Talk:Barack Obama

Ethnicity in first sentence

Per MOS:BIO, Obama's ethnicity does not belong in the introductory sentence. This has been discussed before, for instance here, where it was decided that discussing his ethnicity after the introductory sentence was better. The most recent FA version doesn't contain it in the first sentence.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

[4]

Read it again: "Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." I think being the first ethnic-minority president is very notable. It would be the same if Hilary won the presidency (God help us). Sceptre ^(talk) 22:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your comment. However, I respectfully note that the parenthetical clause in your comment, "It would be the same if Hilary won the presidency (God help us).", does not add to the discussion of the article (i.e., WP:NOTAFORUM). Regards, and thanks, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I was jokingly referring to Hilary's reputation among comedians for henpecking her husband, not for any real reason. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I also agree (not about the Hilary thing), which is why I reverted the change the first time. Tad Lincoln (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously Obama's ethnicity is notable and should be included in the lede. It is currently in the very next sentence, (as it was from at least the time of the above-linked discussion last December until recently). But to be included in the very first sentence, as if being the "black President" was equally important as being president in the first place, is overreaching, and I would think somewhat patronizing. Almost no other article on a U.S. president says anything other than the fact that they were president and when they served. JFK is not listed as the "35 president of the United States, and the first Catholic elected to the office", though this was also very groundbreaking.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

JFK is not listed as the "...the first Catholic elected to the office". I agree that this is very important, and think that the article should be updated to note this. --4wajzkd02 (talk)

No, I removed the reference to Kennedy's religion (which is the same as mine) as being inappropriate for the lead; a subsequent editor restored it in a more subtle, more suitable way. This article should follow the example of the JFK article. Radiopathy •talk• 18:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The JFK article lede says "Kennedy is the first and only Catholic president,". --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This is what it said before I deleted it; even at that, it's not in the first paragraph of the lead, and I still don't believe it belongs in the lead at all.

In all fairness, if you go back a few months in this article, you'll see that some attempt was made to work in Obama's ethnicity without the blatant undue weigh in this version, for example. Radiopathy •talk• 20:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't view the placement of text within the lede (1st paragraph vs. a subsequent one) as being significant. The text in both articles seems fine to me. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2009 ( UTC)

4wajzkd02, the issue here is not whether Obama's ethnicity belongs in the lede, the issue is whether it belongs in the first sentence. I think most everyone can agree it should be mentioned in the lede, but not everyone agrees it should go in the first sentence, so discussing it later in the lede is a good compromise.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand the issue. I think the "the first sentence" of the lede versus "later in the lede" is a difference without a distinction, and a waste of time and resources. Discuss away, however. I've provided my point of view. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that his ethnicity belongs in the lead at all, because it's covered accurately in the body of the article. However, since it looks like it's going to stay, it should be moved down a bit in accordance with it's importance: name, birth, attainment of Presidency should all go in first paragraph; his ethnicity - a secondary, cultural characteristic - can be covered later in the lead, if at all. Radiopathy •talk• 16:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The sources tend to indicate that his being African-American, and the fact of his being the first, are of great (one could say monumental) importance in American politics. It's not really a question of whether one agrees or not. In a perfect world it would not be a big deal, and people would see him simply as the President... or could mention race as an interesting cultural characteristic like being left-handed or a basketball fan. But the world is not perfect, and his being the first black president of America represents a historical shift in race relations. Perhaps ten years from now societal mores will change and it will not figure so prominently. Wikipedia as an encyclopedia is a product of its times, and inasmuch as it draws on sources with cultural biases, it is a product of the various cultures that produce the sources it cites. It's not practical to try to achieve objectivity through logical analysis - that's also a form of bias. Wikidemon (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps FAQ Q2 can be updated when this discussion is closed. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Although I don't have a personal opinion exactly where in the lede Obama's race should first be mentioned, I suggest no major change to the FAQ or lede at this time. The FAQ reflects a stable consensus reached among dozens and probably hundreds of editors over the course of a couple years of editing. Nothing has changed since the last few times we had that discussion, although I think it's entirely possible that his race will become a less prominent issue in current politics and in hindsight once people grow accustomed to the fact and as he generates a longer trail of actions and issues as president. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it' been moved to the end of the lede, which I'm okay with too. Either way is fine. I cleaned it up a bit to remove extra wording - "the first president" doesn't need to be repeated, "hail from" is informal, "of African American descent" should simply be African American. I've also taken the liberty of removing the true and important, but relatively less important, factoid, that he was the first major party AA nominee. There were so many firsts that came so quickly - first viable candidate, first to win any primaries, etc., which are all overshadowed so quickly by the one that really matters, that he was elected and then inaugurated as president. I think that one mention is enough. Wikidemon (talk) 05:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I am in no way disagreeing with anyone's input on this article about noting Obama's race in the first sentence. However, considering the history of the black race, the moment he was elected president was a huge stepping stone. Although at the same time, he is not fully "African American". He is mulatto (black and white). Therefore if he is going to be introduced as a certain race, it should be correct; just because he is half black, does not mean that he is our first African American president! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Browncc (talk • contribs) 01:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Id like to re-open the discussion of refering to Obama as "African-American" in the first sentence. Its misleading to refer to Obama as African American. He should either be refered to as English-American, Kenyan-American or nothing at all. Its pretty common knowledge that African-American refers to blacks from slave times. By calling him African-American you are essientially saying descendents of slaves dont have a culture. Even if its used in a racial context, obama is biracial and the term ignores his white side. If anyone agrees please let me know.Impactplayer (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Obama failed his presentation for olympic games

Closing this per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/02/olympics.2016/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.46.13 (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Yes, too bad for people who were hoping the Olympics would be in Chicago; good news for sports fans in Brazil! Although sourceable and noteworthy I don't think the President's unsuccessful stumping for the Olympics is a significant enough event to add to this article, which focuses on his entire life. It might belong somewhere else in the encyclopedia though. Wikidemon (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC) At very least, I assume it should be/is mentioned in articles about the 2016 Olympics themselves. But indeed, per Wikidemon, this is not anything close to a major life event for Obama, and this isn't the article for it. LotLE×talk 20:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC) `Completely agree. Tvoz/talk 19:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC) This article has been, very successfully I might add, been downsized to just the nuts and bolts. Bravo. Yet there seems to be a growing number of articles that seem to mention Obama, whenever possible. Even when the connection is not notable.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Excellent our plan is working!!! muhahah, the world will only know of obamas political gains and not his losses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.227.59.134 (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC) No matter how you twist it, the Olympics is not a political loss. Grsz11 21:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC) But, folks, I'd ask you to reconsider the notability quotient by answering the question of how many times before has a president traveled on Air Force One half way around the world to directly address the IOC immediately before the selection? Surely that helps to make this as notable as a speech regarding Islamic-American relations? QueenofBattle (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Now lets remove the politics from this topic for a moment. If you remove the political implications, innuendos, and hyper-partisanship you will find that there is not much here other then he went to the IOC to make a bid for the games along with the national leaders of the other three bidding cities and the Chicago bid was not the one that won. The best would be a mention in the page written for the Chicago bid or some related page, not in this summary style article. Brothejr (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Wow you guys took my quote way to seriously... I was trying to illustrate how absurd you sound by trying to make out a right-wing conspiracy. Not all people who agree with certain historical aspects of this vote R.....or even a D for that matter. hence some may not even be American. The IOC decision was a great conversation peace between my friend in Romania(who doesn't vote here) and myself(who protests voting R...and D).... The point is if you only post political accomplishments, future anthropology will see a person flawless and almost of high stature. This is far from the truth. Its historical fact he lost the bid. Its also historical fact that this had a large political implications on the part of Chicago.... last I checked his profession is politics. So even if it makes you fell uncomfortable about his loss, It still happened. Because "you" feel its not relevant to history doesn't mean you erase form history. When an encyclopedia contains information not relevant to your research... you skip reading that part. its up to the user. It is data and information plan and simple, And like it or not its a topic of political debate, and that's part of his history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.227.59.134 (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC) It was Chicago's Olympics bid, not Obama's. If you follow the most recent sources it appears that the decision may have been made on other political grounds before Obama's trip so it was a foregone conclusion. The President stumps for lots of things and rarely acts alone. Some succeed, some don't. Here, although the issue is of moderate importance (more important than some issues, far less important than the auto and bank bailouts, economic stimulus, health care, etc), Obama's connection to it is not especially strong. Although the information belongs somewhere in the encyclopedia, and probably is here already, this summary article simply doesn't have the room to list every moderately important national issue that Obama has a relatively weak connection with. I have no strong feeling about whether dealing with Arab/Muslim - US relations should be in the article or not, and it can be tricky to compare one issue to another. That one is arguably a more prominent, longer-lasting issue that is more fully within the president's purview. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Obama went to Denmark, not Chicago. If the mayor had been the man on point and went all the way over to Denmark on tax payer dime then I would say this would belong under the mayors bio. Yes, it's good to keep things balanced (although anthropology tends to make up for oversimplistic appraisals over time; consider the significant opposition to the original affluent society hypothesis), but this is a biographical article, and Obama's Olympics bid does not seem to be a particularly defining element of Obama as a biographical entity. Indeed, it is sort of predictable that a president from Chicago would be pleased if the Olympics were to occur there; and it is even more predictable (in fact, it is a statistical certainty) that, whenever there are more than two candidates, out of which only one will (fairly) win, the odds are against any individual candidate. Perhaps his interest in the Olympics deserves a blurb in Presidency of Barack Obama, but it's not even a particularly sensational aspect of his presidency, while it might have been so had his city overcome the odds and won the bid. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Your argument is flawed. obama did not only root for chicago...he went personally to denmark. Also he is the first president to do that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiappend (talk • contribs) 16:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC) If you don't like the fact he went to lobby for it...and failed to get the award. then skip that part. let others read it. The fact that this is even an issue that's being discussed so much proves its a fact of some level of importance... the debate is not wiki worthy.. but the fact that he went is because there is a debate. a hundred years form now someone will say Obama lost his bid for Chicago... how would average Joe be able to prove or disprove him(or claiming to spread false right-wing FUD).... simple ..wiki and cite that Obama lobbied and lost the IOC nomination. showing only the facts that are relevant to your interests does not make a fare article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiappend (talk • contribs) 17:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Controversial award

I can't edit it. This is a BLP. That uncited stuff about it being "controversial" in Norway needs to be removed immediately.

No, it needs to be mentioned that the award is controversial because it is highly controversial. This has nothing to do with BLP at all. The controversy is thouroughly cited in the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize article, with the leaders of the two main opposition parties as well as other parties criticizing the award, which is highly unusual. The award has also been the subject of criticism abroad[5]. Only mentioning the praise and not the criticism would be a violation of WP:NPOV, our core policy which every article must adhere to. GVU (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

One Norwegian politician and the OpEd of a newspaper do not a controversy make. Tarc (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not one politician. Here's Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125509603349176083.html GVU (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Its the head of the opposition party. Is the head of one political party criticizing their opponents newsworthy? Didn't think so. Tarc (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

GVU: You've posted an editorial, a non-English source, and a Wall Street Journal article (the WSJ is owned by News Corp., whose CEO is Rupert Murdoch); see WP:COI. Please source with something more substantial than references which violate various Wikipedia policies. DKqwerty (talk) 14:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not a "controversial" award; Obama has done a lot to bring the world together. This is a BLP; adding inappropriate and controversial statements to the bio is not acceptable. AdjustShift (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"Obama has done a lot to bring the world together" – please, get yourself a blog. This is an encyclopedia and your edits are totally unsuitable for this article. It is a controversial award because it has been widely criticized. GVU (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"Obama has done a lot to bring the world together" – this is what the Nobel Committee meant. The exact citation was "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples". See [6]. AdjustShift (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

So? Thorbjørn Jagland is not the only one entitled to have an opinion. GVU (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I was responding to your comment ("please, get yourself a blog"). "Obama has done a lot to bring the world together" is not my point of view; this is what the Nobel Committee meant. AdjustShift (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's at least worthy of note that the award was met with "surprise" by Nobel observers, as he was nominated only two weeks into his presidency. That's the way it's being described on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News. Supporter of Obama or not, there is no question that it is a controversial award: the top five articles on CNN right now are all discussing whether or not he deserves it in the first place. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 14:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly my point. GVU (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Like Obama peace prize win polarizes Web ? Yes, the bloggers, the WNDS, the Free Republics are certainly all in a tizzy, but calling that "widespread and well sourced criticism" is a bit dishonest. Tarc (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Your statements are simply ridiculous, the award has been criticized by the leaders of the two largest opposition parties in Norway, it has been criticized by Lech Wales, by The Times, etc. etc. 14:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GVU (talk • contribs)

Everything is a "controversy" these days. Just because people are talking about something doesn't automatically make it "controversial". And GVU: once again, you refuse to understand that none of the sources you've provided meet Wikipedia standards as reliable sources. Disagreement (especially from one's opposition and detractors) is not itself indication of controversy. As you pointed out, this is an encyclopedia; to that end, you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's sourcing and biographical policies. DKqwerty (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems as if everything this man does is controversial recently. Just because someone disagrees with it does mean it is controversial and even when articles (not editorials/opinion blogs) do mention it they mention it in that light. Brothejr (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That is the problem some seem to be having here; confusing criticism with controversy. Arafat winning (even though I support him and the award) was controversial. Gandhi never winning was controversial. This, while unexpected, does not seem to rise to that level. Tarc (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's fair at this point to say that it was a surprise. I do think the middle paragraph of the section, describing other nominees and the nomination process, is a little too much detail and a weight problem - if people are that curious how it came to be they can read the article on the subject. Wikidemon (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think to be even more fair, this "event" hasn't even really played itself out yet. I mean, most of this thread existed before Obama had even made his acceptance speech! It's unfortunate that the pace and populous of the Internet force us to add these things moments (read: seconds) after they happen with large rushes to judgment, needless edits, libelous edits, redundancies, trivia, etc., etc. rather than being able to discuss them first, then add them after the "event" has played out. Or at the very least some semblance of what's going on can be established and consensus reached rather than every random person on the Internet tries to have his version his way. I think this article should be fully protected and only admins editing after reasonable consensus is reached. But I'm sure that will never happen. DKqwerty (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

In the mean time. I have left a note asking editors to try to format their citations in some way - so as to avoid bare URLs. I can foresee such minor things being taken up on by the FAR sharks which I am sure have been circulating ever since Obama was elected. I think it is credit to the authors and users who maintain it that this article hasn't been challenged thus far. SGGH ^ping! 16:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there are more than enough editors here to fix minor stuff like formatting. Hobartimus (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

In case anybody has forgotten, Obama is the president of the United States. Therefore, just about every single word he says and every single thing he does will be controversial, if by "controversial" one means that some people will be happy while others will not. To call his Nobel win "controversial" at this point would seem as silly as declaring a year ago that his presidential victory is "controversial" because there were lots of folks who voted for McCain. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool. All criticism not allowed in wikipedia. Google "obama nobel prize ridiculous" gives 367K results, but media like WSJ and MSNBC are cosidered "unreliable", so just leave it at 90% praise and a short mention of dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jck5000 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No, criticism (with citations) is allowed to be included on Wikipedia - it just needs to be in context. It is quite unreasonable to make an article full of criticism when in perspective, such "controversies" are only a minor part of a person's life. They span over a few weeks or months and are usually forgotten over time when their presidency, for instance, spans over several years and is usually remembered many years after. I don't see this article with 90% praise - I only see the facts being written down: where Obama was born, what happened in his life, when he got elected as President etc. WHSL ^(Talk) 03:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality of the article

