obama and Biden. Hereford 22:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Note:I am going to put this on Template:Cent.Hereford 23:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not just have a human do it? There is no rush and there is no deadline. If we leave it unprotected, someone can come to the page, see that GWB is still "president" and then fix it. Isn't that why we are here? To help people do things like that? Protonk (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. NVM, im not ready for wikipedia be taken over by robots. :) Hereford 23:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Frankly, anyone who needs to know who the POTUS is in the five minutes after noon on Tuesday and can only think of looking to Wikipedia deserves to be mildly misinformed. Bigbluefish (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a big deal. rootology (C)(T) 00:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup. A couple threads ago I suggested the page be closed Tuesday to keep it from becoming a mess. Nobody agreed. Fine. It's going to be a mess on Tuesday, but the page will return to its usual stability by Thursday, with no harm done. PhGustaf (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Closing (Full-protect) the page is better solution than several users attempting to edit at once, which might cause edit conflict. We can ask one admin to change the page. w_tanoto (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The Same should be done for Joe Biden at 11:56 est. because that is when they will take the oath. I don't care that much about what the articles will say for four minutes, but more widely for the presentation of info in other articles I thought the Veep term still switches at noon. There is precedent for even Presidents taking the oath early (Hayes in 1877 took it privately on Saturday March 3rd because the inauguration wasn't until the 5th and there were fears of an attempted Democrat coup) and the swearing in of the Veep-elect early seems to be just about getting this bit out of the way before the big ceremony, not a formal handing over of power in advance. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. We swear in the VP first to provide official continuity in case it takes two or three minutes for the new president to get all the words out. (I remember quaking in my boots watching Dan Quayle be acting president between 12:00 and 12:03 on Jan 20, 1989 :-)) Co149 (talk) 05:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

from what I've heard, the president will assume the office at noon no matter if he said the oath on time or not. So, I don't think there was acting president in that era. To return to the topic of tomorrow edit, I would say we choose one of us to edit this page, GWB, biden, etc, because if we don't do that, everyone of us will want to edit it. w_tanoto (talk) 10:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. The term of the President and Vice President begin at noon on January 20 whether or not they have taken the oath of office. They try to administer the oath a few minutes before noon for two reasons: first, so the new President is fully sworn in when his term officially begins; second, to serve as a symbolic moment for the public. Because the oath usually concludes right at about noon, it can cause people to incorrectly assume that the oath is what begins the new President's term. MplsNarco (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

See this page for the actual schedule--Biden is sworn in at 11:46 and Obama at 11:56. The actual transition is at noon exactly per the 20th Amendment. I imagine a lot of folks will edit the page when they see the ceremony on TV but will be a few minutes too early. I concur that it doesn't matter much (assuming everything goes as planned). 207.241.239.70 (talk) 06:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Civil rights movement impact

I'm somewhat surprised that there's essentially no discussion of the impact of Obama's election on the civil rights movement. The link to the American civil rights movement is almost buried, and the impact statement limited to a quote. For what is clearly a watershed moment in African-American attitudes, this seems to be extremely little. Simesa (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

See [5] and [6] for starters. Simesa (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

And, today, the superficial [7] Simesa (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Note - the impact seems to be summed up in the now-ubiquitous quote "Rosa sat so Martin could walk, Martin walked so Obama could run, Obama ran so our children can fly!" (source indeterminable). Simesa (talk) 13:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

To put it simply, this is a Biography of Barack Obama. Some of his earlier actions before becoming a president could be construed as working for civil rights and that is covered both in his early years section and the related daughter article. Yet, what you are talking about is a broadly construed concept that would be better dealt within in the civil rights article then here due to the fact that this is a biography of the man, not everything that is attached to him. Brothejr (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Net Worth

The article states that the Obama's net worth is $1.3m. Then it proceeds to mention his $4.2m income and $1.6m house. Unless the Obamas have a hefty mortgage and is spending a terrific some of money he is worth considerably more than $4.3m. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadentsoul (talk • contribs)

Actually, to be specific it states the Obamas' net worth was... estimated to be $1.3m. If you know of a more recent estimate the article would certainly benefit from it. However it's probably more likely than you think that his net worth is near or even below the value of his house. As a high-shooting politician he will have committed every resource available to him to the cause of winning the election. A mortgage on the house is a logical move, and he's unlikely to have sat on a great deal of cash during his $670m presidential campaign. Oh, and he gives in the region of a quarter of a million to charity annually.

Again, new sources are very welcome but the best that can be done otherwise is to present the best range of evidence. Bigbluefish (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Can We Change That Picture

Because that is a really creepy one. We have to have more under fair use. KP317 02:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

There will be an official portrait real soon now, which we will be able to use because federal stuff isn't copyrighted. Pleae, someone, pick him a decent tie. PhGustaf (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Er, the current one is the (latest) official portrait. Mfield (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought the pic was fine...--Justin Herbert (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally I don't like that picture either,i remember the old one that in my opinion was better.The current picture in my opinion just doesn't represent a President, thats the only reason I don't like it.In most cases changing a picture because person x doesn't like it or person z thinks another is better,is just a matter of opinion, so i didn't bring this up.Let's just hope the next official picture will just be more presidential. Durga Dido (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested edit

The article says Obama will be sworn in at noon. That is wrong, he will be sworn in at 11:56 AM [8] and become president 4 minutes later. 207.241.239.70 (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think about.com is a reliable source, All the reliable sources i can think of say its at noon, also your link says "Approximate" time 11.56. Durga Dido (talk) 07:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, every source I've heard says he'll take the oath at 11:56 (or just before noon). But he won't become President until noon either way. Parler Vous (edits) 07:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)