Today I've seen several times the neutrality warning at the top of the article. But it has been removed quickly all times. My question is why? I mean that without a clear discussion it is only an attack from the removers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.0.91.203 (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Because we don't talk about Obama is a nazicommunoislamofascist liberal who wants to kill your grandma enough. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's clear those warnings were added contentiously as a reaction by editors who didn't like not getting their way. DKqwerty (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is, and has been for some time, a Featured Article. That means it has been through a rigorous process, several times, that checks neutrality among many other criteria It is one of the most heavily viewed articles on the encyclopedia with tens of thousands of web hits. The new notices come from editors who are excited about Obama's surprise Nobel Prize announcement and think there is some trouble or controversy we should cover. It is far too early to know if there is going to be a significant controversy, and at any rate, neutrality disputes have a normal process to go through on the talk page and possibly dispute resolution pages. It's really bad form, and it makes the encyclopedia look silly, to attach them to the most important articles moments after an editor does not get their way on a single edit. That would be like unfurling a giant "caution, wet floor" banner in front of the White House. There are less alarmist ways of dealing with it. Wikidemon (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Wikidemon. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

? There already has been a controversy? You don't wait and see for controversy, if it happens it happened. It was a bipartisan and world spanning controversy as well. Anyway, it think some of the commenters above need to watch what they say because it is offensive, and very insulated to say "kill your grandma" and "it's clear that they were added by editors not getting their way" when that is not clear, and if anyone is getting their way, it would be these commentators. JohnHistory (talk) 02:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Nobel Peace Prize Problem

The Nobel Peace Prize was granted to Obama

"...for a newer peace initiative on Obama's part than had been recognized by past Nobel Prize awards"

- Can anyone tell me what this "newer peace initiative" is please. Otherwise, I think it should be reworded. Even if you can think of something it should at least be explained because that is way way too vague. JohnHistory (talk) 05:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

First of all, what "peace initiative" and second aren't all Noble Prizes for "newer" things then the last ones? That seems like a throwaway line. JohnHistory (talk) 05:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

It is from one of the sources, and it should not be too hard to figure out. The statement means that most winners of the Nobel Prize were rewarded for peace-related initiatives of theirs that had been underway for some time, in an advanced stage of the process - e.g. they had achieved their goals, had spent decades trying, etc. Obama was awarded several months into a presidential term when most of his agenda had not been enacted, let alone achieved results. If you think the wording is unclear or misstates the source, feel free to propose something better. We're trying to get to the heart about what is different about this, as opposed to prior peace prizes. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we should lose that strangely worded line, even if some source also uses it. It seems to be about nuclear disarmament (although who really knows, with the vague phrasing), which is something the Nobel Committee emphasized in their statement. However, Obama has worked on this issue prior to his presidency--this very article mentions his efforts in this regard as Senator, before his election as President. On might well argue that a mere US Senator wouldn't be given the award, and so on; probably true but also certainly WP:OR (or WP:CRYSTALBALL). So if this "initiative" is several years old, is that really the newest such effort among Nobelist? I dunno, but the waters seem to become very murky very quickly. Obama didn't get the prize "as President" per se, and many non-Presidents have received it. Obviously I don't think the matters are unconnected, but it's easy to have too much emphasis on the presidential service time (or especially the absurd trope going around that Obama was nominated only days into his term... as if the Nobel Committee had to be sequestered from the moment of nominations, and rule out all information about events happening thereafter).

Of all the things sources have said about the award, surely we can find something equally notable that isn't so torturous to parse and understand correctly. LotLE×talk 07:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to rewrite that line for two days now and I can't come up with a concise way to say it. I agree it needs to be changed, but on this one I have little advice. DKqwerty (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The way MSNBC puts it is at least comprehensible: "... Obama's efforts are at far earlier stages than past winners'" [7]. The wording of the entire paragraph could be improved. I'd suggest:

Obama is the third sitting (fourth overall) U.S. president to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and is the first to become a Nobel laureate during his first year in office.[220] Members of the selection committee acknowledged the award may be perceived as premature; one member said she hoped it would be seen as "support and a commitment for Obama. And I hope it will be an inspiration for all those that work with nuclear disarmament".[MSNBC ref] The award was a surprise to Obama[219], who said ...

It seems like if we're going to mention this at all we should include something about the committee's reasoning. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I found it suspicious that the criticism on the Nobel prize is not even mentioned in single word in the article. It's not that the criticim was negligible or came only from one dircetion. All discussions on this matter were deleted from the talk page under WP: Soap box on WP:Not a Forum. Again, very strange.--Gilisa (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what are you suspecting? That's a rhetorical question - if you'd like to help out please do so but as you can see many editors are working actively on this here and on other articles related to the prize. The discussions closed as WP:SOAP were just that, soapboxing about Obama and the prize (and sometimes on other editors here) that was not aimed at specific things to consider about improving the article. There is plenty of talk on how to do that, including things along the line of the award being premature, undeserved, and unexpected. Many editors don't think it is helpful to highlight the criticism as such because people criticize everything involving the president and this is no exception. It would also be a mistake to assume that just because someone says the award is undeserved they are criticizing Obama or the award. Obama himself says it was undeserved but he accepted it anyway. Undeserved awards can be calls to action, and people rise to the occasion. That is a significant part of the public reaction as well. It just happened a few days ago and it is too early to know what will happen. The section is too long as it is, so it's best to stick with the facts, touch on the major issues briefly, then use the more specific articles to go into the details. Later, with history as a guide, we will be in a better position to know the aftermath and importance of the award. People's initial reactions are, in the long run, not always very important. Wikidemon (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This is all your commentary, not only yours-but others as well. I think that when it come to political issues, and this is one, not refering to the criticim, which unlike you wrote-was exceptionall as it crossed all parties and appeared on headlines around the world, could be seen as political itself. Also, crticism is unique in that it emphasize that their is no hard reason, not even disputed one, to give him the Nobel and in that never before such criticism was heard on any other American president who recived the Nobel and it's rare anyway. Obama said that he's undeserve (but pharsing seem to have double meaning), but of course that this statment of him wasn't voluntary, he had no other choice but to make the criticism look softer. It's a very well known theorem in crisis management: take the responsibility and this way the microphone as well.--Gilisa (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Again, it is a mistake (and probably classifiable as WP:SYNTH) to assume that all comments about the novelty or undeservedness of the award are criticism of either the committee or Obama. Plenty of "hard" reasons have been advanced for the award, not the least of which is the Committee's own. Lack of political bias is not a political thing - that's what we strive for here on Wikipedia by presenting the relevant opinions of due weight, if they can be reasonably sourced, each in their proper place. Controversies, criticism, and scandals about the award itself are generally best detailed in a number of articles devoted to the subject - for example, there is an article about Nobel award controversies, another about this particular award. There have been 40+ US presidents and 4 awards. That is a small sample size. To draw significant conclusions out of being the only one out of four, when the world keeps changing in the meanwhile, is unwarranted. We simply have a situation where there seems to be a strong bipartisan opinion that the President did not deserve the award for accomplishments to date, that the Committee must have had other things in mind, and a bunch of variations on that. This article section is about something that is only a few days old, as I said, and the initial reactions people have to a major event are likely not in the end going to be very important. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm giving up. It's not hard to source the criticism and I think it's noteworthy in a line or two in the relevant section here for all the reasons I mentioned. --Gilisa (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the amount of bipartisan criticism does warrant mention, but more importantly the vague esoteric wording is the biggest problem. Again, there is no clear cut "peace initiative" that he was given the Nobel Peace Prize for, so saying "a newer peace initiative" is not acceptable. First of all, nobody can know what that means, and you never hear an unqualified phrase like "peace initiative" it's always qualified by "israeili - Palestinian" or this or that, not some generic "peace".

-Also, Wikidemon, aside from your not wanting to include any criticism which was noteworthy, I think you are wrong to say we should wait to see what happens to then explain why he got an award. That is a very strange idea. He got the award, not the future him but him now. He could drop a nuclear bomb on Mecca and still be a Nobel Peace Prize winner. He got it for something, or because of something (politics) waiting around to see if he does something "peaceful" in the future cannot be the reason for his being awarded something in the past anymore then it could be a reason for him not to be awarded it. I mean that's a kind of "fill in the blank" approach to this that really can't hold water. He got the award for something real or imaginary predicated on the here and now. Political pressure, sure, but not some intangible future accomplishment. JohnHistory (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Waiting to see what he was given the award for is tantamount to saying he got the award for nothing, and that it was just a strategic move by the Nobel committee to build pressure, and play politics. I mean, that is the bottom line in terms of that sort of logic. JohnHistory (talk) 02:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Can we site and mention something to back up "promoting world wide diplomacy and cooperation" such as an initiative or something concrete? Probably not, right? I think this may be related to the whole sit down with passed enemies concept that Obama said on the campaign trail (right before the nominations ended for the prize) that he later backed off of, but even that is not "world wide". JohnHistory (talk) 02:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

The wide open nature of this award, and the whole notion of sit and wait to see, makes the criticism more needed because it helps to explain this murky area you get into trying to describe the question the big question of "why?". JohnHistory (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

I thought it was interesting that Jay Leno said that Obama's greatest accomplishment as President so far is winning the Nobel Peace Prize. I have reviewed many sources now, and find a large consensus on the left and right that this was not about anything Obama has done. It seems Obama not being Bush was a major factor. You even have SNL slamming it. Here's an NBC piece, which is hardly conservative. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeMvXSFkBOM&feature=related

There was a link, now deleted, from this article to the article Black Nobel Prize laureates, a similar link appearing (in a "See also" section) in the articles of all other eleven black Nobel Prize laureates. Is there a justifiable reason why this link was removed?11:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't remove that, but I'm not sure "black" would be the most accurate, when he is biracial, which is an official category, and a noteworthy one at that. Are we just going to choose one half over the other with all biracial people now? That seems wrong to me. JohnHistory (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Based upon Obama's ethnicity, it would appear to be wrong to exclude him from the list of Black Nobel Prize laureates and, in fact, he appears in the list as the twelve such laureate. (Had the vast majority of Nobel laureates been black and there was an article listing White Nobel Prize laureates, I believe that there would be justification for including Obama in such "White" list.) However, in view of the scope of the Obama article and the fact that the Nobel Prize award is covered in depth in 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, such latter article appears to be the appropriate place for a link to the article on Black Nobel Prize laureates. Davshul (talk) 07:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobel committee defends selection

I have added a brief bit about the Nobel selection committee's public defense of the award to Obama, which several news sources have reported as a "rare" move or an "extremely rare" event, which adds to its notability. Also, Obama's quote was a bit too much text for a summary presentation in a encyclopedia. OK for a journal, but any reader can easily access the Wikilink to the main article. So, in an attempt to keep the article length manageable, and to ensure free space for the remaining three years of his term and the rest of his life, I removed only the quote. It really doesn't add anything that isn't already there, namely that is was a surprise to him and many others. QueenofBattle (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"Nobel Prize Committee highlighted efforts to promote nuclear nonproliferation (particularly in Iran),[217] " -How is obama's nuclear nonproliferation stance different from Bush, specifically in regards to Iran? JohnHistory (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

This is not a forum for that discussion. Grsz¹¹ 00:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

224 References?

If u look at the Barack Obama article u will see a very long scroll bar. Once u scroll down to about the middle of the scroll bar the article ends, and then u hav a list of over 200 references. im just suggesting, y not add one of those "show/hide" menu options? it would make it seem less cluttered at the bottom with all of those references. --Mark0528 (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Though not eloquently stated, I'm inclined to agree with the premise. Though I think it's be inappropriate to "Hide" the references (I'm even sure what would happen when clicking a ref's superscript if they're hidden), I think a <div style="max-height:500px; overflow-y:scroll;"> would be more than appropriate. If no one has some serious objections to this method, I'll just go ahead and add it. Unless of course a template already exists to do it for me without XHTML markup… DKqwerty (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I object strongly to this single-purpose ad-hoc fix to a highly prominent article. I can see many potential problems with the <div> idea suggested. Off the top of my head:

• Will it change the readability of a printout of the article (on any major browser/OS combination)?
• Will it make it more difficult for readers of the article using hand-held devices?
• Will it interfere with expectations of downstream syndicators of the article who do not know how to process that unusual tagging?
• Will it make the article footnotes more difficult to access for readers using disability assistive devices.

Unless or until ALL of these questions can be answered with a definitive "NO", it is highly inappropriate to introduce this novelty. LotLE×talk 21:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. These questions apply at least equally much to putting a hat in the main article, which is simply not done in article space anywhere else I know of. LotLE×talk 21:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I would add that if some well-tested template exists for dealing with the situation of articles with many footnotes, I would be happy to use it. I am not aware of one, but there are many MediaWiki corners that I do not know. We should not innovate wildly on what has been the most read article on Wikipedia (dunno if it is right now, but I'm sure it's near the top). The place to test an experimental feature is on some comparatively less active (and less actively modified) article... which might well have happened, I'd be happy to learn about the knowledge gained there. LotLE×talk 21:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

well first of all, any person reading this article that has any intelligence would know that if they were to print it out, and wanted the footnotes to show up, they would know that all they had to do was click the "show" button. For the second thing, again, all u would hav to do is click "show". Third, do u want to rephrase that? in more simpler terms? and lastly, again, its as simple as clicking a button, which im estimating would add an estimated 2 seconds to reach the footnotes? i have an example, which while it isnt used for footnotes, i dont see y it cant be used for them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncharted_2#Reception Ignore the content thats it being used on. My point is to show an example of the "show/hide" button that u would hav to click to be shown the content. It's on the right where it says "Reception"--Mark0528 (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

quoting this guy (who is on this talk page under the Nobel Peace Prize section towards the bottom) "It may be brought to AfD, but there's much too much info to squeeze it all into this already packed article. Even the current section is likely too much (after all, we've still got 3-7 years of presidency to go, plus post-presidency). Joshdboz (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)" the part im referring to is when he says "after all we've still got 3-7 years of presidency to go, plus post presidency". meaning we could afford the space seeing as how HALF THE ARTICLE is references. and just because you havent seen it done on other major articles, doesnt mean we shouldnt start it with this one, although i admit i havent seen it done on any other articles either. this one it seems to be kind of essential though, because imagine an article possibly 4-5 times this long? just based on his next 3-7 years as president. --Mark0528 (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I see Mark's point (dude, whole words) and I've lamented the exceedingly long list of refs. However, I do get and support LotLE's points. To Mark for some explanation, the "Reception" section is a box table. Like Contents and those career discography boxes, we sometimes allow for collapsable boxes and tables, but references aren't boxed or tabled. So from that technical standpoint alone, it's apples and oranges. To your point about affording the space, Wikipedia only considers article text in their size constraints; infoboxes, photo captions, and references are not included when determining article size. (See FAQ10.) You can determine an article's actual length by copy-pasting it into a WP:Sandbox, deleting all the refs, infoboxes, photo captions, etc., and previewing. Nobody's expected to read the reference section start to finish, but it's important that it be there. Downstream means there are sites that WP:Mirror Wiki articles automatically, but do not duplicate its functionality with reference to collapsibility/interactivity of boxes and tables, they merely duplicate the linking. Abrazame (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

ah ok. i understand your reasoning now. but hey, theres no harm done in tossing out an idea? --Mark0528 (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely no harm done! Your criticism is welcomed as well-intentioned and productive, and my explanation was in the spirit of being friendly, not combative. Best, Abrazame (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Duplicative footnotes

While I definitely strongly oppose some experimental and fragile technical "fix", I think the regular work of editing is very relevant. In particular, without having carefully reviewed it myself, I strongly suspect that we have a large number of mostly redundant references. A source we use in one section might be perfectly adequate to support a fact we state in a different section. As often as that is the case, we can remove one of the references, and just refer to it in both places. This takes some real editorial work, but I would not be at all surprised if such work could eliminate 1/3 or even 1/2 of the references as redundant, while still keeping the article well compliant with WP:RS and WP:CITE. This cleanup can, of course, be done incrementally by as many editors who want to help. LotLE×talk 23:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization--being nitpicky again

Just a heads-up: Please remember that the word "president" should be capitilized when used as a person's title (e.g., "President Obama"), but not as a reference to the position that the person holds (e.g., "Obama is the president of the U.S."). I'm noting this only because it's so common to treat words like "president" as proper nouns no matter what, while a whole slew of university-level sources (e.g., [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]), and even Wikipedia's own Manual of Style, advise against this practice. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions of Ethnicity and the One Drop Rule

WP:BATTLEGROUND. This is going in circles and has devolved into a WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA morass

I found it interesting that Obama is not listed as "biracial" or even "multi-racial" (it's two races which is 'Bi" right?) at the bottom, and instead listed as "African -American". I understand the "one drop rule", but are we going to propagate and perpetuate that here on wikipedia in the 21st century? It seems that's exactly what we are doing. Biracial, or whatever you want to call it is a clear designation in many places in our society, and a noteworthy group for it's relatively small numbers. I think choosing one half over the other, has some serious pitfalls in its logic. Furthermore, what does african american really mean, when Obama has not even a single blood relative of african american lineage. Without getting into the cultural issues too much, lets remember Obama was raised by whites, and the amount of "black" people in hawaii is very small. I recall when people early on were challenging, a persistent theme in his early career in Chicago as well, Obama's "blackness" on these very grounds. It seems that "blackness" in regards to Obama is some test you can pass, or you can fail as deemed by other black people. That can't be a real designation then, because ethnicity is not something you can fail at. Thus, I think listing Obama as "biracial" is the only way to honestly express both his genetics, and also his background. I would hate to think that Jim Crow like logic would be furthered on wikipedia, noting that even then Obama would not posses "one drop" of african american blood. JohnHistory (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

I agree. While I think "first African American president" is more than appropriate, the fact that this article never once references to him as "biracial" is a bit strange. Every time someone brings up this idea, there's usually a very immediate and reactionary response to such threads which boarders in an unintentional bias. Now, to be fair, most of these suggestions come after trying to change the lead of the article itself and are followed by complaints about the lead, which are understandably ignored or or directed to the FAQ. However, the idea that the article cannot address Obama as "biracial" is something that may need to be opened up again and the consensus reevaluated. Yes, perhaps a new consensus will be reached, and for some this seems to make them nervous; it can only strengthen the case for not using "biracial" if it's indeed still consensus, but if it's not the current consensus than we're holding onto tradition, bias, or otherwise. DKqwerty (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That strikes me as odd, because first of all it would need to be open for awhile, or I for one, would probably miss the discussion. However, I'm not sure why a consensus would be needed when this is a well verified fact. I mean could we have a consensus that said that Thomas Edison wasn't white and then follow it? All this designation does is to say that mixed-race, or biracial or multiracial people don't even exist. It's literally denying their existence. It cannot be permissible to choose one half over the other, and in this case it is even more confusing because as I said Obama has no african american blood at all, yet alone half. This will confuse a lot of mixed race children, and is not healthy at all. JohnHistory (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Rather than discuss all this in the abstract (along these incorrect assumptions on editor intent), can you please propose a concrete change or addition to the article, along with the sources? --guyzero | talk 22:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll reserve judgment until I see the proposal and the sourcing. One can say many things about Obama's background, history, race, ethnicity, and culture. But alas, we have room in the article to say only a few things about race lest we give race too much attention at the expense of everything else there is to say. He is indeed biracial / multi-racial (and "half white" as some people are apt to say - as most of the old terms for this are now obsolete and offensive to some people). I would imagine this is very important to people who are concerned about multi-racial issues, and perhaps his presidency will raise awareness that not everyone can neatly be categorized in one race or another, perhaps nobody can. But for now, most of the sources simply say he is black / African-American and leave it at that. When they do mention his mixed race they specify that he has an African father and a white American mother, but for the most part sources of general interest (as opposed to those writing about race) do not get into labeling him or putting that in the context of other mixed-race individuals. That's too bad, I think. But if the question is whether we "propagate" old ways of thinking about race the answer I'm afraid may be "yes", in that we can just go by the weight of the written sources, not our own opinions. Surely there are articles, perhaps books and scholarly papers, devoted to Obama being mixed race. But if you pile all of them on one side of the scale, and pile all the references to simply "black" or "African-American" on the other, the weight is overwhelmingly on the side of the latter. Nevertheless, I would hope for some mention in this article if it can be done appropriately, with rock solid sourcing. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Topic has been done to death in the past; most reliable sources identify Obama as African-American, and he self-identifies as such as well. This topic being dredged up for the umpteenth time...and by one of the primary agitators this spring during the wordnetdaily invasion...really serves little purpose. Tarc (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Obama is biracial is implied pretty well in the very first sentence of the body of the article: "Barack Obama was born...to Stanley Ann Dunham, an American citizen of mainly English descent...and Barack Obama, Sr., a Luo from...Kenya Colony. Does the article really need to continue, "England is in Europe, and Kenya is in Africa. While Caucasoids predominate in Europe, the Negroid type is more common in sub-Saharan Africa. Therefore, we may induce--correctly, it turns out!--that Obama is biracial"? And it makes sense to emphasize "African American" in the article, because that has become (and perhaps always has been) part of his identity. He has been far more prominently touted as the first Black/African American president than as the first biracial one. Also, "African American" does not necessarily denote black skin or negroid race (race is more biologically complex than skin tone, so "black" and "negroid" have rather different connotations). It is an ethnic--not just a racial--identity, and it is one with which Obama, having had a native African father, can be quite reasonably associated. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Tarc, please assume "good faith" and stick to the topic, and not cast useless distracting dispersions on others. What I said is totally reasonable, and whether or not more sources say he is "african american" is irrelevant when he is know to be Kenyan and White American. That goes well beyond having "weight" of sources. My point is very simple, you and your logic are denying the existence of "biracial" or mixed-race" people. Plain and simple, to you and in terms of describing them they simply don't exist. If you are half white and raised by white people, you are just "african american". This not healthy nor reasonable and will confuse many mixed race children, and people. How can the article so explicitly demonstrate his mixed heritage, and lack of "african american" blood and then turn around link nothing to mixed race or biracial? That makes no sense other then to deny the existence of said well defined and designated groups. JohnHistory (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

The entire FAQ only says that he "technically" could be considered "african american" because of african americans often have some caucasian blood, and just need ancestry from Africa, but that in no way shape or form rules out him being biracial or mixed race. That is quite simply obfuscation of his mixed race, and the fact is in those cases you are talking about a two parents with ancestry from Africa, not just one. Historically the children of a black and white relationship have always been considered of a different ethnic background then just one or the other. "Implying and alluding" to his mixed race background is not enough. Why only "allude" to it? What exactly is the problem with citing it and linking it at the bottom? This is a clearly defined category on wiki and the in the USA, so to not cite, and link the possibly most prominent example of a biracial person in the USA is to deny it as a category. Again, "alluding" to this is not enough. JohnHistory (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Here is what the FAQ was referencing, the African American Article which clearly shows that he should be listed as both Mixed Race / Biracial and African American. Let's not play politics, or be prejudiced in this topic please. It has a way of creeping into this. "By the 1980s, parents of mixed-race children (and adults of mixed-race ancestry) began to organize and lobby for the ability to show more than one ethnic category on Census and other legal forms. They refused to be put into just one category. When the U.S. government proposed the addition of the category of "bi-racial" or "multiracial" in 1988, the response from the general public was mostly negative. Some African-American organizations and political leaders, such as Senator Diane Watson and Representative Augustus Hawkins, were particularly vocal in their rejection of the category. They feared a loss in political and economic power if African Americans abandoned their one category. This reaction is characterized as "historical irony" by Daniel (2002). The African-American self-designation had been a response to the one-drop rule, but then people resisted the chance to claim their multiple heritages. At the bottom was a desire not to lose political power of the larger group. Whereas before people resisted being characterized as one group regardless of ranges of ancestry, now some of their own were trying to keep them in the same group.[129] In recent decades, the multicultural aspect of the United States has continued to expand, in part due to new waves of immigration from Asia, Central and South America, and Africa. Although the terms mixed-race, biracial, and multiracial are increasingly used, it remains common for those who possess visible traits of black heritage to identify or be identified as blacks or African Americans. For example, 55% of European Americans classify President Barack Obama as biracial when they are told that he has a white mother, while 66% of African Americans consider him black.[130] Obama describes himself as black[131] and African American, using both terms interchangeably.[132] Because of that and general conventions, he is generally considered to be African American.[133] Obviously he is in fact both African-American and bi-racial; these are not exclusive categories." (African American) - JohnHistory

It looks like you are advocating adding a "multiethnic" category to this article..? I can't find any such category on wikipedia. From what I can tell, for multiethnic peoples, we typically link the categories of all of their ethnicitys. This has already been done for Barack Obama. Note that Obama himself is highlighted on the Multiracial American article. Have your needs been addressed? --guyzero | talk 22:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Why a new post on this, I already had one above? Here's what the african american article actually says about this. Clearly Obama needs to be linked and cited as both "mixed race/biracial" and "african american". Not one or the other, and definitely not just african american.

"By the 1980s, parents of mixed-race children (and adults of mixed-race ancestry) began to organize and lobby for the ability to show more than one ethnic category on Census and other legal forms. They refused to be put into just one category. When the U.S. government proposed the addition of the category of "bi-racial" or "multiracial" in 1988, the response from the general public was mostly negative. Some African-American organizations and political leaders, such as Senator Diane Watson and Representative Augustus Hawkins, were particularly vocal in their rejection of the category. They feared a loss in political and economic power if African Americans abandoned their one category. This reaction is characterized as "historical irony" by Daniel (2002). The African-American self-designation had been a response to the one-drop rule, but then people resisted the chance to claim their multiple heritages. At the bottom was a desire not to lose political power of the larger group. Whereas before people resisted being characterized as one group regardless of ranges of ancestry, now some of their own were trying to keep them in the same group.[129] In recent decades, the multicultural aspect of the United States has continued to expand, in part due to new waves of immigration from Asia, Central and South America, and Africa. Although the terms mixed-race, biracial, and multiracial are increasingly used, it remains common for those who possess visible traits of black heritage to identify or be identified as blacks or African Americans. For example, 55% of European Americans classify President Barack Obama as biracial when they are told that he has a white mother, while 66% of African Americans consider him black.[130] Obama describes himself as black[131] and African American, using both terms interchangeably.[132] Because of that and general conventions, he is generally considered to be African American.[133] Obviously he is in fact both African-American and bi-racial; these are not exclusive categories." JohnHistory (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

So, clearly he is "both" and should be represented as such lest we turn something so simple as his mom and dad into a political and historical debate. Again, anything less would be to deny the existence of mixed race or biracial people by depriving them of the possibly most prominent member of said category. That would be very confusing and unhealthy for mixed race children and people, and it would be deny this well established category on wikipedia and the USA/ world. The earlier poster was simply saying that "technically" he could be thought of as both because they are not mutually exclusive, so then don't exclude one of them. Get it? Also, the children of a white and black have historically designated as of a different background and then either parent, and the idea of just having "ancestry from africa" was really the case of having two parents (possibly mixed) who both have ancestry from africa. But, aside from that the main point is that the argument is that they are not mutually exclusive, so again then let's not exclude one of them which seems quite the absurdity in terms of the logic and argument presented here. Don't you guys see that? Very obviousJohnHistory (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

At the end of the day it is not up to us what our ethnic backgrounds are, it is up to us what we self-identify as, though. So, I suggest changing a few things so as to not deny people of mixed race their right to exist, despite the self identifications of others, or media outlets, nor through the use the argument of these categories not being mutually exclusive to then turn around and completely exclude one with the best excuse being allusions, and implications to his mixed heritage. So for the intro it can say Obama is the first president of mixed race or african descent. At the bottom a link to mixed race can be added. That seems very reasonable and completely in line with the argument for his being called african american in the first place, and this way we are not denying the existence of mixed race people. Also, something could be added to the effect of Obama is of mixed race descent, but self identifies as "african american", which I think would clear this up and be healthy for all people. JohnHistory (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Again, the very article (African American) being referenced to call him just African American says this glaringly omitted statement from this discussion "Obviously he is in fact both African-American and bi-racial; these are not exclusive categories."

- So, why are we excluding it again? Isn't he "obviously" biracial? JohnHistory (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Sorry it's confusing. This section of the talkpage is discussing a change to the FAQ. The section you started above is discussing changes to the article. Moving your additions here (and my reply) to that section would be helpful to that discussion.

To answer your question simply, just read the FAQ. Reliable sources overwhelmingly refer to him as AA. Per policy, we summarize the reliable sources. You are totally correct that he is multiethnic, but because RS's don't commonly refer to him as "The first multiethnic president", etc. then neither do we. We are told to follow policy and are expressly prohibited from trying to right wrongs (advocacy/activism). The details of his heritage, including links to multiracial are in the first labeled section of the article. --guyzero | talk 23:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I moved them back here. I disagree, because there are a myriad of sources that describe him being of mixed race, and I can't find any (can you) that deny he is of mixed race. This is about self identification, and again this essentially saying that the a whole category of people don't exist. I agree to say that he is of african american descent, but it should also include his mixed race descent, with a link as well. This is in line with what you are saying, and the entire logic behind his being just african american, was not represented accurately in the FAQ as i showed through the African American article that says they are not mutually exclusive and that he is "obviously biracial." Again, ones self identification is important but can't be used to exclude one's ethnic composition, and be default to deny a whole category people who have fought to be recognized as such. This is not a contentious issue, you don't have to correct anything, you just have include the other side of the coin which has been well documented and is not disputed. A lot of sources say he is both things, that's what should be added and if he is listed under the multiracial category here, then it should be represented in the article and linked. Right now it is glaringly omitted. JohnHistory (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

The reason a lot of the sources may say just african american is because Obama "self identifies" as that. If obama, conversely, self identified as biracial, then they would say he was biracial. Do you understand? It's about self identification, not genetics nor background. Thus that is the key, just as the african american article I cited says. However, as I said, self identity is not a trump for background. There are plenty of examples of this. Remember, I'm not suggesting to say he is not african american, I'm saying that the biracial fact of his background should simply be mentioned and cited and linked. That is all .Very very basic. JohnHistory (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

No, it isn't just because he self-identifies, it is for "all of the above" reasons, really. A lot of blacks who call themselves African-American are many, many generations removed from any tangible connection to Africa. Not so with Obama; he has the actual, in-his-life connection, as well as a strong identification with the traditional American A-A community. The "biracial" just simply is not an important descriptor of Obama, and as such has no place in the lead of the article. Honestly, what else is there to discuss here? Tarc (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

For all of the above reason? For all of the above reasons he is both african american, and biracial, and if ethnicity is not important then take it out of of the intro all together, and every other persons article. Why are you ignoring the previously used to justify this distinction African American article that backs up my point 100%. He is both, and if you are to mention one you are to mention both. Self identity is the key, because as you said he has no direct connection to african american history, only Kenyan and white american history. EIther way, you are obfuscating this for some reason I cannot understand and trying to stufle debate by saying what else needs to be said when you have ignored a myriad of valid points, and the very original argument that they are not mutually exclusive. Do you realize that you are denying an entire category people? Do you know how offensive that is Tarc? JohnHistory (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

I guess I just don't understand why, if the cited article of African Americans is used to justify his african american identity, it is then ignored that it actually said they are not mutually exclusive, and that he is "obviously biracial". I don't understand why the concept of it not being mutually exclusive is used to be exclusive, and why the "obviousness" of his biracial background is not included. Please explain those two things to me, and why you are not relying on self identification and not pretending a whole group and segment of the USA does not exist through your logic. JohnHistory (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Oh please, don't play the "OMG its offensive to biracials!" card, you aren't terribly convincing on that angle. You can write these novellas for days, but all of it ignores a simple fact; this is an encyclopedia, not a creator of original thought or prose. It reflects what reliable sources have to say on the matter. Unless you can get around that (and you cannot), then this is matter is effectively settled. Tarc (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Please stop these dramatic antics. Exactly, this is an encyclopedia, so why are you ignoring the african american section of it (previously used to justify your position) and not including encyclopedic content? Listen, I don't care if i am "personally convincing to you" you have already said to not even listen to me, so to be honest that is a discredit to you. I would like to know, and you have failed at this, to show how any of my points are not sound. They are completely sound, and they are based on the original argument for his african american"ness". Listen, you are really floundering on this now. Your logic denies a whole section of people their existence, and all you can say is "oh please"??? . This is not professional conduct. And, what do you mean by lacking sources? There are a million sources that reference is biracial background, not to mention our own wiki article on this exact subject of african americans which says he is "obviously" biracial. Please tarc deal with the issue and lessen on the useless conjecture. You seem to have a bone to pick here and it's not in the advancement of the article or this discussion as you have not addressed my or the african american articles points. JohnHistory (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

So, please address my many solid points and avoid refrains such as "oh please" and "'let's not listen to him" and "'is there anything more to say" when you have said absolutely nothing but "leave it alone" in essence. Again, your own source here on wikipedia for african americans directly contradicts your conclusion and that is quite remarkable! JohnHistory (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

The bottom line, as put forth in the african american article that directly addresses Obama, is that self identification and ethnic makeup are not mutually exclusive. As the article states, "Obama is obviously biracial." Him identifying and being identified as African American (by some and not all) does not somehow erase his biracial heritage. In other words, he is both and anything less is to in essence deny the existence of people of mixed race backgrounds.JohnHistory (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Johnhistory

I understand that the number of people with mixed race heritage to the degree of Obama are very few, and thus not likely to have strong advocates, but the idea that you could have a consensus that would essentially erase them as category of people is something I find hard to consider correct, nor, given the myriad of sources, justifiable in an encyclopedia. It is critical to understand the difference between self identification and ethnic background, and to not conflate the two to the point of erasing one. The whole guideline for this was the idea of these two things not being mutually exclusive, and yet you have been using that inclusive logic to totally exclude this simple fact. To me, that is a perversion of the facts and what the african american article really said i.e, they are not mutually exclusive and he is "obviously biracial." Tarc, I'm really struggling with understand what exactly you disagree with about this, and why you are getting to personal and derogatory about them? I noticed earlier you said "he self identifies" and then later you said that had nothing to do with it. Pardon my frankness, but are all over the place. The fact is that he is and can be both, but that is not one or the other as you would have it be. JohnHistory (talk) 01:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

:Also, saying most sources call him "african american" when it is well know that he is both biracial and african american (not mutually exclusive) is, in my view, a real perversion of the facts which are at this point "common knowledge" and which the article clearly proves to be true. Again, there are more then enough sources that clearly spotlight his mixed race background, and since african american is not an exclusive term (as the african american article states) then that is completely irrelevant to him also being of mixed or biracial descent. Do you get that? If it's not exclusive, then it does not in anyway exclude the fact that he is also "biracial". I think this is 100% right on. Think about it, he is "african american" because it is not an exclusive term, yet you are using its very inclusiveness to exclude his mixed race heritage. Could you be more succinct and clear cut then that? JohnHistory (talk) 01:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

You have no "solid points", John. You didn't months ago when you disrupted the article and got blocked for it, and you don't now. The Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say. Period. If you wish to wax poetic about race and terminology, that's what blogs are for. Tarc (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with John. biracial is more appropriate and there are plent y of reliable sources to back that up.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If my points weren't solid then you could point out there weaknesses, instead you are just obfuscating. Look at what I wrote above which completely undermines your whole argument, and I disagree (sidetracking much?) about my "disruption" I was then making a point about the photos and your conduct on this page which seem to be still prevalent as you are not addressing the real issue here and instead completely going off topic ,and using personal slights. Please your obfuscation only underscores your desire to not address the problems. I will say it again. You are using the inclusive nature of being african american, to exclude being biracial which is expressly not what is the intent of such inclusiveness is about. Please tell me how I'm wrong about that? And by attacking me in this way you are attacking the african american article on wiki, because that is where I am drawing my logic about this from. So, please stop it because you're actually insulting a lot of people when you talk about "waxing philosophical" and otherwise demean our well thought out and 100% valid points. You are using inclusiveness to be exclusive, when the african american article clearly states that they are not mutually exclusive, and that he is "obviously biracial". Tarc, I would really like to work with better then last time, but you seem to be uninterested in anything other then stifling this, and personally going after me when this is well represented and not 100% about me or feelings for me, and hopefully not about you either.JohnHistory (talk) 01:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

I'll put it this way, sources saying he is african american in no way undermine nor refute him also (as the Obama article proves) being of biracial or mixed race heritage. Do you not get that Tarc? You can be both as the African American source puts it, the two terms are not mutually exclusive, so it is irrelevant then how many sources (plenty cite his mixed heritage) call him african american because it is not an exclusive ethnicity. The fact is that he is both things. Using this inclusive term to be rigidly exclusive is a perversion of its true meaning. JohnHistory (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Since what I just wrote is completely grounded in the argument for him being african american in the FAQ, and is yet not refuted by anyone on its merits, and does away with the idea of weight of sources (which is not really proven anyway) because being african american in no way means you can't also be of mixed race(as Obama / African American article proves), and because I believe I have soundly demonstrated the inherent contradiction of inclusive exclusiveness in this article currently and past arguments, I look forward to working with you Tarc, since you have the best interests of the article in mind and not some personal stake in it or me, to remedying this in the near future together thus providing a good example of people coming together for the best of wikipedia and getting over past differences in the process. Given that he would be the first person of said biracial makeup to be President and given the relatively small number of people who fit this category in the population, and the prevalence of his african american background in the article currently, it is without a doubt worth putting it into it and linking it. Maybe you could lead the charge on this, and show a real clear cut well intentioned wikipedia interest by doing so. JohnHistory (talk) 02:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

I agree. Good addition to the main article.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and I guess this really doesn't fall into the scope of the previous consensus nor FAQ, because no one is arguing about changing the "african american" part, but simply adding the fact of his multiracial heritage. JohnHistory (talk) 03:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

And you have been reverted, for disruptively editing against consensus on this issue, as noted in Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ. Please review Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation before considering further editing on this tangent. Thanks. Tarc (talk) 03:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that consensus had been changed. Obviously you disagree, but what right do you have to remove a cited fact?--Jojhutton (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Where in the consensus did it say that he could not be listed, as per the African American definition of multiracial and african american not being not mutually exclusive, as both african american and multiracial? I never changed that he was african american, and thus it was not "disruptive". I think we need another consensus this time about if he can or cannot be listed as african american and multiracial, and if so then the whole african american article (as well as common sense) is wrong about this. JohnHistory (talk) 03:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

This is kind of absurd because the very inclusiveness used to allow Obama to be african american, is now being used to exclude him from being of mixed race. Tarc chooses to ignore this for some reason and never backs it up with anything. Again, this does not related to him being african american, it relates to the fact that he is both african american and of mixed race and that as the wiki African American page, and past arguments for his being African American state, these two terms are not mutually exclusive. Tarc, you got some explaining to do. Remember "weight" of sources doesn't apply because you can be both african american and of mixed race, and it that was also a kind of weak argument because there are a myriad of sources that discuss his multiracial heritage. JohnHistory (talk) 03:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

I would also add that if you can't be multiracial and african american, then that means Obama, by definition, can't be african american. However, as I have shown time and time again, as was in the FAQ "they are not mutually exclusive". What part of this are you struggling with Tarc, I will gladly explain it all again for you but at this point I think you are being disruptive to this process and giving zero explanation for why. JohnHistory (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

The sources that call him, or describe him as of mixed race are not contending with the ones which describe him as black, they are augmenting them because the two terms are not mutually exclusive, they are not contending ethnicities, or else, by definition, Obama could not be african american. Also, I do think it is troubling that we have a whole segment on the white side of his family, which raised him, and yet we seem to not have the ability to say he is multiracial. How is that not denying the existence of multiracial people who have fought hard and succeeded in being recognized as their own distinct group? That is aside from my straight up analysis of the problems here and how the terms are not mutually exclusive, nor contending, but it is still something that we should all think about seeing how probably very few of us are of 50/50 different races and how we are essentially setting them back by doing this. JohnHistory (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

I don't know what part of my "Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources have to say" response you find to be confusing, or what part of;

"A2: Obama himself and the media identify him, the vast majority of the time, as African American or black. Thus we use this term in the introduction. Keep in mind, many individuals who identify as black have varieties of ancestors from many countries who may identify with other racial or ethnic groups. See our article on race for more information on this concept. We could call him the first "biracial" candidate or the first "half black half white" candidate or the first candidate with a parent born in Africa, but Wikipedia is a tertiary source which reports what other reliable sources say, and most of those other sources say "first African American." Readers will learn more detail about his ethnic background in the article body."

you find confusing, or what part of guyzero's "You are totally correct that he is multiethnic, but because RS's don't commonly refer to him as "The first multiethnic president", etc. then neither do we." response you find confusing. I and other editors have answered your concern, and pointed to you to FAQ A2, which also addresses this question. Barack Obama actually being bi-racial or multi-racial has precisely zero bearing on the matter at hand, which is the phrase "first African-American president" in the lead.

Being the "first" African-American to accomplish a particular feat is something that our society tends think is an important milestone, whether it is Jackie Robinson breaking baseball's color barrier or Darine Stern providing fap material to minorities, that is how the media and society in general recognize it. If you have a beef with that, the Wikipedia is not the place to crusade from. Tarc (talk) 04:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ched, you totally skipped all of my points. Aside from that, you insulting me. I have said x1000 times that it is fine to include african american, you are the one being exclusive, not me. You have failed to refute any of my well reasoned points and are just adding personal attack like conjecture. Please tell me of one other mixed race president? Why do you think that that is okay to gloss over? Is it because there are less mixed race people? So that makes it less noteworthy? Why have you failed to understand that the terms are not mutually exclusive and that if they are then obama cannot be african american? Why don't you read the african american article cited in the FAQ you keep bringing up? It clearly says they are not mutually exclusive, and that obama is both biracial and african american. Why do you continue to try to exclude him being the first president of mixed race, not just african american?? Don't you realize that is something that distinguishes him from jackie Robbinson, or various other African Americans? It has 100% everything to do with it. It is noteworthy, and again the sources saying he is black are not competing with the ones citing his mixed raced heritage. Typically people don't call someone a "mixer" or something but to say it shouldn't be noted, or that is hasn't been extensively noted is just dead wrong. I want to celebrate both of these things, you just want to celebrate one and exclude the other. I don't get that Tarc I really don't, and please stop accusing me of things, when you are the one trying to not note something, and I am not. JohnHistory (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

There are more then enough sources just in this article alone to augment his background with the addition of being the first president of mixed race, as well as of african american race, and hawaii. More then enough, and again it would augment it, and not compete with his being african american. I think you are on shaky ground saying that such a thing is not noteworthy in itself, and that it would somehow be not used since it competed with him being african american, when that is not true as the african american article makes crystal clear. Otherwise, there is no reason for you to fight it so hard. You are assuming they are competing ideas, but if that were the case then Obama could not african american in the first place. Now, if I said he should be credited as the first Chinese american president, you would say well we have a 10000 sources that say he is of mixed race and african american dissent and you would be right because that would be competing with being black. However, being mixed, as I have shown and you have not even tried to refute, is not competing thus the sources saying he is black are not contradicting him also being mixed. Honestly, this is getting silly because you are not even debating my points, you are just saying I don't want to celebrate Jackie Robinson, or missing the ball completely by bringing up sources which are not in competition with what I am saying. JohnHistory (talk) 04:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

I mean you might as well just get rid of the whole section, and its sources, on his multiracial background because all of the AP stories call him "black" and you can't be black and multiracial. Do you see how illogical that is? I mean, can I challenge that his mom was white, because most stories don't call him a "mulatto" but instead call him black? I think part of this is due to the word mulatto being derogatory there is no simple word to use in an AP story along with his own self identification. But, should I take out all of the sources that describe his multiracial background because there are more that don't? I mean, he can't have a multiracial background because a lot of sources refer to him as "black', right? So that whole section needs to go, right? And, again, these are not mutually exclusive terms. You Multiracial augments the description of him being African American, if you say it doesn't then you are either saying multiracial people don't exist, aren't noteworthy, or that Obama can't be black because he is multiracial. None of which are true, and some of which are appalling in nature. JohnHistory (talk) 04:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Johnhistory

I have answered you; that you do not like the answer is irrelevant. It is not noteworthy that Obama is bi-racial. Reliable sources have taken little notice of the term, as Obama is primarily identified as "African-American". It does not matter what Obama technically is in terms of precise ethnic heritage, it matters what the sources say. The two terms are not incompetition; it is simply a case of one not being as relevant or as important as the other. WP:V's "verifiability, not truth" is perhaps one of the more abstract of the Wikipedia's policies to grasp, but it would do you a world of good to give it a shot. And for christ's sake, stop making indented replies to yourself. It is making this into a nightmare of edit conflicts. Tarc (talk) 04:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Tarc, I'm afraid I find that highly offensive. Let me get this straight, noting he is the first president from hawaii is relevant, but not that he is the first president of mixed race? That is disgusting to me. And, there are more then enough sources, given that the terms are not mutually exclusive, to include his multiracial heritage. What do you think is currently in the article? Don't you realize that you are saying the very sources used now about his family can't be included? Again, I find this level of, I don't know how else to say it but racism, to be shocking. What gives you the right to deny people of mixed race any relevance? JohnHistory (talk)JohnHistory

My girlfriend is half French, and half Samoan, and she identifies as being of mixed race, and she is, and I'm sure a lot of others would be, deeply troubled that you think they are not "relevant" and that you are exercising such a prejudiced view here on an encyclopedia. JohnHistory (talk) 04:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Not only does his multiracial background take up a large portion of the article, but it was the major theme in at least one if not both of his books, and discussed so widely everyone knows it. I'm deeply troubled over your assessment and think you need to rethink this. JohnHistory (talk) 04:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory Remember, this is an officially recognized group of people, who fought to be recognized as such, that you are saying are not important, or relevant. That's a shocking belief to have Tarc. Mind blowing. They should be recognized, and they are important! JohnHistory (talk) 05:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

You are in essence refuting an entire section of the article, and in his "early years" it explicitly states that he is multiracial. Thus, your only real argument is your fallback being multiracial is not "important" or "relevant", which I hope you might change your mind about given the relatively small number of people who fit such a category, and the various struggles both culturally and legally that they have and do endure. JohnHistory (talk) 05:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

TL;DR. WP:RS applies, WP:BLP applies - Obama self-defines as Black/African-American, reliable sources in wide preponderance say he's Black/African-American. See the FAQ. Until you can change consensus on Wikipedia policies, we'll run with what we have now, which is far more closely, if not perfectly, aligned with some decent fact based writing. We don't change world policy here, we write big term papers by consensus. Term papers, Reports, not Thesis Papers, in which a new Idea can be evinced using facts and Original Research and Synthesis. As such, we rely on what others say, and they say Black. Go change Obama's mind, go change the media's mind, America's mind, the Media's mind, and then we can change the article. This has been covered more often than is really necessary. And please read WP:SOAPBOX and WP:FORUM. ... we really need a WP:SCREED as well. ThuranX (talk) 05:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, you are relying on self identification, a racial mindset, not on the facts which are in the article. You clearly didn't read my comments, he is black, but he is also multiracial they are not exclusive at all. Don't you understand? I have read the FAQ, and it's source of the African American article supports the view I have put forth. He is both, and the article states that he is multiracial that is not the issue. The issue is whether being multiracial is relevant or important. That's it. Again, you can be both otherwise obama could not be african american. Don't you understand? Again, this is not a new redo of whether he is african american, okay? This about the inclusion of him being multiracial (which is in the article currently) too. Again, don't mention the "weight of sources" because these are not competing ideas, they augment each other. He is black and multiracial, and being multiracial is noteworthy, and is already noted in the article. he is the first multiracial president! That's noteworthy, so please see my points before just saying "most sources say he is black" because that is irrelevant to what I am saying. As I checked this is already stated, so now it is a debate about whether mixed race people are important enough for it to be noted in the intro. I think they are, and anything less is very problematic to argue. JohnHistory (talk) 06:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

And, on top of that Obama has been shaped by his multiracial upbringing, and wrote about it extensively. There is a reason everyone knows he is multiracial, its because it was covered exhaustively. Being black and being multiracial are not contending forces, and with the multitude of sources that discuss his multiracial background it is more then enough to add it, along with him also being "black". Otherwise, you should take out the entire "early years" segment which details his multiracial background, and even uses the word multiracial. The article already contains this. And, I don't think it is a soapbox to tell someone else that they are being very offensive being by saying being of mixed race is not relevant, or important. Clearly it has been to Obama and millions of other people. he is both things, and it in the article, and to say it is not relevant or important enough to be noted that he is the first ever to be president I think is incorrect. This is not about him the old discussion, this is augmenting and it is through the logic of the African American article and the media, and Obama himself and the what's already in the wiki article on him. JohnHistory (talk) 06:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Did you read WP:SOAPBOX before you started talking about world policy? I'm talking about what's already in the article, his own books, using an inclusive term to be exclusive, and the media's wide coverage of his multiracial background. you are talking about thesis papers, and someone's mindset. Again, being multiracial, which he is by this own articles description and sources in the 'early years", does not mean he can't also be black. Please try to analyze this before responding. Again, the world "multiracial" is already being used in the article, it's a question of how "important" it is and how relevant it is, which to Obama it is and has been very relevant, and to millions of other americans who do identify as such it is, and is the first such president so it is to the intro along with african american and hawaii. JohnHistory (talk) 06:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

If Obama is not multiracial, then who is? If Obama can choose to be African American and not multiracial, then is african american simply a mindset that one can either choose to be, or reject at will? If we are going to use the inclusive definition of african american, then is it okay to make it exclusive by rejecting the maternal side of his family that he has credited with so much? Is there such a thing as people of mixed race background, or do you have to choose one or the other? If african americans cannot be people of mixed race, then how can obama be african american? Are we doing a disservice to people of mixed race by not mentioning him being the first one to be President? Since being multiracial and being african american are not self excluding, why does it matter if many sources call him "black"? Since the article already refers to his mixed heritage, are these sources and segment invalid? Since the article already refers to him as being multiracial, is this not noteworthy in terms of him being the first one to become president, and in terms of his heritage?JohnHistory (talk) 06:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

How short our memories can become. This article by Time calls Obama biracial numerous times, and even cites african americans challenging his blackness and then swishes and swashes and shows how this not what we are for to debate or decide.. let's just state, as is already in the article, the facts and include him being african american and multiracial. We can't blow in the collective wind on an encyclopedia as this article shows many people were at the time, precisely due to the fact that he was just multiracial guy then and not the great Obama. JohnHistory (talk) 07:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1584736,00.html

You are violating SOAPBOX/FORUM. You are expounding on a personal opinion of American society's issues with race here. You have to reply to yourself to make the conversation keep going. You admit already that 'biracial' is used in the article with regard to Obama, invalidating your claim that we don't use it and we should. This is nothing but someone bloviating endlessly about their views on why the world sucks. We get it, we just don't care to hear your lectures on why people suck for not agreeing with you. Your complaints about the article are by your own admission not problems. You like to read your own words. Please get a blog at blogspot, or livejournal, friendster, facebook, myspace, or buy a domain name for yourself. This isnt' the place for you to do what you're doing. ThuranX (talk) 07:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

excuse me? I'm not sure that made any sense in terms of this discussion. I am adding things here to discuss with anyone who want to later, or possibly tomorrow. Your logic before was totally flawed, and now you are coming back to spite.

Here I think this is a good article on the subject that even relates to the media and is post Obama winning the presidency. Or should I just not try to have a well informed and sourced discussion to look at over the next days and debate. It's not like I'm editing the article, or not trying to make good points despite Thuranx somewhat angry response, that responded to nothing. Thoranx, I was talking about the intro. Here read this, and tell me if you think it is reasonable. JohnHistory (talk) 07:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09034/946461-44.stm

I really think that the above article makes so many totally logical and valid points, and I hope all interested will read it. The media shaping obama as black is part of it, as well as Obama's embracement of being biracial (not just black) on a personal level and various people of mixed background and how important they are to keep in mind when we make such sweeping generalizations about race. Remember Obama does not think he is not multiracial, he just has felt like people perceive him as being only black. That is a big difference. I look forward to coming here tomorrow so that we can hash this out some more. JohnHistory (talk) 07:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory -And, ThuranX, what you said is the problem. he is already cited as dealing with being multiracial, and having a multiracial background, yet it is not allowed in the intro, that's the problem. Maybe you could do a little more reading before commenting next time. All the best. JohnHistory (talk) 07:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

If I can perhaps help, I don't think it's useful to think of this in terms of Wikipedia's "soapbox" issue. We have a valid concern about the conception of race in America. Obama is, plainly, biracial. In the long run that is probably the way things will go even if such description is forward-thinking at the moment. He is also AA per America's current conception of race. And then we have a body of reliable sources that are relatively conservative about the issue (conservative not in the sense of Republican / Democrat, but simply adopting the old language and conceptions of race rather than embracing the more current ones). I think that's worth noting, although it's probably a losing argument at this point that we make a significant attribution that Obama is biracial. It's arguable that this should be mentioned somehow in the article, and discussion of the substance behind that is reasonable background, not soapboxing. It's best if all sides can focus on how this affects article quality, and how Wikipedia can best reflect the current state of knowledge in the world regarding race. Hope this hels. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC)That article is of no relevance to Obama, it's about others who do self-identify as biracial, and their identity ideas, couched in the candidacy of Obama. Big deal. It's good for the biracial attitudes in america article, nto this one. His biracial nature's not in the intro because it's not that important - it's in the article because it's true, but we aren't giving it the WP:UNDUE weight you insist it's worth. Consensus doesn't seem to have changed on that, despite your obnoxious wall of text behavior, because editors and arguments, not output, is what forms consensus. Simply put, we give the matter a fair coverage in the article - numerous reliable sources call him the first black president, so we call him that, in the intro, where the weight of sources backs up our inclusion. Some articles discuss his biracial heritage, and our article covers that. This is simple stuff, seen with the eye of someone writing an article. But if you're going to look at it with the eyes of a political correctness warrior, you're not ever going to understand the policy matters going on here relative to writing a wikipedia article. ThuranX (talk) 08:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I really have little else to say on this, as as far as I am concerned it is a settled matter. But to our esteemed JohnHistory, it would be in your best interests to rethink the places where you call other editors racists. i.e. "Again, I find this level of, I don't know how else to say it but racism, to be shocking. What gives you the right to deny people of mixed race any relevance?" Tarc (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll be back in many hours, but Trac I stand by 100% my statements to you, and you should be the one rethinking comment like being "multiracial" is not "important" or "relevant" , not me. As far as ThuranX, can someone please tell me what he is saying exactly? It seems to be very confusing, other then that biracial people do not deserve to be noted, which you Tarc, to my great offense, seem to agree with. Perhaps the lack of mixed race people in this country are the reason you can get away with saying such racist comments about them, and then turn around and accuse me of some wrong doing when I simply want to acknowledge their existence, Tarc. I mean, is not the denial of a whole minority of people based on them not being "important" enough to use your own words Tarc, a sort of philosophical genocide to society? JohnHistory (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Reading through this rather long circular debate first off let me state that it is what the over all preponderance of references that refer to him as the first African American president that has the most weight in this article. Anything other then following the references would be considered Original Research and/or Synthesis. Personal opinions on this subject do not factor in, nor what various groups of people think of the subject. I also want to comment that while some people refer to themselves as mixed race, not all those who are of mixed race think of themselves as mixed race and thus we should respect how they themselves and the references refer to them. I remind JohnHistory to read: WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH. Brothejr (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It is just one gargantuan WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT from this user, and not only a refusal to retract the racism allegations but he dives in and reinforces them to boot. "Philosophical genocide" ? My fucking god. Wondering if this is worth a trip to WP:WQA. Tarc (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Tarc, It might be best if you didn't pull a Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton and start yelling racism. It's not helping to advance your argument or counter anyone else's, in my humble opinion. QueenofBattle (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Either people somehow ignore, or don't get that the weight of sources is irrelevant because you can be both multiracial and african american. Again, there are plenty of sources to augment his being black with, many in this article alone. This article already says he is "multiracial", so it has already been included. Thus, it is just a question of if it is relevant, or important enough. Since he would be the first multiracial person to become president it has to be noteworthy, and because he has discussed it and written books about it is important to him. Here is the major thing the people against this are missing, Obama does not deny his multiracial background when self identifies as african american or black. He is not way denying he is multicultural he has said a 1000 times how diverse his family is, and he says it with pride when he describes the different colors and ethnicities of his family, thus we need to stop being so exclusive about this. Using inclusiveness to be exclusive is not logical. JohnHistory (talk) 02:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Suggesting a few more words about the Nobel in the lead

I added a few words about the Nobel to the lead, but was reverted because "the fuller details are below". This is true, but it's equally true in regards to the presidential primaries and the presidential election. The primaries and election are qualified in the lead; they're given meaning with brief notes that he won the primaries because he defeated Clinton (as opposed to an anonymous opponent to be mentioned later in the article) and won the election because he defeated McCain. So why not note that he won the Nobel because he has promoted "worldwide diplomacy and cooperation" (as opposed to some mysterious reason to be saved for later)? But the fact that "the fuller details are below" is the reason why I made that particular addition in the first place. Later, it is stated that he was recognized "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples". I tried to summarize this in the lead by saying he was honoured "for his promotion of worldwide diplomacy and cooperation." Without this sort of summary, and without prior knowledge of why he won, I would feel left in suspense, and the lead isn't really supposed to have that effect. But I think that the few words I inserted add considerably to the lead, because they provide the first glimpse of Obama-as-president. Up to that sentence, the lead has been about Obama's life up to his inauguration, and it leaves us with some uncertainty about his nature as president. And I strongly disagree that the addition damages the brevity of a lead that is so succinct (relative to other four-paragraph leads) in the first place. What do others think? Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Pardon, but you provide a lot of words to justify your eight word addition. In summary, I disagree with your addition. Below is my attempt to respond point by point:

1. "... why not note that he won the Nobel because he has promoted "worldwide diplomacy and cooperation"? This is a type of a Wikipedia:Other stuff exists argument.
2. "...saying he was honoured "for his promotion of worldwide diplomacy and cooperation."" This is not what the citation states. Your version is WP:OR.
3. "... disagree that the addition damages the brevity of a lead that is so succinct (relative to other four-paragraph leads)". This is spot-on Wikipedia:Other stuff exists.

--4wajzkd02 (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the current Nobel Prize sentence, which also is the terminating sentence in the lede, is a little abrupt: "On October 9, 2009, Obama was awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize." I support adding "for his promotion of international diplomacy and cooperation". (The edit mentioned above had "worldwide" but the original source had "international".) It ends the lede better and matches stylistically with the rest of the lede, which has slightly more complex sentences than totally bare statements of fact. CouldOughta (talk) 03:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

"for his promotion of international diplomacy and cooperation". While I disagree (as I noted above) with the idea of adding to the lede, I must point out that your addition doesn't match the citation, either. It states "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples". But even that phrase doesn't do justice to the nuance of their entire statement - said detail is best provided later in the article. As for the abruptness of the ending of the sentence, suggest a rewrite that fits WP:Lede without WP:UNDUE or WP:SYNTHESIS. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 03:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, simply calling something an original synthesis or undue weight (Nobel Peace Prize = undue weight?!?) does not make it so. 4wajzkd02, would you please explain why you don't find my or CouldOughta's suggestions to be reasonable ways to paraphrase what the Nobel committee said? I didn't use the direct quotation, precisely because that probably would have been undue in the lead--whereas a succinct paraphrase would seem rather normal. On that note, pointing to the norm does not a case of WP:OSE make. OSE rebuttals work when a suggestion is both commonplace and bad, and while I would be curious to know your reasons (beyond a WP:VAGUEWAVE of WP:DUE, WP:SYN, and so on) why the norm is undesirable in this case, I already have set forth my argument (which you have not precisely challenged) that the change would benefit the lead by both removing suspense and adding an introduction to post-inaugural Obama. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Cosmic Latte, here's my response.

1. "simply calling something an original synthesis". I referred to your paraphrasing as synthesis. "promotion of worldwide diplomacy and cooperation." <> "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples". It is not just that "worldwide" is not the same as "international" (why substitute?). It is that "promotion" is not the same as "efforts to strengthen". Critically, the committee is noting that the President's award is not for an something achieved (e.g., "promotion of international diplomacy..."), but his "efforts" to achieve something (the strengthening of "international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples"). Why is this synthesis? I'll use an example from WP:Syn#Synthesis of published material that advances a position and substitute accordingly to, I hope, better illustrate my concern:

A simple example of original synthesis:

On October 9, 2009, Obama was awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for his promotion of worldwide diplomacy and cooperation.

Although no conclusion is drawn and both facts areone fact is true, the sentence implies that the Peace Prize was awarded for promoting of diplomacy and cooperation throughout the world, vice the effort to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. If no reliable source has combinedpublished the material in this way, it constitutes original research.

2. "or undue weight (Nobel Peace Prize = undue weight?!?)". Pardon if I was unclear. I did not state that mentioning the award of the Peace Prize in the lede was WP:UNDUE in any way, as I specifically took no issue with "On October 9, 2009, Obama was awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize." remaining in the lede. My suggestion, not to you, but to CouldOughta, was that "for the abruptness of the ending of the sentence, suggest a rewrite that fits WP:Lede without WP:UNDUE or WP:SYNTHESIS" [emphasis added].

3. "I didn't use the direct quotation, precisely because that probably would have been undue in the lead". I do not see how using the direct quote vice the (as I have described in my point 1., above, misleading) paraphrase is WP:Undue. I reiterate that I believe that using only the first sentence of the committee's statement "doesn't do justice to the nuance of their entire statement - said detail is best provided later in the article", as the addition of the detail here would overwhelm the lede.

4. Regarding WP:OSE and your argument for inclusion of your addition based on the inclusion of "won the primaries because he defeated Clinton" and "won the election because he defeated McCain.", I'll quote from that essay, with the substitution of one word, included, for the word kept, for clarity:

Comparisons can be highly subjective, and so it is better to look at the debates in question and see what policies were cited and make an argument based on how they apply to the current debate than just say "x was keptincluded so this should be too". [emphasis added]]

My point was (and remains) that including your suggested addition is not justifiable because of other additions alone. Rather, other considerations (which I have detailed) militate against its inclusion.

5. Regarding WP:OSE and your argument "... disagree that the addition damages the brevity of a lead that is so succinct (relative to other four-paragraph leads)", I stand by my prior comment. Here, you very specifically state that "other" articles have "four-paragraph leads [sic]", so "damages [to] the brevity of a lead [sic]" is a concern with which you "disagree". See the quotation, above. Just because other the lede of other articles are "four paragraphs" long does not, by itself, justify that the lede of this article should be longer than it is.

6. "you have not precisely challenged". In each case I have parsed your lengthy commentary and extracted your points to respond to each of them. My intention was to precisely respond (but not challenge - we're here to improve the encyclopedia, not debate or push a point of view, yes?) to each of them - quoting your statements to provide context and precision to my response. Pardon me if I have missed something. It is not my intent to be so wordy, but I have done so (and am doing so) to satisfy your concern.

7. "benefit the lead [sic] by both removing suspense". I have searched WP:Lede and cannot find the word "suspense". I respectfully state that it is unclear that "removing suspense" is an issue either discussed in that guideline or that has a common sense applicability in this case. The guideline does state:

The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.

which the lede, as is, does do, and

notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm : always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources.

As I noted in my point 3., directly quoting just the first sentence of the committee's citation leaves out important detail, while quoting the whole citation would "overwhelm".

8. "adding an introduction to post-inaugural Obama". See the quote in my point 7., above. The lede, as written, does "briefly summarize" the notable "post-inaugural Obama" award of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, more detail of which is available both later in this article and in its own article.

Regards, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

That's odd-- an IP account undid the following comment a short time after it was added. ???

I looked for guidance at the ledes for other high officials who received the prize. Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt also have short explanations of the reason for their prizes; Jimmy Carter, who received his award after his presidency, does not. Henry Kissinger and Mikhail Gorbachev do not, Martin Luther King Jr. does. Yasser Arafat, Yitzak Rabin and Shimon Perez received theirs together; Arafat and Perez have descriptions and Rabin does not. The descriptions tend to be half-sentences, often including the word "for".

These examples show there's no overall consensus that a description in the lede is WP:UNDUE, or that there's WP:SYNTHESIS in a short summary of the reason for a Nobel Peace Prize. (Side note: hey, Nobel Committee! Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, "for promotion of international understanding and universal knowledge.") CouldOughta (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to modify FAQ 2, African American in light of persistent misunderstanding of what the term includes and excludes

Clearly some editing this passage in the article have not and would not read the FAQ section, but for those who do I suggest pointing out that African American does not preclude having white parentage. African American is not wikilinked in either the question or the answer of that section. I propose Wikilinking African American there, and explicitly addressing the fact that, as the African American article notes, African American and biracial are not mutually exclusive terms. The lead of African American is: "African Americans (also referred to as Black Americans or Afro-Americans) are citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa."

FAQ 2 currently reads:

A2: Obama himself and the media identify him, the vast majority of the time, as African American or black. Thus we use this term in the introduction. Keep in mind, many individuals who identify as black have varieties of ancestors from many countries who may identify with other racial or ethnic groups. See our article on race for more information on this concept. We could call him the first "biracial" candidate or the first "half black half white" candidate or the first candidate with a parent born in Africa, but Wikipedia is a tertiary source which reports what other reliable sources say, and most of those other sources say "first African American." Readers will learn more detail about his ethnic background in the article body.

I propose a change to:

A2: Obama himself and the media identify him, the vast majority of the time, as African American or black. African American is primarily defined as "citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa," a statement that accurately describes Obama and does not preclude or negate origins in the white populations of America as well. Thus we use the term African American in the introduction, and address the specifics of his parentage in the first headed section of the article. Many individuals who identify as black have varieties of ancestors from many countries who may identify with other racial or ethnic groups. See our article on race for more information on this concept. We could call him the first "biracial" candidate or the first "half black half white" candidate or the first candidate with a parent born in Africa, but Wikipedia is a tertiary source which reports what other reliable sources say, and most of those other sources say "first African American." Readers will learn more detail about his ethnic background in the article body.

The new text is either highlighted in blue or boldfaced in black. The only text I've removed from the current version is set in red in the "currently reads" section. Abrazame (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the intent, but it was pointed out in an earlier discussion thread on this talk page that a lot of time and effort went into getting consensus for the FAQ as is. Thus, my concern is that a lot of effort would be expended in updating the FAQ that would be better spent on improving the article. Pointing new editors to the FAQ is not that time-consuming (and we always have {hat} and {hab}). I'd be OK with wikilinking African American (if we could get consensus) - but only once (twice is redundant). --4wajzkd02 (talk) 03:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I commented on his race earlier, before having read this section, but I have to say, Abrazame gets across exactly what I was trying to get across, but does so more eloquently and succinctly than I. I think that the suggested addition could be quite informative and useful, considering the widespread confusion of race, ethnicity, skin tone, etc. with one another. If there's a chance to make readers more intellectually comfortable with what they're reading, why not take it? I agree that constructive article work should take precedence over editorial drama, but I'd suggest that conceptually drawing readers to the article is one of the most important and constructive types of article work that can be done. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favor of the clarified wording for the FAQ. It adds a few words, but has a moderate chance of fending off some of the same repeated objections we see so often about "but he's white also". I think the change is consistent with the spirit of the existing entry, but uses a nice wording to make the point a little bit more strongly. LotLE×talk 06:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If consensus can be reached, I'm all for it. My only concern with his text, per se, is that African American is wikilinked twice. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Unlink the 2nd African-American, maybe link to an appropriate article in the "See our article on race..." if we are directing people somewhere for more information, and it looks ok. Tarc (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Closing thread per WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NPA
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Not sure why all my statements here were erased, and not just this whole section, since it was already was just an extension of my discussion. But, since this seems to be the now current one, I will post some later replies here. For all of the above reason? For all of the above reasons he is both african american, and biracial, and if ethnicity is not important then take it out of of the intro all together, and every other persons article. Why are you ignoring the previously used to justify this distinction African American article that backs up my point 100%. He is both, and if you are to mention one you are to mention both. Self identity is the key, because as you said he has no direct connection to african american history, only Kenyan and white american history. EIther way, you are obfuscating this for some reason I cannot understand and trying to stufle debate by saying what else needs to be said when you have ignored a myriad of valid points, and the very original argument that they are not mutually exclusive. Do you realize that you are denying an entire category people? Do you know how offensive that is Tarc? I guess I just don't understand why, if the cited article of African Americans is used to justify his african american identity, it is then ignored that it actually said they are not mutually exclusive, and that he is "obviously biracial". I don't understand why the concept of it not being mutually exclusive is used to be exclusive, and why the "obviousness" of his biracial background is not included. Please explain those two things to me, and why you are not relying on self identification and not pretending a whole group and segment of the USA does not exist through your logic. JohnHistory (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory Why not propose it for the article body, at the bottom of the "2008 presidential campaign" section? There would be much less of a weight concern there. I'd feel comfortable with the same (cited) addition there, although I expect others would differ. As far as I can tell, news articles refer to him as the "first black" about 50-100 times more as the "first biracial", so that's what people are paying most attention to. Here's an interesting program on that.[14] The fact is clearly noteworthy though, the question is whether it should be noted in this article or somewhere else instead... and if so, where? - Wikidemon (talk) 03:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Wikidemon, please see the discussion above as that is where it has been playing out. It is all explained there. The point is being "black" - African American and being Multiracial are not "mutually exclusive" as the wiki African American page makes clear, thus "weight of sources" is not relevant, and we are also getting into the subjective arena of self identification which cannot trump ethnic background. The fact is he is both black and multiracial, but please see the above One drop rule discussion I painstakingly have laid it out there. Thank you. JohnHistory (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory As i make clear in the earlier ongoing discussion, I'm not opposed to him being called "african american". The sources that call him, or describe him as of mixed race are not contending with the ones which describe him as black, they are augmenting them because the two terms are not mutually exclusive, they are not contending ethnicities, or else, by definition, Obama could not be african american. JohnHistory (talk) 03:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory either people somehow ignore, or don't get that the weight of sources is irrelevant because you can be both multiracial and african american. Again, there are plenty of sources to augment his being black with, many in this article alone. This article already says he is "multiracial", so it has already been included. Thus, it is just a question of if it is relevant, or important enough. Since he would be the first multiracial person to become president it has to be noteworthy, and because he has discussed it and written books about it is important to him. Here is the major thing the people against this are missing, Obama does not deny his multiracial background when self identifies as african american or black. He is not way denying he is multicultural he has said a 1000 times how diverse his family is, and he says it with pride when he describes the different colors and ethnicities of his family, thus we need to stop being so exclusive about this. Using inclusiveness to be exclusive is not logical. JohnHistory (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory Again, you seek to create a SOAPBOX and FORUM for your personal opinions on the nature of racial coverages on Wikipedia, in the form of a baiting series of writings which will provoke a BATTLEGROUND. Your ideas also contravene the basic form of scholarly writing required here. YOu have had all this explained to you, but dismiss everything as 'you're all wrong for not seeing that my personal feelings supersede good writing, good scholarship, respect for sources, or any other thing you all tell me is sensible, because dammit, I'm right.' It is time for you to stop it. Two further points. Please, write one long screed, instead of replying to yourself over and over and over, it gives me, at least, as sense that you really just like the look of your own words. Two, if you use '~~~~' you do not need to put your name after it, that looks like you want everyone to see that you're so great you need to sign twice. Both these discomfiting behaviors do not make your writing more enjoining to read. ThuranX (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC) Thuranx, you have completely failed to reason with anything I said. This seems like a personal vendetta. Isn't there a Halo or video game article that desperately needs your input right now? All you have done is avoid my valid points. Do you think being multiracial is not important, or noteworthy? It's already in the article, and major theme of both the campaign, media, and his own books. Unless you want to address these points head on, please refrain from false accusations against me. You have already been told by other editors that this is not a soapbox, yet you persist to essentially create your own soapbox. Please, if it is already in the article, down to the exact phrase "multiracial" then how is it just "my opinion"? Either contribute, or don't. RIght now your only point seems to be that despite it already being in the article, multiracial people are not important or relevant enough to note, especially in terms of one of them becoming the first president of such a background. IF you and Tarc want to push that line, which I cannot reason how it is not racist and bigoted towards and entire legally validated group of people, then that is reflective on you, not me. So, please explain why they are not important or relevant, as that is the discussion now. JohnHistory (talk) 07:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory Again, the terms, as per the African American article, are not mutually exclusive, and you have ignored this. Why do they not matter as a people? How is that not being racist? Where has Obama refuted that he is not the product of a multiracial background? The evidence for him embracing this are endless. So, why are you pushing it's exclusion from the intro (it's already in the body). The only reason can be that you consider such a legally recognized group as not important, or somehow have misunderstood that being multiracial and african american are in now way contradictory terms. JohnHistory (talk) 07:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

I have a question, why were my comments in this section deleted? Why would that be? Again, I will state that as per the African American article cited to say Obama can be included as an African American the argument presented is that the term african american is not mutually exclusive, so then why are we using it to exclude the obvious and directly stated in the article fact that he is also multiracial? That makes 0 sense, and it just amounts to denying the existence of a legally recognized group of people. Obama has bragged about how diverse his family is, his self identification as African American in no way is a denial of being multiracial, yet many here seem hell bent on denying this and using an inclusive term to be exclusive. JohnHistory (talk) 07:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

And, the second I posted this it became shut down like somebody has something that just shuts it down when I post. Literally, this page is being censored, and not only my posts deleted without explanation, but then anything I bring up in completely shut down. This is beyond strange. And, again, refute my points above or include it. Don't obfuscate or personally attack. JohnHistory (talk) 07:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Johnhistory

Even the explanation in the history for this discussion says "consistent misunderstanding of what the term (african american) includes and excludes." well it clearly includes "multiracial" yet you all have a clear strong desire to exclude it. JohnHistory (talk) 07:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Just to be clear, I was not signed in when I first posted above, when I went to sign it, the discussion had suddenly been closed, that's why the times are the same for my first and second posts. Check the page history. This is beyond the pale. JohnHistory (talk) 07:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Over the course of many paragraphs on this page, you made your points many times that we should add multiethnic or multiracial to the lead of this article (it is already included in the body of the article.) Many answers were given to you why this will not happen. I won't bother to repeat all of the responses here as you can read them for yourself, above.

Continuing to argue the point when consensus is against you on this subject is disruptive to a busy talkpage. None of your comments have been deleted, they have been condensed (along with the responses to your comments) inside of the hatnotes, above. Click show next to the condensed sections to open them up. We routinely close sections when they appear to be going nowhere or when they begin to violate talkpage guidelines. I don't think any of your comments have been removed, but the claims of censorship are silly when the page history records all. There is no "desire to exclude" anything, only a desire to follow our content policies. Anyway, you are free to seek dispute resolution, but please re-read all of the discussion we've had with you above and note that a large consensus is clearly against adding multiethnic to the lead -- it's already in the article body. --guyzero | talk 10:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Nationality

Closing this per FAQ Q5/A5 & WP:NOTAFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Should also include Kenyan as a former nationality in the infobox, as he was a dual-citizen up until his 23rd birthday. Just sayin'. --71.13.223.188 (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)the end Don't Forget British too.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Don't forget Wookie too! Grsz11 00:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure that we can find a reliable source for Wookie, but Rush Limbaugh may be able to.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC) He's only half Wookie. Anyone else want to crack some jokes before this thread gets archived? - Wikidemon (talk) 03:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC) No. He is not a Wookie at all. I think he shelved Star Wars. Dr.K. logos 03:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Change in the the lead, Nobel Peace Price Laureate is more notable than the senator time...?

Barack Hussein Obama II (/bəˈrɑːk huːˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/ ; born August 4, 1961) is the 44th and current president of the United States. He is the first African American to hold the office, as well as the first president born in Hawaii. Obama is the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize laureate. Obama previously served as the junior United States Senator from Illinois from January 2005 until he resigned after his election to the presidency in November 2008.

Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he was the president of the Harvard Law Review. He was a community organizer in Chicago before earning his law degree. He worked as a civil rights attorney in Chicago and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004.

Obama served three terms in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004. Following an unsuccessful bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000, Obama ran for United States Senate in 2004. His victory in the March 2004 Democratic primary election for the United States Senator from Illinois brought him to national attention. His prime-time televised keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004 made him a rising star nationally in the Democratic Party. He comfortably won election to the U.S. Senate in November 2004.

He began his run for the presidency in February 2007. After a close campaign in the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries against Hillary Clinton, he won his party's nomination. In the 2008 general election, he defeated Republican nominee John McCain and was inaugurated as president on January 20, 2009.

Is this change OK? I also think som information from the Presidency of Barack Obama should replace the third section and a short of the third section should be integrated into a shorter second section! Hogne (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, it depends on how much importance to give to the award. Is it as noteworthy as being the first African-American president, or his Senate career? Tarc (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If the Nobel had been given for his past achievements, it might well be more relevant. But since it was given for symbolic reasons and/or future hopes, I think the other things are more noteworthy. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Wasted Time R. The current version, with mention of the Prize as the last phrase of the lead, is better. Receiving the Prize isn't really as significant a part of his biography as his senate career, winning the presidency, etc. --guyzero | talk 15:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I tend to think the Peace Prize should come before Senator. There have been a couple of thousand Senators, and what, just over a hundred individuals who have won the Peace Prize?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The peace prize is the only thing in the lede that occurred after he actually became president. For that reason, it should come last, both to set it off somewhat, and to make the final three paragraphs flow generally in chronological order. So the current lede should remain, except that it should end with 'for promotion of international diplomacy and cooperation' to give the Prize some context. CouldOughta (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Re Wasted Time R, it's not up to us to judge how legit the Peace Prize was; a Peace Prize is a Peace Prize. However, I'd agree that it should not be mentionned right at the top; note that Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt list it (with context given) around the middle or towards the end of the intro, and Nelson Mandela lists it right at the end of the intro (as Obama's does presently). Note that none of these are FAs; if there is a Peace Prize-winning FA then we might be able to use that as a better precedent. -M.Nelson (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Prior cleanup of redundant categories

Discussion thread now in Talk:Barack_Obama#Obama_and_religion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Previously, there had been a discussion here regarding redundant categories in the article, and the problem it was causing. As a consequence, there was consensus to do some cleanup. For example, there was more than one category of Christian, redundant since the United Church of Christ category is included. Recently, an editor, User:Protostan (talk) (contribs), added the category Protestant with the edit summary "Article is better now". Per WP:BRD, I reverted, with an edit summary explaining that the category is redundant to that of UCC. His response was to insert the category again, with the edit summary "Thanks however [AP] wire story on Obama's resignation from Trinity United Church of Christ in the course of the Jeremiah Wright controversy stated that he had, in doing so, disaffiliated". The editor did not remove the UCC category, however. I've invited the editor to discuss his change, and gain consensus, here, before making the change again. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 09:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC) This same editor, User:Protostan (talk), has again restored his edit, without discussion. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC) See Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation/Requests for enforcement --4wajzkd02 (talk)\|}

total number of troops in iraq

Research question apparently unrelated to this article; no suggestion for edit to article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
does anyone know the number? maximum under bush ? maximum under obama? thanks. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC) hey! what is apparent to you is not to me. after i get a "research" answer, i will give a suggestion for inclusion. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Why not give us the suggestion now? If not, I'd go to the article for the Iraq War, and ask there. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 10:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC) well, it relates to his pre-election promises versus his presidential decisions. he was talking about pulling troops home, yet i've read somewhere there are more troops now than any time during bush. i just cannot find the specific article again, and was wandering if others read similar stuff. so it may not only be interesting for the iraq war article, but also for this article. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC) It wouldn't be a fit for here, no, perhaps Political positions of Barack Obama would be better. But if you're going to try to find one article about pre-campaign statements and another article about the current troop level in Iraq, and tie them together in a "he said this but did that" thing, that would run afoul of WP:SYNTHESIS. Tarc (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC) not me, the article i read made this comparison. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Would you care to, y'know, link to it? Or is this game going to stretch on for awhile more? Tarc (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC) would you care to read what i wrote? i read this somewhere, but i cannot frind the article. i don't bookmark everything i read. so my question here is if anyone else has come across similar information. i don't care if you see this as a game - it is your perception. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 13:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC) The perception is that it seems likely that your favorite blogger or worldnetdaily-style site wrote yet another scathing critique, or maybe a right-leaning UK tabloid like dailymail or the Guardian. Sounds like fringe criticism that would not be article-worthy. Tarc (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC) funny. you think i'm a right wing. on another page i was accused of being left wing. it's all about perception. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC) what is this silly censorship? i finally found the article. no 'blog' nor 'worldnetdaily' nor 'right leaning tabloid' but the Washington Post. [15] " The buildup has raised the number of U.S. troops deployed to the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan above the peak during the Iraq "surge" that President George W. Bush ordered, officials said " I think this could fit well into Iraq war section. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Your point being what? Obviously there are going to be more in Afghanistan, that has always been how it was going to be. There is no suggestion for the article here, and if there was, it's a small bit that can better fit in elsewhere. Grsz11 19:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC) ooo, i see. my bad. i thought he was talking during elections something about 'bringing troops home', but it was actually 'bringing troops to Afghanistan'. you are right. this is not worth inclusion. it is to be expected from politicians. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC) You obviously were not listening to what he said then. Grsz11 04:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

2004 East African newspaper article describes Obama as Kenyan-born

Birther silliness
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm So? --Jayron32 05:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC) I agree with Jayron. What's your point? He wasn't born there, so it doesn't matter what an "East African newspaper describes." This birther stuff has been discussed ad nauseum. UA 05:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Kenyan (former) under American

Closing, per WP:Consensus that this lacks WP:NOTE
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note that FAQ Q5 doesn't apply here - this concern is putting Kenyan as a former nationality in the infobox. While Obama was born in America (no doubt about that), he still held de jure Kenyan citizenship until his 20's through his father, which I think should be placed in the infobox. Reason being, we put many former things in infoboxes - such as George W. Bush's former Christian denomination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.219.20.148 (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC) I think it would be superfluous. But is it even true? Do you have a source? Did Kenya Colony even have independent citizenship or would that be some kind of British citizenship? And did birth to a Kenyan father automatically confer Kenyan (or British?) citizenship even in mixed marriages with the birth taking place abroad? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC) I agree. Did he ever identify as Kenyan, obtain a passport, in any way acknowledge its authority over him? As I understand it, his right to Kenyan citizenship expired at age 21 because he had done none of these things. I think it is more a question of right to citizenship than citizenship itself.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Unless or until someone produces a specific citation claiming this Kenyan citizenship--one that meets WP:RS, not some birther blog--this whole discussion is moot. Some anon making an WP:SYNTH claim about WP:OR interpreting 1960s British or Kenyan law is completely irrelevant for our purposes. Find the New York Times stating the alleged fact... then we have something worth discussing (which doesn't mean it's actually worth including, just that the question is serious). LotLE×talk 17:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC) See here--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Interesting - I had forgotten about that article. If I'm reading it correctly, he: Became a US Citizen by birth, by being "born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu" (jus soli) Obtained dual citizenship to the United Kingdom "by descent" (jus sanguinis) since "his father [was] a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth" Lost his UK (Dual) Citizenship "On Dec. 12, 1963" when "Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom" Obtained dual citizenship to Kenyan "on 12th December, 1963" (jus sanguinis), "having been born outside Kenya", due to his father becoming "a citizen of Kenya by virtue of " "having been born in Kenyan" Lost his Kenyan (Dual) Citizenship on "Aug. 4,1984", as "the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults", and he " neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya" Never lost his U.S. Citizenship All by doing nothing. I wonder how many other ex-British and ex-Kenyan citizens there are in the world? By the above rules, there are as many ex-British citizens as there are children born of a British father, regardless of where the children were born, and similarly as many ex-Kenyan citizens. --4wajzkd02 (talk) Yes indeed, and there are many UK citizens in the UK who would have lost UK citizenship had they stayed in their homeland, until they tightened things up, somewhat after Obama's birth. Those things you say are correct. So he is a former UK and former Kenyan citizen, but as he never did anything about them, it isn't very notable or worthy of inclusion.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Obama and religion

Closing - resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is a fact that Obama is no longer part of the UC of C and that the Church he usually attends these days is run by a Baptist. However Obama is not a formal member so it would be wrong to say he is a Baptist but not wrong to say he is a protestant. --Protostan (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC) As mentioned on your talk page, see WP:DUPCAT. By virtue of being (properly) in the UCC category, he is also automatically part of the Protestant category. There is no need to single-purposedly add the Protestant Category to this article. --4wajzkd02 (talk) I would agree with you but Obama is no longer a member of that Church. However I think he qualifies to retain that category since he was a member of that denomination for a long time. --Protostan (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Thank you for discussing your proposed change. "he qualifies to retain [the UCC] category". As noted by another editor on your talk page, in the User_talk:Protostan#Obama_and_UCC_and_Protestant_categories section, "categories reflect someone's membership in various organizations throughout their life. That's why Obama is still in categories for, for example, Illinois Senators and U-Chicago Law faculty". I understand this, as well. So there is consensus to keep the UCC category, it seems. "I would agree with you" - I'm hopeful that you mean you agree with me that "There is no need to need to ... add the Protestant Category". Is that the case? If so, we can close this discussion thread, and you are satisfied that, indeed, given the way categorization works, Obama is in the category of Protestants by virtue of being in the category of one time or current UCC members. It is like that bit of logic we learned in grammar school: "All poodles are dogs, but not all dogs are poodles". Similarly, "All members of the United Church of Christ category are members of the Protestant category, but not all Protestants are members of the United Church of Christ category". Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk)

Allegedly born in Hawaii.

Closing this per FAQ Q5/A5 & WP:NOTAFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I feel this article should reflect a broader opinion I think that he was born in the USA but there are alot of people who think he was born in Kenya sorry if I'm being a pain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.187.14 (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Please refer to question number 5 in the FAQ section at the top of this page. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Way too biased

Regardless of what the FAQ might claim, there is absolutely no way this article is without bias; any reasonable reader could come to such a conclusion. The entire article is peppered with partial language. "Rising star?" Really? We need to all stop being so defensive over this, regardless of where we fall politically, and strive to make it an article that really represents Wikipedia, not the selfish ambitions of certain members of Wikipedia. 67.60.50.5 (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Would you mind very much pointing out your specific concerns? I note your problems with "rising star", but if your concerns only surround issues addressed in the FAQ (Birther nonsense and that type thing) then there's nothing that can be done to help you here. UA 16:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, do you have actually suggestions on specific stuff or are you just here to make a statement on the article? Brothejr (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Indeed, that there may be one or two phrases that do not belong is one thing. If the words "rising star" bother you, then remove them. Per WP:PEACOCK, you probably have grounds to do so. However, I disagree that the entire article is itself non-neutral. --Jayron32 16:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to ask on the rising start words, what does the reference attached to the section/sentence say? If those words are not used in the ref, then we cannot use them. However, if the ref uses them then we should say it exactly as the ref says it. Brothejr (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, probably not. I can find a source which uses all SORTS of words to describe Obama. That doesn't mean that those words necessarily belong in an encyclopedia article. As an encyclopedia we should report, not provide commentary; and merely because another source makes the same commentary does not mean that such terms are instantly appropriate. --Jayron32 16:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

So in the end, what you are saying is that if you don't like the words then they are POV, Peacock and should be removed despite them being true, accurate, neutral, and backed up by sources? I've seen the use of the term rising star in various politician's articles here on both sides of the political spectrum with no issues with the use of that term. However, due to heated hyper-politics of today we cannot use that term on this page because one side or another does not like that. If that was the case, then a lot should be removed from this article because the POV warriors don't like them and in their place POV slanted words should be used. However because someone does not like the term, does not mean it is not neutral and cannot be used. (I.E. in the IP's opinion this article should be a lot less glowing and a lot more critical of the president especially from the right.)Brothejr (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you feel that "rising star" is peacock words, this I highly suggest you go through every article that uses that term and remove/replace them. Brothejr (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I reworded it. It now means the same basic thing, but the issue is addressed. If it's brought up as an issue at other pages, it can be addressed there. UA 17:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

My point is: how is it an issue just on this page and no other article? How is it ok to use the term: rising star, on other pages with no one complaining and yet, someone complains here because of bias problems, it's an issue here? So if I go to another article and say I have an issue with a term other editors will come in and bend over backwards accommodating me? Why does hyper-politicians have more weight on this page when others with hyper-politics are able to use the term with no issues? That is my issue. Brothejr (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If you don't like the use of the term "rising star" in another article, remove it from there. That some other random Wikipedia article is badly written does not excuse this one of its problems. --Jayron32 17:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I never said that I didn't like the term or the use of the term in other article. Nor do I agree that using the term in this article make it a badly written article either. My issue is this: this all boils down to POV bias. Those that don't like the man don't like the term. Those that either like the man or are neutral don't have a problem with the term due to the fact that it is rather descriptive and to the point. Notice how many words you had to add to replace that term and other terms that you considered peacock. Also, those who still don't like the man will still have problems with what you wrote? If they make that claim that the article is too biased towards praise and they point out the sections/lines you wrote as badly written/peacock will you go back and change it again towards what they want? Brothejr (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You sound too hard like you are trying to "win" as if "they" are somehow a competitor that must be "defeated." Look, if you read my response above, I vehemently disagreed that the article was too POV, which was the IP's original problem. But the use of informal English, for an FA-rated article, is inappropriate regardless of the political position of the person who notices it. The OP may or may not have a political agenda to push, but it doesn't make the term "rising star" appropriately formal language for an encyclopedia article. For the record, when I removed rising star from the lede, and reorganized the text, it resulted in a net decrease of 48 characters, so I didn't add any words. I made the article 48 characters shorter. Plus, don't tell me what I will or will not do in anything. You have no right sir, no right, to put words in my mouth or tell me what I will or will not do. The words were not properly formal English, and were, as such, rewritten to a more appropriate tone. If anyone else finds similar poor English, expected changed as well. --Jayron32 03:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• My first edit replaced 4 words with 6, my second simply removed 3 words. So actually, it was a net trim of verbiage, if looked at that way. UA 17:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a fair call, the article used the term "star" far too many times and it probably shouldn't be used at all. Though true in a sense, the word is too colorful and carries some vague connotations of adoration, celebrity, and approval that aren't really what we're trying to say. It's not exactly peacock, but when we use language that is too strong and informal we give the encyclopedia its own narrative voice, and that gets in the way of communicating with the reader. Journalists can do that because they are part of the story, they create their persona through their written or spoken voice and people identify with them. The encycloepdia is supposed to be completely neutral, though, no man behind the curtain here. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Either way I take issue that two editors are jumping through hoops to adjust the "peacock terms and bias" because one IP editor felt this article should: "strive to make it an article that really represents Wikipedia, not the selfish ambitions of certain members of Wikipedia." I also ask why now with this IP editor and not the countless other POV warriors who taken issue with various bits of this article are these two editors jumping through those hoops? Brothejr (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, even IP editors right twice a day, right? I don't think anyone is jumping through a hoop, I think the IP editor for his/her own reasons called our attention to the over-use of a less than perfect turn of words that some people have decided to improve. Why is "star" okay for those articles? Because they're not FA-class. Also, a person who is a featured performer, particularly in an acting or singing production, is a "star" in a literal sense so those uses are not metaphorical. The encyclopedia would probably be better if we replaced many less literal uses of "star" "up-and-coming", "young Turks", "whippersnapper", and "idol" but it's not exactly my first priority for the encyclopedia. I just discovered another bankrupt national chain of fitness centers that doesn't have its own article yet, so plenty of bigger holes to fill... - Wikidemon (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Restored longstanding sentence with historically accurate description from multiple cited authoritative contemporaneous WP:Reliable sources:

In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won an unexpected landslide victory with 53% of the vote in a seven-candidate field, 29% ahead of his nearest Democratic rival, which overnight made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party and started speculation about a presidential future.

Newross (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That another source uses informal English does not mean Wikipedia needs to repeat the use of informal English. There is nothing wrong with reporting the importance of the event but to use language of an appropriate mode and tone for an encyclopedia. The words "rising star" do not represent a level of formality and quality writing one would normally expect of a featured article. It has nothing to do with how truly awesome and cool and wonderful Obama is, it has to do with using words and phrases that are appropiate to the style of writing one expects out of the best of Wikipedia articles. --Jayron32 20:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sadly though this is not an issue about formal or informal English as much as one's take on the words: Rising Star. Brothejr (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's possible to express the concept of "rising star" without using the words "rising star". It's just not the proper tone. We could call him a "cool dude" or "the bitchinest cat on the block" or something like that, it still wouldn't be of a tone that is appropriate for an encylopedia. The issue is using the right words to fully capture the concept of "becomeing more and more important as a figure" without resorting to colloquialisms or slang. Slang just isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Look, the idea that winning the Illinois Senate primary brought about a rapid rise in importance in his position in the Democratic Party, and indeed, in Politics in the U.S., is not what is being debated here. I am certainly not arguing that we don't report that fact. What is being argued here is the improper use of slang to describe the event. We can describe the event without using slang terms. --Jayron32 20:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

New source?

[16] What do you guys think? I think it may provide what some of the critics of this article would call "balance" to the article. UA 17:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I would first consider adding it to the presidency article way before I would think of adding it to this article. However, I would also wait for a short bit to see how it pans out. If it does pan out to be something, then by all means add it to the appropriate section/article Heck, thinking about it. If it truly pans out I wonder if it might merit it's own article to cover the over all picture beyond just Obama and what he may be doing? (I.E. the hyper politics of today?) Brothejr (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Meh. Once you parse out the source article it says "The Obama administration disagrees with its opponents." No shit. Don't see why anything in there is worth reporting, because there's no "there there". There's no meat that says anything about anything at all. --Jayron32 17:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No, actually, it says that they're actively engaging in an attempt to marginalize their most powerful conservative critics. This is noteworthy, and reported on in an unbiased, reliable way. I'm actually thinking of placing a couple of sentences regarding it in the section on his "cultural and political image", which I don't think would be inappropriate. UA 17:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What does it mean to be "actively engaging in an attempt to marginalize their critics?" It means that the Obama administration doesn't agree with their critics (who does) and seeks to make sure their own message, which they believe in (again, who doesn't believe in their own message) is given more prominence in the public sphere than the message of their opponents. There is nothing all that unsual about that, its just the language of the article. One could easily say that the authors of the article seeks to marginalize the Obama administration's disagreements with its critics, and so is using the charactizations it does to do that. Its all a big game, with each side trying to make sure the other side's message is diminished while its own message is accentuated. The source article you cite is not a dispassionate observer of that process, its part of that process, and what Wikipedia should be doing is to avoid itself becoming part of that process, on either side. --Jayron32 03:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean that. I can disagree with my critics. I can engage with my critics in debate. I can even attempt to persuade people that I'm right and my critics are wrong. That is all very different than if I attempt to "marginalize" them. That is an active attempt to make my critics seem stupid, extreme, or whatever -- almost more of an ad hominem than anything else. No, that's very different than just disagreeing with them. UA 11:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Good lord! A politician is attacking his critics? Stop the presses! --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing as much as this is a little to new to be included just yet. Plus this article is written in summary style so it would first need to be included in the daughter article way before it got included in this article. Brothejr (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing any policy that requires a certain time frame for information to be included. I also don't fully understand why you feel it needs to be included in the daughter article before it goes to the main article. That seems a bit like we're treating this article like the major leagues, and the daughter articles like the minors. I don't think that's how "summary style" is intended to work, but I could be wrong. UA 18:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Basically what summary style is that this article encapsulates what the daughter articles say at length. (I.E. this article should not include something new that the daughter article does not go into at length.) That is why things are first added to the daughter article, then it could be added to the main article per WP:Summary, specifically: this section. Brothejr (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would that information be in this article, vs. Presidency of Barack Obama? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Because it deals with his "political image", which is the section I'm considering adding it to before long. @Brothejr - WP:Summary doesn't preclude including information in the main article before you include it in the daughter article. At least that's not the way I read it. UA 19:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That's how I read it, also does this have sufficient weight to be included in the main article? While it may seem big now, will it be big tomorrow or a month from now? I don't like to jump and add things unless a wide spectrum of news outlets have covered it or it has been given enough time to be shown to be huge. If either happens, then hell yea add it to the article. However, I'm not seeing that yet. I wouldn't preclude it being added to a daughter article, but not this article, at least not yet. Brothejr (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• <sigh> I'm beginning to understand why some on the right are frustrated with the process of editing this and related articles. This isn't controversial, the article is in a reliable source, and it's an issue of true substance, unlike the Birther nonsense. I'll either write something up, and insert it in the next few days, or I'll just let it go and not be represented at all. I'm really rather surprised that this insertion is an issue at all. Is anything that reflects as a net negative (no matter how light of a net negative, as this is) going to be subjected to this type of scrutiny? UA 03:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, and positive things too. Brothejr (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Not true. UA 11:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

More sources

I could list each individually, but just browse the links in the top two positions here for more sources. There's absolutely no reason not to have a brief mention of this at both this, the main article, as well as the presidency daughter article. When I add it, I'll add it simultaneously to both, to alleviate any concerns with WP:Summary. UA 11:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You act like this is something new and revelatory in American politics. Didn't we just go through 8 years of an administration attempting to marginalize its critics by claiming they were terrorist-lovers or that another 9/11 would happen if they were in charge? The last 20-30 years of liberals marginalizing conservatives as gun-toting wingnuts in flyover country? How about the last 60+ years of equating anti-war folk with Communism? Marginalizing one's opponent is a part of the game, there's nothing especially new about this president doing it. Tarc (talk) 12:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Not to this level. Not this overtly. If it is such a common practice, why is there such a focus on it now, when there wasn't in the past? I've never seen an administration take such an aggressive approach with one news organization. Never. UA 12:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You might want to read Alien and Sedition Acts for some historical perspective. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

So, instead of being "never", you're saying I should have written, "not since 1798"? UA 13:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If this is just drama over the battle with Fox News, and not with "Obama marginalizes opponents" in general, then we already have a section of the presidency article about that, along with a separate article (though currently in AfD). Isn't your addition over there a little redundant? Tarc (talk) 13:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the articles I'm referring to talk about Fox, but they also reference how the administration is trying to marginalize the Chamber, the insurance industry, Rush Limbaugh, and others. This is not some FRINGE-y thing like the Birther nonsense. I'm an Obama voter, for pete's sake! I've helped keep the fringe crap off this article. This is not that. UA 13:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I know it isn't that, and I don't even see it as a negative; it just does not seem to be terribly important, at least not enough for this article. Besides, this isn't a personal beef between Obama the man and conservative critics; this is on an administrative, White House level. Tarc (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You can't separate his "political image" (which is where I'm considering placing it) from his administration. They are part and parcel. UA 14:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering the other presidents have done the same or something similar, how does this rise to the level of something major in Obama's career/life? Why does this merit to be included in the main article? Outside the conservative circles/hyper-politics, how is this a major problem/criticism/controversy? Brothejr (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Point out news articles (nothing I posted was from "conservative circles") showing where the administrations of Bush43, Clinton, Bush41, Reagan, Carter, et al engaged in this type of public attempts at marginalizing their highest-profile opponents, and then we can talk. There's a vast difference between engaging in public debate, and simply saying of your opponents, "They're bad", which is what is currently happening around the CofC discussion, the insurance thing, as well as the Limbaugh and Fox News battles. This viewpoint isn't confined to "conservative circles" in any way. UA 15:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

So your argument is that because it is currently in the news and thus is something big? As far as past presidents: Here are some on bush: [17], [18], [19] and then as far as Nixon there was this. (Also, note that at the time Bush 43 was in office, FNC was cheering his attacks on NBC, MSNBC, New York Times, etc.) Again, discounting current hyper-politics and conservative scorn, how does this merit as something big in Obama's life/presidency? Brothejr (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

None of your three diffs shows anything even remotely similar to this situation. One is a recent story from the Huffington Post blog. One is regarding a feud between Steve Doocy and Keith Olbermann, and the last is simply the Bush administration taking umbrage at ONE INCIDENT where they felt they were unfairly edited in an interview. That you compare these three things to the current situation seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what is going on here. The administration is intentionally targeting their opponents, not for a single instance (like your last diff showed with the Bush administration), but AS ORGANIZATIONS. They're attacking the CofC, Fox News, et al, with a general campaign against them. That is what is unprecedented, and that is why it's gaining such widespread coverage. It's also why I consider it extremely foolhardy, as I personally would like to see him reelected in 2012, and this isn't going to help him at all. Ah, the irony... UA 22:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) The only difference between those links and now is the hyper-politics. Remove that and it looks the same or very very similar. Either way this story is not as big as you are making it out to be and not worth inclusion in his main biography. It's pretty standard politics. The only difference is that FNC is crying up a storm trying to get as many people to pay attention. (The weird thing is only a year ago they were cheering on the Bush administration's comments/attacks on other media companies.) Brothejr (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

RFC: The Use of slang or informal language in a featured article.

I have started this RFC to avoid the back and forth editing over the use of the phrase "Rising star" in the article. The issue, as I see it, depends on two conflicting ideas, and I am not sure what the appropriate way to handle this is. Here, from my take, are the two ideas that are the source of the conflict:

• Wikipedia:Featured article criteria mandates that a featured article is "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard."
• It is also important that Wikipedia article faithfully represent the information in the source material they cite.

So here is the crux of the problem. The source article, which is from a reliable source, uses the phrase "rising star". The idea that is trying to be expressed here is not under dispute. He was clearly a "rising star" in the sense of having a meteoric rise in popularity and importance due to his democratic senate primary win in 2004. The fact that such a rise in popularity and importance occured is not under dispute at all. Such an occurance is well documented in reliable source, and as such, it should most certainly have a prominent place in the article. The fact is a very important one, and should not be minimized or marginalized in any way. The problem is that the term "rising star" is slang, it does not represent writing which is "brilliant, and of a professional standard" as should be expected of an encylopedia article. The source material uses the phrase, but there must be some way that we can capture the concept while using language which is appropriate to the encyclopedic nature of this article. This RFC is intentionally being narrowly defined as how to deal with the phrase "rising star" from linguistic point of view. This is not an open debate over Obama's politics or importance or anything else. I just want to know how should we faithfully represent the source material without resorting to using the same slang that the source material uses. --Jayron32 20:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Put it in quotes "rising star" to indicate it is the wording of the source, and not a product of the article prose/style? Tarc (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a novel idea, but rather self-evident once you put it like that. What about taking it a step further. Why not do something like this:

"His landslide win in the Democratic Party primary during the 2004 Illinois Senate race, caused USA Today to call him a "rising star" in the Democratic Party."[20]

Such phrasing would maintain the integrity of the source material, but also make it clear that Wikipedia is repeating the use of slang in another source; such direct quoting would seem to be a reasonable solution to the problem, since it attributes the informal tone to the source material, rather than leaving it as part of the article. That seems a very reasonable solution. I think as long as we both directly quote the phrase, and directly name the source in the article, it solves the problem. What does anyone else think? --Jayron32 21:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That makes to much sense and would end this matter. Where is the drama in that :) j/k. Nice logical suggestion :) --Tom (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion. QueenofBattle (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. Well done. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, sounds good. Grsz¹¹ 21:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, looks good and keeps to the source. Brothejr (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If the informal phrase "rising star" is used, it should be used as a direct quote to a source. However, I would prefer to avoid the informality of that term altogether, and provide a more encyclopedic wording of the same concept. There are occasionally catch phrases that become closely identified with a biographical subject, and are used by many sources. For example, Reagan as "the Teflon president" might ascend to this, or "Friend of Bill [Clinton]" might. Both of those are informal, but have become almost tropes, and might be mentioned as such. The term "rising star" is used much more generically, with little specific affinity to Obama; he has been described that way in many sources, but many other politicians have also been so described. Hence there is no special reason to insist on the informality for this article. LotLE×talk 22:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Obama declares H1N1 emergency

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/10/24/h1n1.obama/index.html